Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-95
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-95

Submitted as: model evaluation paper 20 Apr 2021

Submitted as: model evaluation paper | 20 Apr 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

Comparison of ocean heat content from two eddy-resolving hindcast simulations with OFES1 and OFES2

Fanglou Liao1,2, Xiao Hua Wang2,3, and Zhiqiang Liu1,4 Fanglou Liao et al.
  • 1Department of Ocean Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China
  • 2The Sino-Australian Research Consortium for Coastal Management, School of Science, The University of New South Wales, Canberra, 2610, Australia
  • 3College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, China
  • 4Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, 511458, China

Abstract. The ocean heat content (OHC) estimates from high-resolution hindcast simulations from the Ocean General Circulation Model for the Earth Simulator Version 1 (OFES1) and Version 2 (OFES2), and a global objective analysis of subsurface temperature observations (EN4.2.1) were compared. There was an OHC increase in most of the global ocean over a 57-year period, mainly a result of vertical displacements of neutral density surfaces. However, we found substantial differences in the temporal and meridional distributions of the OHC between the two OFES hindcasts. The spatial distributions of potential-temperature change also differed significantly, especially in the Atlantic Ocean. The spatial distributions of the time-averaged surface heat flux and heat transport from the OFES1 and OFES2 were highly correlated, but differences could be seen. However, these differences, more specifically in the heat transport, were only partially responsible for the OHC differences. The marked OHC differences may arise from the different vertical mixing schemes and may impact the large-scale pressure field, and thus the geostrophic current. The work here should be a useful reference for future OFES users.

Fanglou Liao et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-95', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2021
  • CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2021-95', Juan Antonio Añel, 17 May 2021
    • EC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Qiang Wang, 17 May 2021
      • CEC2: 'Reply on EC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 17 May 2021
        • AC1: 'Reply on CEC2', Zhiqiang Liu, 17 May 2021
      • AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Zhiqiang Liu, 02 Jul 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2021-95', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Jul 2021

Fanglou Liao et al.

Fanglou Liao et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 385 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
280 88 17 385 1 1
  • HTML: 280
  • PDF: 88
  • XML: 17
  • Total: 385
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Apr 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Apr 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 360 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 360 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 31 Jul 2021
Download
Short summary
The ocean heat content (OHC) based on OFES1 and OFES2 were examined from 1960 through 2016, with marked differences founded, especially in the Atlantic Ocean. The OFES1 generally better agrees with observation-based results. Heat transports could only partially account for the differences, which leads us to infer that the different vertical mixing are the potential causes. This study advances the understanding of OFES data and is expected to be an important reference for the OFES users.