the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Barotropic Tides in MPAS-Ocean: Impact of Ice Shelf Cavities
- 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
- 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
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: open (extended)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Aug 2022
reply
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.htmlFirst, 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.Â
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.Â
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-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Nairita Pal, 25 Aug 2022
reply
Dear Dr. Anel,
ÂThank you for your comments.ÂWe 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.ÂWe thank you for giving us this opportunity to upload our code.ÂSincerely,ÂNairita Pal(on behalf of all authors-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Aug 2022
reply
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
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Nairita Pal, 19 Sep 2022
reply
Dear Dr. Anel,
We have uploaded our code to zenodo, and have made it publicly available here 10.5281/zenodo.7084857We are using E3SM V2. We will add the version in the title of our revised manuscript to be submitted shortly.ÂPlease let us know if any further information is required from our side.ÂThanks and regards,Nairita Pal (on behalf of all coauthors)
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Nairita Pal, 19 Sep 2022
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Aug 2022
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Nairita Pal, 25 Aug 2022
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2022
reply
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. Â 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?Â
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.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Nairita Pal, 11 Oct 2022
reply
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.ÂWe 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.Â
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.ÂBest regards,Nairita Pal (on behalf of all authors)
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Nairita Pal, 11 Oct 2022
reply
-
CC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-188', Pengcheng Wang, 27 Nov 2022
reply
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.Â
Wang, P., et al. 2021. Evaluation of a global total water level model in the presence of radiational S2 tide. Ocean Modelling, 168.
Nairita Pal et al.
Nairita Pal et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 303 | 102 | 19 | 424 | 7 | 5 |
- HTML: 303
- PDF: 102
- XML: 19
- Total: 424
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1