The bulk parameterizations of turbulent air-sea fluxes in NEMO4: the origin of Sea Surface Temperature differences in a global model study
- 1Ocean Modeling and Data Assimilation Division, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy
- 2Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, IGE/MEOM, Grenoble, France
- 1Ocean Modeling and Data Assimilation Division, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy
- 2Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, IGE/MEOM, Grenoble, France
Abstract. Wind stress and turbulent heat fluxes are the major driving forces which modify the ocean dynamics and thermodynamics. In the NEMO ocean general circulation model, these turbulent air-sea fluxes (TASFs), which are components of the ocean model boundary conditions, can critically impact the simulated ocean characteristics. This paper investigates how the different bulk parametrizations to calculated turbulent air-sea fluxes in the NEMO4 (revision 12957) drives substantial differences in sea surface temperature (SST). Specifically, we study the contribution of different aspects and assumptions of the bulk parametrizations in driving the SST differences in NEMO global model configuration at ¼ degree of horizontal resolution. These include the use of the skin temperature instead of the bulk SST in the computation of turbulent heat flux components, the estimation of wind stress and the estimation of turbulent heat flux components which vary in each parametrization due to the different computation of the bulk transfer coefficients. The analysis of a set of short-term sensitivity experiments, where the only experimental change is related to one of the aspects of the bulk parametrizations, shows that parametrization-related SST differences are primarily sensitive to the wind stress differences across parametrizations and to the implementation of skin temperature in the computation of turbulent heat flux components. Moreover, in order to highlight the role of SST-turbulent heat flux negative feedback at play in ocean simulations, we compare the TASFs differences obtained using NEMO ocean model with the estimations from Brodeau et al. (2017), who compared the different bulk parametrizations using prescribed SST. Our estimations of turbulent heat flux differences between bulk parametrizations is weaker with respect to Brodeau et al. (2017) differences estimations.
Giulia Bonino et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Justin Small, 09 Feb 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2021-436/gmd-2021-436-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Feb 2022
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Feb 2022
Dear authors,
A couple of issues have come to our attention regarding your manuscript. First, after checking your work, another executive editor and myself believe that your manuscript fits better as a "model evaluation paper" instead of a "model experiment description paper", as it is in the system at the moment. The topical editor should be able of changing this for you.
Secondly, fter 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.htmlYou have archived your code in a web that does not comply with our trustable permanent archival policy. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy. Many versions of NEMO are already stored in ZENODO.org. You could want to use it for your work.
The same applies to the data used in your work: We can not accept embargoes such as registration or previous contact with the authors. We understand that some files used in your study can be large (e.g. full output from models). In such cases, instead of storing the complete files, you should at least keep the variables or final fields computed and used.Â
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the new repository, including its DOI. Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, including the DOI.
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it so that the information is available for the peer-review process, as it should be.
Many thanks,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Giulia Bonino, 23 Feb 2022
Dear  Juan Antonio Añel,
we thank you for arising this point on code and data sharing. We do apologize that the solution we proposed in the submitted paper does not respond properly to the journal requirements. We are evaluating two possible approaches, first is zenodo as you suggested, second is a Data Delivery System developed and maintained by CMCC. We will adopt the faster (in the time needed) and more appropriate solution that will be promptly communicated to you.
Best regards
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Feb 2022
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your quick reply. Please, be aware that we can only accept suitable repositories listed in our policy. We can not accept the CMCC DDS as a suitable repository for publication. It does not comply with the minimum requirements that assure long-term archival such as secured funding and commitment for archival for several decades and pledge not to remove the data, etc.
The webpage of the CMCC in its "Terms and Conditions" clearly states that "CMCC reserves the right to freely and without notice modify, suspend, or cancel the terms, conditions, or content of this website." and includes vague statements about commitment for long-term archival: "this website has been designed and will be maintained as much as possible".
Also, the CMCC DDS webpage does not provide any information regarding the possibility of removal of data by their authors or long-term funding.Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Feb 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Giulia Bonino, 24 Feb 2022
Dear Juan Antonio Añel,
Thank you again for arising this point on code and data sharing. We archived the code and the model outputs used in the manuscript in a Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6258085, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6258085). Â
Here the statement for the "Code and Data availability" section:
This version of the NEMO code is based on code release 4.0, revision number 12957 (https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/NEMO/trunk?rev=12957, last access: 24 February 2022). The original code was modified in the computations of the bulk transfer coefficients applied to perform the experiments. The code and the namelists to run each experiment are available in the Zenodo archive (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6258085, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6258085). The model outputs used to produce the figures are also available in the Zenodo archive.
Best regards
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Giulia Bonino, 23 Feb 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on gmd-2021-436', Anonymous Referee #3, 07 Mar 2022
- AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Giulia Bonino, 15 Jun 2022
Giulia Bonino et al.
Giulia Bonino et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
443 | 255 | 28 | 726 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 443
- PDF: 255
- XML: 28
- Total: 726
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1