the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Dec 2024
ISWFM-NSCS v2.0: advancing the internal solitary wave forecasting model with background currents and horizontally inhomogeneous stratifications
Abstract. A new version of an internal solitary wave (ISW) model, the Internal Solitary Wave Forecasting Model-Northern South China Sea version 2.0 (ISWFM-NSCS v2.0), is presented. The background currents and horizontally inhomogeneous stratifications are implemented in ISWFM-NSCS v2.0 to better reproduce ISW properties, including arrival time, mode-1 wave amplitude, wave-induced velocity, characteristic half-width and propagation direction. Optimized viscosity and diffusivity coefficients (i.e., 1.0×10-2 m2 s-1 in horizontal and 1.0×10-5 m2 s-1 in vertical) are also introduced in ISWFM-NSCS v2.0 to maintain stable stratifications within the model domain, thereby prolonging the model’s valid forecasting period. A mooring station around the Dongsha Atoll is presented for model evaluation and numbers of sensitivity experiments are implemented to illustrate the individual effect of the major updates. In comparison with ISWFM-NSCS v1.0, ISWFM-NSCS v2.0 significantly enhances model accuracy in forecasting ISW characteristics, with a 37 % improvement in arrival time, a 34 % improvement in mode-1 wave amplitude, a 25 % improvement in wave-induced velocity, and an 85 % improvement in half-width.
- Preprint
(11376 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Apr 2025)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-165 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, 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.htmlYou have not published a full version of the ISWFM-NSCS v2.0 model. This is forbidden by our policy, and your manuscript should not have been accepted for Discussions because of it. All the code must be published openly and freely to anyone before submission of a manuscript. Also, you have not published a version of MITgcm in a permanent repository that we can accept.
Therefore, we are granting you a short time to solve this situation. You have to reply to this comment in a prompt manner with the information for the repositories containing all the models, and code that you use to produce and replicate your manuscript. The reply must include the link and permanent identifier (e.g. DOI). Also, any future version of your manuscript must include the modified section with the new information.
Please, note that if you do not fix these problems as requested, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Yankun Gong, 10 Feb 2025
reply
We appreciate your comments on our code repository. According to your suggestion, we have read the code and data policy of GMD in detail, and have added all model code on the Zenodo repository with the DOI number https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14841770.
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
We appreciate your willingness to comply with the policy; however, it is my interpretation that the repository that you have linked in your response is not enough to comply with the policy, as it does not contain all the code necessary to replicate your work, but only a few files to run with the main model. It is your responsibility to provide all the code that you use and is necessary.
Also, I strongly recommend you to provide separated repositories for the code and for the data. Currently it is necessary to download the output files to check the code, which is not operational.
Please, reply to this comment with the relevant information.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Yankun Gong, 10 Feb 2025
reply
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We appreciate your concerns regarding the completeness and operability of the code, so we now provide further clarification on this matter in the attachment.
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
The MITgcm license (https://github.com/MITgcm/MITgcm/blob/master/LICENSE.txt), which you should have read and know, as you are using the model and one would expect that you know what you can do or not with it, clearly states that you can redistribute the code. Therefore, you can and must store the MITgcm version that works with your developed code in a permanent repository, and provide its details, link and permanent handle (e.g. DOI). In this regard, in the manuscript, you should indicate with what MITgcm version is compatible your code (it could happen that it is not compatible with a future version), and in the Code Availability section, instead of the MITgcm webpage that you currently mention, you should include the new repository that you set up with the frozen version of the code that you use here.
Thanks,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-CEC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Yankun Gong, 11 Feb 2025
reply
We appreciate your comments on our code repository. According to your suggestion, we have read the MITgcm license in detail, and have added required MITgcm code on the Zenodo repository with the DOI number https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14847454.
-
CEC4: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for addressing this issue. Please, do not forget to modify the "Code and Data Availability" version of your manuscript accordingly in any potential future version of it.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-CEC4
-
CEC4: 'Reply on AC3', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025
reply
-
AC3: 'Reply on CEC3', Yankun Gong, 11 Feb 2025
reply
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Feb 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Yankun Gong, 10 Feb 2025
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Feb 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Yankun Gong, 10 Feb 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-165', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2025
reply
Review of “ISWFM-NSCS v2.0: advancing the internal solitary wave forecasting model with background currents and horizontally inhomogeneous stratifications”
General comments:
Presented is an improved version of the internal solitary wave model. The efforts of the improvements have been made through several aspects: inclusion of background currents, horizontally inhomogeneous stratifications, and many others. The results are very encouraging. This paper documents these achievements towards a better internal solitary wave model. The graphs are impressively beautiful. I would recommend it be accepted for publication after some clarifications and minor revision.
Specific comments:
The title gives readers an impression that this is a forecast model. However, it has not been implemented as a forecast model yet. The numerical experiments reported in this paper are hindcast modeling. I would suggest to remove the keyword “forecasting”.
Generally, the paper is well written by non-native English speakers. However, there are some minor writing issues (e.g., wrong word choices) that could and should be fixed through revision. I list some here, but there may be more in the paper.
L17, “ISWFM-NSCS v2.0” can be replaced with “the new version”.
L20, “in ISWFM-NSCS v2.0” can be removed.
L21, “presented” should be changed to “used”.
L68, ”by comparing with numbers of” can be changed to “through”.
L79, “by” should be changed to “by using” or “from”, and “a” should be “the”.
L87, “well” should be changed to “good”.
L138-139, it would be good to provide some examples, e.g., Liu et al. (2000, 2008).
Figure 5, the model name “MITgcm” should be changed to “ISWFM-NSCS v2.0” for a more specific case.
L145-148, it is mentioned that background currents are added and that velocity data are also extracted from the HYCOM. However, it is not clear whether the HYCOM velocity data are used as the background currents. If so, please clearly state it in this paragraph. If not, then provide more information on what data are used for specifying the background currents or temperature and salinity fields in the ISWFM-NSCS v2.0. (This information is found later in the manuscript, L320-321. But it would be better to state that earlier in this paragraph).
References:
Liu et al. (2000), Circulation in the South China Sea in summer of 1998, Chinese Science Bulletin 45, 1648-1655.
Liu et al. (2008), Patterns of upper layer circulation variability in the South China Sea from satellite altimetry using the self-organizing map, Acta Oceanologica Sinica 27 (Suppl), 129-144.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-RC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Yankun Gong, 18 Mar 2025
reply
We would like to thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable comments. In the revision, we have carefully considered them, and the necessary changes are provided to address them. Please find our point-by-point responses to your comments in the supplementary file.
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Yankun Gong, 18 Mar 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2024-165', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Apr 2025
reply
This paper presents an evolution of an already existing model focused on the internal solitary wave forcasting, known to be challengous for many physical reasons. Based on my own reading, the paper is clear, well written and present several important results that might interest the community. Three major evolutions are presented : modification of the eddy viscosity/diffusivity , add of a realistics non-homogeneous stratification and background current. The authors showed the impact of adding each component on the forecasting performances.
However, my main concern is about the choice of a constant eddy viscosity/diffusity for their model. If the value is well suited for ISW as the authors explained, the values are far too large out of these phenomenon, probably rapdily destroing the stratification, a problem they already faced in the first version of their model. I would suggest using an adaptative turbulent closure scheme , like the classical k-epsilon. At least, I would appreciate such a test or a discussion on that. Another important remark regarding the choice of the eddy viscosity/diffusivity, concerns the numerical diffusivity which is neither taken into account nor discussed. I would appreciate the author to warn on this potential issue, when they explain the choice of the values based on in situ measurements.
Minor suggestions :
The introduction is lacking details on the amplitude/wavelength of the ISW in the region. It's important to be fully convince that you resolution is enough to really capture this small-scale waves. In addition, I fell that it is lacking geographical information about the region. Maybe you can add the quoted names on Fig 2
Line 155 it is not clear if you are talking about 28 properties or 28 ISWs
Regarding the observations, even if they are already introduced in Gong et al 2023, I suggest to brively introduce them : which instrument, how long ...
In section 4, test the statistical significance of your differences. Especially in lines 310.
Fig 8. Please add the legend in the panels b and d
Fig 11 : It is quite hard reading this figure. It would suggest to move to a tab that summarize the averaged values should be much more readable. In particular, I recommend to separate the 15 first days and the 15 last days for your analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-165-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 305 | 58 | 17 | 380 | 12 | 11 |
- HTML: 305
- PDF: 58
- XML: 17
- Total: 380
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1