Global tide simulations with ICON-O: testing the model performance on highly irregular meshes

Logemann, Kai; Linardakis, Leonidas; Korn, Peter; Schrum, Corinna

doi:10.1007/s10236-020-01428-7

Cited by 20 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ongoing development work will further explore ICON-specific opportunities like grid refinement in ICON-O (Logemann et al, 2021) and nesting in the atmosphere (Jungandreas et al, 2021). The excellent scaling capabilities of ICON have been documented in the DYAMOND project with ICON-A setups between 80 and 2.5 km (Hohenegger et al, 2020;Stevens et al, 2019) and are further explored in very high resolution coupled set-ups with grid spacing of a few kilometers in the DYAMOND-WINTER project (https://www.esiwace.eu/services/ dyamond/winter).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focusing on typical climate change experiments, that is, at least century‐long simulations with parameterized physics, the set‐up described here offers an efficient configuration for simulations of past, present and future climates, and large ensembles. It also forms the basis for higher‐resolution versions as well as for configurations using specific properties of the ICON system, for example, grid refinement in ICON‐O (Logemann et al., 2021) or nesting in ICON‐A (Klocke et al., 2017). In this manuscript, we present the first results of ICON‐ESM and provide an examination of the model characteristics in a set of experiments following the CMIP6 Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Characterization of Klima (DECK) protocol and include an ensemble of five CMIP6 “historical” simulations (Eyring et al., 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ICON Earth System Model Version 1.0

Jungclaus

Lorenz

Schmidt

et al. 2022

J Adv Model Earth Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work documents the ICON‐Earth System Model (ICON‐ESM V1.0), the first coupled model based on the ICON (ICOsahedral Non‐hydrostatic) framework with its unstructured, icosahedral grid concept. The ICON‐A atmosphere uses a nonhydrostatic dynamical core and the ocean model ICON‐O builds on the same ICON infrastructure, but applies the Boussinesq and hydrostatic approximation and includes a sea‐ice model. The ICON‐Land module provides a new framework for the modeling of land processes and the terrestrial carbon cycle. The oceanic carbon cycle and biogeochemistry are represented by the Hamburg Ocean Carbon Cycle module. We describe the tuning and spin‐up of a base‐line version at a resolution typical for models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The performance of ICON‐ESM is assessed by means of a set of standard CMIP6 simulations. Achievements are well‐balanced top‐of‐atmosphere radiation, stable key climate quantities in the control simulation, and a good representation of the historical surface temperature evolution. The model has overall biases, which are comparable to those of other CMIP models, but ICON‐ESM performs less well than its predecessor, the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model. Problematic biases are diagnosed in ICON‐ESM in the vertical cloud distribution and the mean zonal wind field. In the ocean, sub‐surface temperature and salinity biases are of concern as is a too strong seasonal cycle of the sea‐ice cover in both hemispheres. ICON‐ESM V1.0 serves as a basis for further developments that will take advantage of ICON‐specific properties such as spatially varying resolution, and configurations at very high resolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ICON Earth System Model Version 1.0

Jungclaus

Lorenz

Schmidt

et al. 2022

J Adv Model Earth Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The basis of our development is the global ocean‐sea ice‐biogeochemistry model ICON‐O (Korn, 2017; Korn & Linardakis, 2018; Logemann et al., 2021). The physical core of the model is based on finite volume numerics.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seamless Integration of the Coastal Ocean in Global Marine Carbon Cycle Modeling

Mathis

Logemann

Maerz

et al. 2022

J Adv Model Earth Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our current understanding about the role of the coastal ocean in the marine carbon cycle is limited and fragmentary. Considerable knowledge gaps are related to the interaction between the diverse sources and sinks of carbon in the highly heterogeneous and dynamic land-ocean transition zone and their relation to the biogeochemical processes in the open ocean (Laruelle et al., 2018;Regnier et al., 2013;Ward et al., 2017). Under present-day climatic conditions, the global coastal ocean has been identified as a net sink for atmospheric CO 2 (Laruelle et al., 2014;Gruber, 2015). However, to what extent coastal areas around the globe are taking up or releasing carbon, as well as how much of the carbon exported from the coastal areas enters the deep ocean, remains unclear

show abstract

“…Instead of adding parameterisation schemes to OGCMs, another way to consider the tidal effect is to add an explicit tidal forcing to the momentum equations. Global tides have been added to some OGCMs (e.g., Thomas et al, 2001;Shriver et al, 2012;Arbic et al, 2018;Logemann et al, 2021), but little research has been conducted from a climatic point of view. By comparing sensitivity runs with and without tidal motions in an OGCM, Schiller (2004) found that tidal motions can rectify Indonesian Archipelago hydrography and the Indonesian Throughflow (ITF) transport.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The tidal effects in the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.1): a comparison between parameterised tidal mixing and explicit tidal forcing

Song

Sidorenko

Scholz

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Tides are proved to have a significant effect on the ocean and climate. Previous modelling research either adds a tidal mixing parameterisation or an explicit tidal forcing to the ocean models. However, no research compares the two approaches in the same framework. Here we implement both schemes into a general ocean circulation model and assess both methods by comparing the results. The aspects for comparison involve hydrography, sea ice, mixed layer depth, Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC), vertical diffusivity, barotropic streamfunction and energy diagnostics. We conclude that although the mesh resolution is poor in resolving internal tides in most mid-latitude and shelf-break areas, explicit tidal forcing still shows stronger tidal mixing at the Kuril–Aleutian Ridge and the Indonesian Archipelago than the tidal mixing parameterisation. Beyond that, the explicit tidal forcing method leads to a stronger upper cell of the Atlantic MOC by enhancing the Pacific MOC and the Indonesian Throughflow. Meanwhile, the tidal mixing parameterisation leads to a stronger lower cell of the Atlantic MOC due to the tidal mixing in deep oceans. Both methods maintain the Antarctic Circumpolar Current at a higher level than the control run by increasing the meridional density gradient but with different mechanisms. We also show several phenomena that are not considered in the tidal mixing parameterisation, for example, the changing of energy budgets in the ocean system, the bottom drag induced mixing on the continental shelves, and the sea ice transport by tidal motions. Due to the limit of computational capacity, an internal-tide-resolving simulation is not feasible for climate studies. However, a high-resolution short-term tidal simulation is still required to improve parameters and parameterisation schemes in climate studies.

show abstract

Global tide simulations with ICON-O: testing the model performance on highly irregular meshes

Cited by 20 publications

References 44 publications

The ICON Earth System Model Version 1.0

The ICON Earth System Model Version 1.0

Seamless Integration of the Coastal Ocean in Global Marine Carbon Cycle Modeling

The tidal effects in the Finite-volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.1): a comparison between parameterised tidal mixing and explicit tidal forcing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About