Abstract. We introduce ACCESS-OM2, a new version of the ocean–sea ice model of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator. ACCESS-OM2 is driven by a prescribed atmosphere (JRA55-do) but has been designed to form the ocean–sea ice component of the fully coupled (atmosphere–land–ocean–sea ice) ACCESS-CM2 model. Importantly, the model is available at three different horizontal resolutions: a coarse resolution (nominally 1∘ horizontal grid spacing), an eddy-permitting resolution (nominally 0.25∘), and an eddy-rich resolution (0.1∘ with 75 vertical levels); the eddy-rich model is designed to be incorporated into the Bluelink operational ocean prediction and reanalysis system. The different resolutions have been developed simultaneously, both to allow for testing at lower resolutions and to permit comparison across resolutions. In this paper, the model is introduced and the individual components are documented. The model performance is evaluated across the three different resolutions, highlighting the relative advantages and disadvantages of running ocean–sea ice models at higher resolution. We find that higher resolution is an advantage in resolving flow through small straits, the structure of western boundary currents, and the abyssal overturning cell but that there is scope for improvements in sub-grid-scale parameterizations at the highest resolution.

A new version of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator coupled model, ACCESS-CM2, has been developed for a wide range of climate modelling research and applications. In particular, ACCESS-CM2 is one of Australia's contributions to the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Compared with the ACCESS1.3 model used for our CMIP5 submission, all model components have been upgraded as well as the coupling framework (OASIS3-MCT) and experiment control system (Rose/Cylc). The component models are: UM10.6 GA7.1 for the atmosphere, CABLE2.5 for the land surface, MOM5 for the ocean, and CICE5.1.2 for the sea ice. This paper describes the model configuration of ACCESS-CM2, documents the experimental set up, and assesses the model performance for the preindustrial spin-up simulation in comparison against (reconstructed) observations and ACCESS1.3 results. While the performance of the two generations of the ACCESS coupled model is largely comparable, ACCESS-CM2 shows better global hydrological balance, more realistic ocean water properties (in terms of spatial distribution) and meridional overturning circulation in the Southern Ocean but a poorer simulation of the Antarctic sea ice and a larger energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere. This energy imbalance reflects a noticeable warming trend of the global ocean over the spin-up period.

Sea levels of different atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) respond to climate change forcing in different ways, representing a crucial uncertainty in climate change research. We isolate the role of the ocean dynamics in setting the spatial pattern of dynamic sea-level (ζ) change by forcing several AOGCMs with prescribed identical heat, momentum (wind) and freshwater flux perturbations. This method produces a ζ projection spread comparable in magnitude to the spread that results from greenhouse gas forcing, indicating that the differences in ocean model formulation are the cause, rather than diversity in surface flux change. The heat flux change drives most of the global pattern of ζ change, while the momentum and water flux changes cause locally confined features. North Atlantic heat uptake causes large temperature and salinity driven density changes, altering local ocean transport and ζ. The spread between AOGCMs here is caused largely by differences in their regional transport adjustment, which redistributes heat that was already in the ocean prior to perturbation. The geographic details of the ζ change in the North Atlantic are diverse across models, but the underlying dynamic change is similar. In contrast, the heat absorbed by the Southern Ocean does not strongly alter the vertically coherent circulation. The Arctic ζ change is dissimilar across models, owing to differences in passive heat uptake and circulation change. Only the Arctic is strongly affected by nonlinear interactions between the three air-sea flux changes, and these are model specific.