Barotropic Tides in MPAS-Ocean: Impact of Ice Shelf Cavities

Pal, Nairita; Barton, Kristin Nicole; Petersen, Mark Roger; Brus, Steven Richard; Engwirda, Darren; Arbic, Brian K.; Roberts, Andrew Frank; Westerink, Joannes J.; Wiraset, Damrongsak

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188

Preprints

Submitted as: development and technical paper

01 Aug 2022

Submitted as: development and technical paper | 01 Aug 2022

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal GMD and is expected to appear here in due course.

Barotropic Tides in MPAS-Ocean: Impact of Ice Shelf Cavities

Nairita Pal¹, Kristin Nicole Barton², Mark Roger Petersen¹, Steven Richard Brus³, Darren Engwirda¹, Brian K. Arbic², Andrew Frank Roberts¹, Joannes J. Westerink⁴, and Damrongsak Wiraset⁴ Nairita Pal et al.

Show author details

¹Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
²University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
³Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont IL 60439, USA
⁴University of Notre Dame, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, Notre Dame, IN, USA

Received: 19 Jul 2022 – Discussion started: 01 Aug 2022

Abstract. Oceanic tides are seldom represented in Earth System Models (ESMs) owing to the need for high horizontal resolution to accurately represent the associated barotropic waves close to coasts. This paper presents results of tides implemented in the Model for Prediction Across Scales–Ocean or MPAS-Ocean, which is the ocean component within the US Department of Energy developed Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM). MPAS-Ocean circumvents the limitation of low resolution using unstructured global meshing. We are at this stage simulating the largest semidiurnal (M2, S2, N2) and diurnal (K1, O1) tidal constituents in a single layer version of MPAS-O. First, we show that the tidal constituents calculated using MPAS-Ocean closely agree with TPXO8 results when suitably tuned topographic wave drag and bottom drag coefficients are employed. Thereafter, we present the sensitivity of global tidal evolution due to the presence of Antarctic ice shelf cavities. The effect of ice shelves on the amplitude and phase of tidal constituents are presented. Lower values of complex errors (with respect to TPX08 results) for the M2 tidal constituents are observed when ice shelf is added in the simulations, with particularly strong improvement in the Southern Ocean. Our work points towards future research with varying Antarctic ice shelf geometries and sea ice coupling that might lead to better comparison and prediction of tides, and thus better prediction of sea-level rise and also the future climate variability.

Nairita Pal et al.

Status: closed

CEC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Aug 2022

Dear authors,

Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our policies to submit manuscripts at many levels. For example, check our "Code and Data Policy".

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
First, you only provide information in the Code Availability Section to access the E3SM model, but you have not published your new developments; that is exactly the part that must be assessed here. According to our policy, you must publish your new developed code in one of the suitable repositories. Otherwise, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication.
Also, you have linked to GitHub to access the E3SM code. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Moreover, there is a dedicated Zenodo page for the E3SM project (https://zenodo.org/communities/e3sm?page=1&size=20) and another one for E3SM v2.0 (https://zenodo.org/record/5563151). Therefore, please, look for the Zenodo repository for the version of E3SM that you have used here, and cite it in the Code Availability Section. I note that you do not indicate the version used for the manuscript of your development or E3SM, which is mandatory information that must appear in the main body of the text, the Title of your manuscript and the Code and Data Availability Section.
Therefore, please, publish your code in the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, 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).
Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request will result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel

Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CEC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Nairita Pal, 25 Aug 2022
  
  Dear Dr. Anel,
  
  Thank you for your comments.
  
  We apologize for the delay in uploading the code. We will upload our code to the Zenodo archive shortly. Initially, we had intended to upload the code when the reviews were in, so that any reviewer updates or changes could be incorporated. However, we will be happy to upload our code within the next few days, and make it available to the reviewers.
  
  We thank you for giving us this opportunity to upload our code.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Nairita Pal
  (on behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Aug 2022
    
    Dear authors,
    Many thanks for the reply. We hope to see the information on the new repository soon.
    Please, note that in a public Discussions stage like the one in our journal, a reviewer can be anyone, so it does not make sense to wait for reviewers invited by editors to publish. Anyone that wants should be able to access the material necessary to reproduce the manuscript.
    Best regards,
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CEC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Nairita Pal, 19 Sep 2022
    
    Dear Dr. Anel,
    We have uploaded our code to zenodo, and have made it publicly available here 10.5281/zenodo.7084857
    We are using E3SM V2. We will add the version in the title of our revised manuscript to be submitted shortly.
    
    Please let us know if any further information is required from our side.
    
    Thanks and regards,
    Nairita Pal (on behalf of all coauthors)
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC2
RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2022

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your contribution and the work that you have presented in this manuscript. I have read your paper with great interest. The work presented here falls within the scope of the journal, and the work has been carried out using sound scientific knowledge and principles. Enclosed here are some minor comments

L-16 Precise amplitude and frequency? Needs further explanation

Fig 2- can the resolution of this figure be improved?

All the equations presented should be centered. Refer to journal guideline

L-69-70 Can be rewritten as it may create confusion for the readers

Fig A1- Is it possible to remove the dark background in this figure

The inclusion of ice self-cavities significantly improves the overall tidal prediction; however, how do the effect of altering geometry near the ground line and grounding zone impact the prediction accuracy?

Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Nairita Pal, 11 Oct 2022
  
  Thank you very much for sending us the report and for giving us the chance to address the concerns. We thank you
  
  for taking the time to prepare the report on our paper.
  
  We are pleased to receive the positive review of our manuscript. It is indeed encouraging to read that our work on implementing tides in MPAS--Ocean is significant, and will enable more accurate tidal predictions, and hence will facilitate prediction of global climate variability. The comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.
  
  We give below detailed responses to the various questions and comments. In addition, we have added the particular version of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model that we use in the title of the manuscript, the main body of the paper, as well as the code availability section, as suggested by the editorial team. The changes in our revised manuscript, which have been made to address the comments of the Referee and the editorial team, are indicated in blue. We have addressed the concerns fully. We hope, therefore, that our paper will now be accepted for publication in Geoscientific Model Development.
  
  Best regards,
  Nairita Pal (on behalf of all authors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC3
CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Pengcheng Wang, 27 Nov 2022

The paper focuses on the impacts of ice shelf cavities on modelling tides, and shows great improvemnts by considering the ice shelf cavities. I think the consideration includes two aspects: (1) open the ice shelf cavities in the model domain (2) add an extra pressure (p^s) term in the momentum equation to represent the weight of the ice-floating shelves. The importance of (1) has been well known in the literature. For example, De Kleermaeker et al., (2017), Wang et al., (2021), and Blakely et al., (2022, cited in the paper) have showed or recognized the importance of (1) in global tidal predictions. However, impact of (2) is less known to my knowledge, and I am curious how much does (2) contribute to these improvements?
De Kleermaeker, S., et al, 2017. Global-to-local scale storm surge modelling on tropical cyclone affected coasts. In: Australasian Coasts & Ports 2017: Working with Nature.
Wang, P., et al. 2021. Evaluation of a global total water level model in the presence of radiational S2 tide. Ocean Modelling, 168.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CC1
- AC4:
  'Reply on CC1', Nairita Pal, 10 Dec 2022
  
  Hi Dr. Wang,
  
  Thank you so much for the comments, and for pointing to the very interesting papers. We have now modified our manuscript and have included the suggested citations (second paragraph of the Introduction Section).
  
  You have pointed out very accurately that the ice shelf considerations include two aspects : (1) open ice shelf cavities in the model domain (2) add an extra pressure (p^s) term in the momentum equation to represent the weight of the ice-floating shelves. The two points amount to the following critical factors in representing the effect of ice-shelf cavities on tides: (1) including the cavity area in the horizontal ocean domain (as has been done before), and (2) ensuring that the correct vertical column height is simulated in the cavities. By including the extra pressure (p^s) term, the sea-surface height is depressed (by more than 1000m in some places!) by the weight of the ice-shelves. Considering that tidal dynamics are modulated by the sqrt(g*H) shallow-water phase speed, the addition of p^s thus ensures the ice-shelf cavities generate the correct dynamic response in our model, confirmed by the various figures and improvements in the paper.
  
  This paper is thus a preliminary effort to directly measure the improvements in global tidal prediction once the extra pressure (p^s) term is added to the momentum equation. In particular, figures 4, 5,6, 8 show our tidal predictions in the global ocean domain with and without the extra pressure term. In addition, we focus on tidal predictions in the Southern Ocean (Figure 7), and also the predictions between 66 N and 66S (barchart in Figure 8). All these results indicate that including the extra pressure (p^s) term leads to substantial improvement in global tidal predictions.
  
  Thank you so much once again for the comments and the very useful articles. The articles have indeed improved our understanding of the subject.
  
  Best regards,
  Nairita Pal (on behalf of all coauthors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC4
  - CC2: 'Reply on AC4', Pengcheng Wang, 13 Dec 2022
    
    Dear Authors,
    Thank you very much for your response! I now understand that the pressure term (p^s) or ice loading essentially acts to acheive the correct vertical liquid height by depressing the sea surface height. In De Kleermaeker et al., (2017) and Wang et al., (2021), I think this was done by simply modifying bathymetry as "Bathymetry - Bathymetry_isf", where Bathymetry_isf is the thickness of ice draft, equivelant to "D" in this manuscript. Apparently, the approach used by the authors is more realistic. And yes, the ice draft is more than 1000 m thick in many places of the Weddell Sea, and it is very important to take it into account.
    Best regards,
    Pengcheng Wang
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CC2
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jan 2023

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your contribution and the work that you have presented in this manuscript. I have read your paper with great interest. The work presented here falls within the scope of the journal, and the work has been carried out using sound scientific knowledge and principles. Enclosed here are some minor comments

L-25 Please provide reference and citations

Fig 1- can Fig 1a be redrawn? it looks like a sketch

Fig 2 - please improve the figure resolution

Fig 4 - please include x and y axis labels

Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Nairita Pal, 20 Jan 2023
  
  Dear Referee,
  We sincerely thank you for the positive feedback of our work. We are indeed happy to read that our paper is an interesting read, and that it is scientifically rigorous. The comments are addressed below, and a file is also attached with detailed comments.
  
  L-25 Please provide reference and citations
  Thank you. We have now provided references and citations (page 2 second paragraph of our revised manuscript).
  
  Fig 1- can Fig 1a be redrawn? it looks like a sketch
  Thank you for pointing this out. The figure has been redrawn (page 7 of our revised manuscript).
  Fig 2 - please improve the figure resolution
  Thank you. The figure resolution is now improved (page 9 of our revised manuscript).
  Fig 4 - please include x and y axis labels
  Thank you. We have now provided the x and y labels (page 13 of our revised manuscript).
  Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.
  We sincerely thank you for taking the time to prepare the report for this paper. The comments have led to important improvements of our manuscript. It is truly encouraging to read that the reviewer finds this work impactful towards predictions of climate variability.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC5

Status: closed

CEC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Aug 2022

Dear authors,

Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our policies to submit manuscripts at many levels. For example, check our "Code and Data Policy".

https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
First, you only provide information in the Code Availability Section to access the E3SM model, but you have not published your new developments; that is exactly the part that must be assessed here. According to our policy, you must publish your new developed code in one of the suitable repositories. Otherwise, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication.
Also, you have linked to GitHub to access the E3SM code. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Moreover, there is a dedicated Zenodo page for the E3SM project (https://zenodo.org/communities/e3sm?page=1&size=20) and another one for E3SM v2.0 (https://zenodo.org/record/5563151). Therefore, please, look for the Zenodo repository for the version of E3SM that you have used here, and cite it in the Code Availability Section. I note that you do not indicate the version used for the manuscript of your development or E3SM, which is mandatory information that must appear in the main body of the text, the Title of your manuscript and the Code and Data Availability Section.
Therefore, please, publish your code in the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage.
Also, 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).
Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request will result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel

Geosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CEC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on CEC1', Nairita Pal, 25 Aug 2022
  
  Dear Dr. Anel,
  
  Thank you for your comments.
  
  We apologize for the delay in uploading the code. We will upload our code to the Zenodo archive shortly. Initially, we had intended to upload the code when the reviews were in, so that any reviewer updates or changes could be incorporated. However, we will be happy to upload our code within the next few days, and make it available to the reviewers.
  
  We thank you for giving us this opportunity to upload our code.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Nairita Pal
  (on behalf of all authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC1
  - CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Aug 2022
    
    Dear authors,
    Many thanks for the reply. We hope to see the information on the new repository soon.
    Please, note that in a public Discussions stage like the one in our journal, a reviewer can be anyone, so it does not make sense to wait for reviewers invited by editors to publish. Anyone that wants should be able to access the material necessary to reproduce the manuscript.
    Best regards,
    Juan A. Añel
    Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CEC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Nairita Pal, 19 Sep 2022
    
    Dear Dr. Anel,
    We have uploaded our code to zenodo, and have made it publicly available here 10.5281/zenodo.7084857
    We are using E3SM V2. We will add the version in the title of our revised manuscript to be submitted shortly.
    
    Please let us know if any further information is required from our side.
    
    Thanks and regards,
    Nairita Pal (on behalf of all coauthors)
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC2
RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2022

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your contribution and the work that you have presented in this manuscript. I have read your paper with great interest. The work presented here falls within the scope of the journal, and the work has been carried out using sound scientific knowledge and principles. Enclosed here are some minor comments

L-16 Precise amplitude and frequency? Needs further explanation

Fig 2- can the resolution of this figure be improved?

All the equations presented should be centered. Refer to journal guideline

L-69-70 Can be rewritten as it may create confusion for the readers

Fig A1- Is it possible to remove the dark background in this figure

The inclusion of ice self-cavities significantly improves the overall tidal prediction; however, how do the effect of altering geometry near the ground line and grounding zone impact the prediction accuracy?

Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Nairita Pal, 11 Oct 2022
  
  Thank you very much for sending us the report and for giving us the chance to address the concerns. We thank you
  
  for taking the time to prepare the report on our paper.
  
  We are pleased to receive the positive review of our manuscript. It is indeed encouraging to read that our work on implementing tides in MPAS--Ocean is significant, and will enable more accurate tidal predictions, and hence will facilitate prediction of global climate variability. The comments have greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.
  
  We give below detailed responses to the various questions and comments. In addition, we have added the particular version of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model that we use in the title of the manuscript, the main body of the paper, as well as the code availability section, as suggested by the editorial team. The changes in our revised manuscript, which have been made to address the comments of the Referee and the editorial team, are indicated in blue. We have addressed the concerns fully. We hope, therefore, that our paper will now be accepted for publication in Geoscientific Model Development.
  
  Best regards,
  Nairita Pal (on behalf of all authors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC3
CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Pengcheng Wang, 27 Nov 2022

The paper focuses on the impacts of ice shelf cavities on modelling tides, and shows great improvemnts by considering the ice shelf cavities. I think the consideration includes two aspects: (1) open the ice shelf cavities in the model domain (2) add an extra pressure (p^s) term in the momentum equation to represent the weight of the ice-floating shelves. The importance of (1) has been well known in the literature. For example, De Kleermaeker et al., (2017), Wang et al., (2021), and Blakely et al., (2022, cited in the paper) have showed or recognized the importance of (1) in global tidal predictions. However, impact of (2) is less known to my knowledge, and I am curious how much does (2) contribute to these improvements?
De Kleermaeker, S., et al, 2017. Global-to-local scale storm surge modelling on tropical cyclone affected coasts. In: Australasian Coasts & Ports 2017: Working with Nature.
Wang, P., et al. 2021. Evaluation of a global total water level model in the presence of radiational S2 tide. Ocean Modelling, 168.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CC1
- AC4:
  'Reply on CC1', Nairita Pal, 10 Dec 2022
  
  Hi Dr. Wang,
  
  Thank you so much for the comments, and for pointing to the very interesting papers. We have now modified our manuscript and have included the suggested citations (second paragraph of the Introduction Section).
  
  You have pointed out very accurately that the ice shelf considerations include two aspects : (1) open ice shelf cavities in the model domain (2) add an extra pressure (p^s) term in the momentum equation to represent the weight of the ice-floating shelves. The two points amount to the following critical factors in representing the effect of ice-shelf cavities on tides: (1) including the cavity area in the horizontal ocean domain (as has been done before), and (2) ensuring that the correct vertical column height is simulated in the cavities. By including the extra pressure (p^s) term, the sea-surface height is depressed (by more than 1000m in some places!) by the weight of the ice-shelves. Considering that tidal dynamics are modulated by the sqrt(g*H) shallow-water phase speed, the addition of p^s thus ensures the ice-shelf cavities generate the correct dynamic response in our model, confirmed by the various figures and improvements in the paper.
  
  This paper is thus a preliminary effort to directly measure the improvements in global tidal prediction once the extra pressure (p^s) term is added to the momentum equation. In particular, figures 4, 5,6, 8 show our tidal predictions in the global ocean domain with and without the extra pressure term. In addition, we focus on tidal predictions in the Southern Ocean (Figure 7), and also the predictions between 66 N and 66S (barchart in Figure 8). All these results indicate that including the extra pressure (p^s) term leads to substantial improvement in global tidal predictions.
  
  Thank you so much once again for the comments and the very useful articles. The articles have indeed improved our understanding of the subject.
  
  Best regards,
  Nairita Pal (on behalf of all coauthors)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC4
  - CC2: 'Reply on AC4', Pengcheng Wang, 13 Dec 2022
    
    Dear Authors,
    Thank you very much for your response! I now understand that the pressure term (p^s) or ice loading essentially acts to acheive the correct vertical liquid height by depressing the sea surface height. In De Kleermaeker et al., (2017) and Wang et al., (2021), I think this was done by simply modifying bathymetry as "Bathymetry - Bathymetry_isf", where Bathymetry_isf is the thickness of ice draft, equivelant to "D" in this manuscript. Apparently, the approach used by the authors is more realistic. And yes, the ice draft is more than 1000 m thick in many places of the Weddell Sea, and it is very important to take it into account.
    Best regards,
    Pengcheng Wang
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-CC2
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jan 2023

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your contribution and the work that you have presented in this manuscript. I have read your paper with great interest. The work presented here falls within the scope of the journal, and the work has been carried out using sound scientific knowledge and principles. Enclosed here are some minor comments

L-25 Please provide reference and citations

Fig 1- can Fig 1a be redrawn? it looks like a sketch

Fig 2 - please improve the figure resolution

Fig 4 - please include x and y axis labels

Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Nairita Pal, 20 Jan 2023
  
  Dear Referee,
  We sincerely thank you for the positive feedback of our work. We are indeed happy to read that our paper is an interesting read, and that it is scientifically rigorous. The comments are addressed below, and a file is also attached with detailed comments.
  
  L-25 Please provide reference and citations
  Thank you. We have now provided references and citations (page 2 second paragraph of our revised manuscript).
  
  Fig 1- can Fig 1a be redrawn? it looks like a sketch
  Thank you for pointing this out. The figure has been redrawn (page 7 of our revised manuscript).
  Fig 2 - please improve the figure resolution
  Thank you. The figure resolution is now improved (page 9 of our revised manuscript).
  Fig 4 - please include x and y axis labels
  Thank you. We have now provided the x and y labels (page 13 of our revised manuscript).
  Apart from these minor comments, the overall work that has been presented is significant, well written, and structured and should be considered for publication as the impact of this work will enable accurate tidal prediction, which will facilitate and enable us to predict global climate variability.
  We sincerely thank you for taking the time to prepare the report for this paper. The comments have led to important improvements of our manuscript. It is truly encouraging to read that the reviewer finds this work impactful towards predictions of climate variability.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-188-AC5

Nairita Pal et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 638 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
457	152	29	638	8	6

HTML: 457
PDF: 152
XML: 29
Total: 638
BibTeX: 8
EndNote: 6

Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	185	51	11	247
Sep 2022	52	24	4	80
Oct 2022	36	15	3	54
Nov 2022	52	17	3	72
Dec 2022	73	29	4	106
Jan 2023	59	16	4	79

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Aug 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2022	185	51	11	247
Sep 2022	52	24	4	80
Oct 2022	36	15	3	54
Nov 2022	52	17	3	72
Dec 2022	73	29	4	106
Jan 2023	59	16	4	79

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 546 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 546 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 26 Jan 2023

Short summary

Understanding tides is essential to accurately predict ocean currents. Over the next several decades coastal processes such as flooding, erosion will be severely impacted due to climate change. Tides affect currents along the coastal regions the most. In this manuscript we show the results of implementing tides in a global ocean model known as MPAS–Ocean. We also show how Antarctic ice shelf cavities affect global tides. Our work points towards future research with tides-ice interactions.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0