A Moist Quasi-Geostrophic Coupled Model: MQ-GCM2.0
- 1Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P. O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
- 2Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117218, Russia
- 3Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhniy Novgorod, 603155, Russia
- 4Research School of Earth Sciences, and ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate Extremes, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- 5Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA
- 6Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l'Environnement, CNRS, Grenoble, France
- 7Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom
- 1Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P. O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
- 2Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117218, Russia
- 3Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhniy Novgorod, 603155, Russia
- 4Research School of Earth Sciences, and ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate Extremes, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
- 5Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA
- 6Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l'Environnement, CNRS, Grenoble, France
- 7Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom
Abstract. This paper contains a description of recent changes to the formulation and numerical implementation of the Quasi-Geostrophic Coupled Model (Q-GCM), which constitute a major update of the previous version of the model (Hogg et al., 2014). The Q-GCM model has been designed to provide an efficient numerical tool to study the dynamics of multi-scale mid-latitude air–sea interactions and their climatic impacts. The present additions/alterations were motivated by an inquiry into the dynamics of mesoscale ocean–atmosphere coupling and, in particular, by an apparent lack of Q-GCM atmosphere’s sensitivity to mesoscale sea-surface temperature (SST) anomalies, even at high (mesoscale) atmospheric resolutions, contrary to ample theoretical and observational evidence otherwise. Major modifications aimed at alleviating this problem include an improved radiative-convective scheme resulting in a more realistic model mean state and associated model parameters, a new formulation of entrainment in the atmosphere, which prompts more efficient communication between the atmospheric mixed layer and free troposphere, as well as an addition of temperature-dependent wind component in the atmospheric mixed layer and the resulting mesoscale feedbacks. The most drastic change is, however, the inclusion of moist dynamics in the model, which may be key to midlatitude ocean–atmosphere coupling. Accordingly, this version of the model is to be referred to as the MQ-GCM model. Overall, the MQ-GCM model is shown to exhibit a rich spectrum of behaviours reminiscent of many of the observed properties of the Earth’s climate system. It remains to be seen whether the added processes are able to affect in fundamental ways the simulated dynamics of the mid-latitude ocean–atmosphere system’s coupled decadal variability.
Sergey Kravtsov et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-160', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Jul 2021
This manuscript describes very significant upgrade of the Q-GCM model, which is unique and powerful modelling tool for various process studies in the midlatitude coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics. The main new development is inclusion of moist dynamics, but there is a good list of other modifications. The paper is immaculately organized and written, and some interesting model simulations are included. The journal choice is also perfect. This is rare case, when I suggest to accept this manuscript as it is. Being familiar with the previous model version and with many results obtained from its solutions, I am confident that the submitted work is of high quality and scientifically significant. I am looking forward to become one of the users of the new code (named MQ-GCM2) and to read future papers exploring
various coupled flow regimes, as well as parameter and resolution dependencies.- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sergey Kravtsov, 12 Jun 2022
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-160', Juan Antonio Añel, 14 Aug 2021
Dear authors,
After checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and include the relevant primary input/output data. In this way, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, the DOI of the code (and another DOI for the dataset if necessary).Also, in the GitHub repository there is no license listed. If you do not include a license with your model, the code continues to be your property and nobody can use it. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
In the meantime, please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link to the repository for the code, so that it is available for the peer-review process, as it should be.
Juan A. Añel
Geosc. Mod. Dev. Exec. Editor-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ilijana Mastilovic, 26 Aug 2021
Thank you for your comment and apologies for the delayed response!
MQ-GCM model is uploaded to Zenodo and DOI is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5250828Also, the model’s code is now under GNU General Public License v3.0 or later.
Thanks,
Ilijana Mastilovic
-
CC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ilijana Mastilovic, 26 Aug 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2021-160', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2022
I agree with the review comments from the first reviewer. As the first reviewer said, this paper is very well written and should be published in Geoscienfic Model Development. This paper also shows significant improvement over the first version of Q-GCM model. Although I did not check the equations carefully, the authors included the moisture dynamics in this new version and made it a promising tool for studying air–sea interactions. The authors also gave a summary of the differences between the old and new version at the end of this paper. I would thank the authors for contributing this great work to the community. In my opinion, there are a few very minor concerns before publishing this manuscript:
1. In Line 125, the authors said this model has n=3 layers in oceanic and atmospheric modules, but it looks to me that the atmospheric model does not only have 3 layers. Why do equations 1 and 2 only apply to the 1st and 3rd layer in the ocean model?
2. In equations 18 and 31, the authors should explain the biharmonic term (Nabla^4). Is this term added to ensure the numerical stability or to resolve the physics?
3. Line 440 is confusing to me. It seems that the authors run “control”, “partially coupled” and “fully coupled” for both dry and moist models. But this paragraph is very confusing while I was reading. Why are you running three simulations for both dry and moist models? It also seems to me that the control run does not go for 130 years (as mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph).
4. I would recommend the authors adding a few sentences introducing the validation/verification test in Section 5. Is it an idealized regional model or a realistic model? How is the boundary condition? How can this model validate the implementations in the model?
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sergey Kravtsov, 12 Jun 2022
We greatly appreciate the positive comments of the reviewer and hope ourselves that this model will be useful. Brief replies to detailed comments are included below. We will also rectify these points in the revised version of the paper to be submitted shortly.
1. We’ll change the notation to k=1,2,3 or place a bar on top of the righthand side of k=1,3 to indicate that the equations apply for each value of k, from 1 to 3.
2. The term is mainly included for numerical stability.
3. We will rephrase this paragraph in the revised version of the paper to clarify. We run 6 simulations, each 130-yr long, and analyze the final 100-yr time series of each. 3 of these simulations use the new version of the dry model, and the other 3 - the model with moist dynamics included. We run the simulations for each model to provide a preliminary assessment of the differences between the different versions of the model. Within the three simulations for either dry or moist version of the model, the first one - that we call “control” - is without SST feedback on AMBL wind speed; this is how the previous version of QGCM has been set up. The other two simulations include this feedback: “fully coupled” version includes full two-way feedback between the ocean and atmosphere, whereas in the “partially coupled” version the ocean only “sees” the Ekman pumping rates it would experience in the absence of the SST-dependent wind stress (but the APBL responds in the same way as in the fully coupled run) - please see eq. (26) and the associated discussion.
4. Section 5 documents key characteristics of the new model versions described in sections 1-4. Section 6 provides and outlook. In the upcoming revised version, we plan to introduce a few introductory sentences to each section to avoid confusion.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sergey Kravtsov, 12 Jun 2022
Sergey Kravtsov et al.
Sergey Kravtsov et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
775 | 171 | 27 | 973 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 775
- PDF: 171
- XML: 27
- Total: 973
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1