1 |
\section{Forward sensitivity experiments} |
2 |
\label{sec:forward} |
3 |
|
4 |
A second series of forward sensitivity experiments have been carried out on an |
5 |
Arctic Ocean domain with open boundaries. Once again the objective is to |
6 |
compare the old B-grid LSR dynamic solver with the new C-grid LSR and EVP |
7 |
solvers. One additional experiment is carried out to illustrate the |
8 |
differences between the two main options for sea ice thermodynamics in the MITgcm. |
9 |
|
10 |
\subsection{Arctic Domain with Open Boundaries} |
11 |
\label{sec:arctic} |
12 |
|
13 |
The Arctic domain of integration is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:arctic1}. It |
14 |
is carved out from, and obtains open boundary conditions from, the |
15 |
global cubed-sphere configuration of the Estimating the Circulation |
16 |
and Climate of the Ocean, Phase II (ECCO2) project |
17 |
\citet{menemenlis05}. The domain size is 420 by 384 grid boxes |
18 |
horizontally with mean horizontal grid spacing of 18 km. |
19 |
|
20 |
\begin{figure} |
21 |
%\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.44\linewidth]{\fpath/arctic1.eps}}} |
22 |
\caption{Bathymetry of Arctic Domain.\label{fig:arctic1}} |
23 |
\end{figure} |
24 |
|
25 |
There are 50 vertical levels ranging in thickness from 10 m near the surface |
26 |
to approximately 450 m at a maximum model depth of 6150 m. Bathymetry is from |
27 |
the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) 2-minute gridded global relief |
28 |
data (ETOPO2) and the model employs the partial-cell formulation of |
29 |
\citet{adcroft97:_shaved_cells}, which permits accurate representation of the bathymetry. The |
30 |
model is integrated in a volume-conserving configuration using a finite volume |
31 |
discretization with C-grid staggering of the prognostic variables. In the |
32 |
ocean, the non-linear equation of state of \citet{jackett95}. The ocean model is |
33 |
coupled to a sea-ice model described hereinabove. |
34 |
|
35 |
This particular ECCO2 simulation is initialized from rest using the |
36 |
January temperature and salinity distribution from the World Ocean |
37 |
Atlas 2001 (WOA01) [Conkright et al., 2002] and it is integrated for |
38 |
32 years prior to the 1996--2001 period discussed in the study. Surface |
39 |
boundary conditions are from the National Centers for Environmental |
40 |
Prediction and the National Center for Atmospheric Research |
41 |
(NCEP/NCAR) atmospheric reanalysis [Kistler et al., 2001]. Six-hourly |
42 |
surface winds, temperature, humidity, downward short- and long-wave |
43 |
radiations, and precipitation are converted to heat, freshwater, and |
44 |
wind stress fluxes using the \citet{large81, large82} bulk formulae. |
45 |
Shortwave radiation decays exponentially as per Paulson and Simpson |
46 |
[1977]. Additionally the time-mean river run-off from Large and Nurser |
47 |
[2001] is applied and there is a relaxation to the monthly-mean |
48 |
climatological sea surface salinity values from WOA01 with a |
49 |
relaxation time scale of 3 months. Vertical mixing follows |
50 |
\citet{large94} with background vertical diffusivity of |
51 |
$1.5\times10^{-5}\text{\,m$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$}$ and viscosity of |
52 |
$10^{-3}\text{\,m$^{2}$\,s$^{-1}$}$. A third order, direct-space-time |
53 |
advection scheme with flux limiter is employed \citep{hundsdorfer94} |
54 |
and there is no explicit horizontal diffusivity. Horizontal viscosity |
55 |
follows \citet{lei96} but |
56 |
modified to sense the divergent flow as per Fox-Kemper and Menemenlis |
57 |
[in press]. Shortwave radiation decays exponentially as per Paulson |
58 |
and Simpson [1977]. Additionally, the time-mean runoff of Large and |
59 |
Nurser [2001] is applied near the coastline and, where there is open |
60 |
water, there is a relaxation to monthly-mean WOA01 sea surface |
61 |
salinity with a time constant of 45 days. |
62 |
|
63 |
Open water, dry |
64 |
ice, wet ice, dry snow, and wet snow albedo are, respectively, 0.15, 0.85, |
65 |
0.76, 0.94, and 0.8. |
66 |
|
67 |
\begin{itemize} |
68 |
\item Configuration |
69 |
\item OBCS from cube |
70 |
\item forcing |
71 |
\item 1/2 and full resolution |
72 |
\item with a few JFM figs from C-grid LSR no slip |
73 |
ice transport through Canadian Archipelago |
74 |
thickness distribution |
75 |
ice velocity and transport |
76 |
\end{itemize} |
77 |
|
78 |
\begin{itemize} |
79 |
\item Arctic configuration |
80 |
\item ice transport through straits and near boundaries |
81 |
\item focus on narrow straits in the Canadian Archipelago |
82 |
\end{itemize} |
83 |
|
84 |
\begin{itemize} |
85 |
\item B-grid LSR no-slip |
86 |
\item C-grid LSR no-slip |
87 |
\item C-grid LSR slip |
88 |
\item C-grid EVP no-slip |
89 |
\item C-grid EVP slip |
90 |
\item C-grid LSR + TEM (truncated ellipse method, no tensile stress, new flag) |
91 |
\item C-grid LSR no-slip + Winton |
92 |
\item speed-performance-accuracy (small) |
93 |
ice transport through Canadian Archipelago differences |
94 |
thickness distribution differences |
95 |
ice velocity and transport differences |
96 |
\end{itemize} |
97 |
|
98 |
We anticipate small differences between the different models due to: |
99 |
\begin{itemize} |
100 |
\item advection schemes: along the ice-edge and regions with large |
101 |
gradients |
102 |
\item C-grid: less transport through narrow straits for no slip |
103 |
conditons, more for free slip |
104 |
\item VP vs.\ EVP: speed performance, accuracy? |
105 |
\item ocean stress: different water mass properties beneath the ice |
106 |
\end{itemize} |