Parameterization of Mixed Layer Eddies. Part I: Theory and Diagnosis

Fox‐Kemper, Baylor; Ferrari, Raffaele; Hallberg, Robert

doi:10.1175/2007jpo3792.1

Cited by 585 publications

(698 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

666

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-submesoscale: Fox-Kemper et al (2008 propose a parameterized eddy-induced velocity for mixed layer submesoscale processes.…”

Section: I1 Residual Mean Velocity and Transport Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-Fox- Kemper et al (2008Kemper et al ( , 2011 represents the canonical parameterization scheme for mixed layer submesoscale transport. It is the mass transport from this, or alternative submesoscale closures, that should be archived in the fields "due_to_parameterized_submesoscale_advection".…”

Section: I7 Meridional Andŷ-ward Overturning Streamfunction From Sgs mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) is an endorsed project in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). OMIP addresses CMIP6 science questions, investigating the origins and consequences of systematic model biases. It does so by providing a framework for evaluating (including assessment of systematic biases), understanding, and improving ocean, sea-ice, tracer, and biogeochemical components of climate and earth system models contributing to CMIP6. Among the WCRP Grand Challenges in climate science (GCs), OMIP primarily contributes to the regional sea level change and near-term (climate/decadal) prediction GCs.OMIP provides (a) an experimental protocol for global ocean/sea-ice models run with a prescribed atmospheric forcing; and (b) a protocol for ocean diagnostics to be saved as part of CMIP6. We focus here on the physical component of OMIP, with a companion paper (Orr et al., 2016) detailing methods for the inert chemistry and interactive biogeochemistry. The physical portion of the OMIP experimental protocol follows the interannual Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). Since 2009, CORE-I (Normal Year Forcing) and CORE-II (Interannual Forcing) have become the standard methods to evaluate global ocean/sea-ice simulations and to examine mechanisms for forced ocean climate variability. The OMIP diagnostic protocol is relevant for any ocean model component of CMIP6, including the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments), historical simulations, FAFMIP (Flux Anomaly Forced MIP), C4MIP (Coupled Carbon Cycle Climate MIP), DAMIP (Detection and Attribution MIP), DCPP (Decadal Climate Prediction Project), ScenarioMIP, HighResMIP (High Resolution MIP), as well as the ocean/sea-ice OMIP simulations.

show abstract

“…-submesoscale: Fox-Kemper et al (2008 propose a parameterized eddy-induced velocity for mixed layer submesoscale processes.…”

Section: I1 Residual Mean Velocity and Transport Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: I7 Meridional Andŷ-ward Overturning Streamfunction From Sgs mentioning

confidence: 99%

OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We achieve reduced mixed layer depth biases (compared to the original MICOM) by using a turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) model based on Oberhuber (1993), extended with a parameterisation of mixed layer restratification by submesoscale eddies (Fox-Kemper et al, 2008). To improve the representation of water masses in weakly stratified high-latitude haloclines, the static stability of the uppermost layers is measured by in situ density jumps across layer interfaces, thus allowing for layers that are unstable with respect to potential density referenced at 2000 dbar to exist.…”

Section: The Micom Physical Ocean Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of NorESM-OC (versions 1 and 1.2), the ocean carbon-cycle stand-alone configuration of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM1)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Idealised and hindcast simulations performed with the stand-alone ocean carbon-cycle configuration of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM-OC) are described and evaluated. We present simulation results of three different model configurations (two different model versions at different grid resolutions) using two different atmospheric forcing data sets. Model version NorESM-OC1 corresponds to the version that is included in the NorESM-ME1 fully coupled model, which participated in CMIP5. The main update between NorESM-OC1 and NorESM-OC1.2 is the addition of two new options for the treatment of sinking particles. We find that using a constant sinking speed, which has been the standard in NorESM's ocean carbon cycle module HAMOCC (HAMburg Ocean Carbon Cycle model), does not transport enough particulate organic carbon (POC) into the deep ocean below approximately 2000 m depth. The two newly implemented parameterisations, a particle aggregation scheme with prognostic sinking speed, and a simpler scheme that uses a linear increase in the sinking speed with depth, provide better agreement with observed POC fluxes. Additionally, reduced deep ocean biases of oxygen and remineralised phosphate indicate a better performance of the new parameterisations. For model version 1.2, a re-tuning of the ecosystem parameterisation has been performed, which (i) reduces previously too high primary production at high latitudes, (ii) consequently improves model results for surface nutrients, and (iii) reduces alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon biases at low latitudes. We use hindcast simulations with prescribed observed and constant (pre-industrial) atmospheric CO 2 concentrations to derive the past and contemporary ocean carbon sink. For the period 1990-1999 we find an average ocean carbon uptake ranging from 2.01 to 2.58 Pg C yr −1 depending on model version, grid resolution, and atmospheric forcing data set.

show abstract

“…As we enter an age of mesoscale-eddy-resolving ocean simulations it may lose its importance, but the parametrization of the submesoscale (e.g. [74]) will come to the fore, and so on. In the atmosphere, convection occurs on the kilometre scale, and it is impossible to properly resolve it in global climate models, and will be for many years to come-although with heroic efforts we can now resolve the atmospheric mesoscale ( figure 8).…”

Section: (I) the Subgridscalementioning

confidence: 99%

Geophysical fluid dynamics: whence, whither and why?

Vallis¹

2016

Proc. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A contribution to the special feature 'Perspectives in astrophysical and geophysical fluids' . GKV, This article discusses the role of geophysical fluid dynamics (GFD) in understanding the natural environment, and in particular the dynamics of atmospheres and oceans on Earth and elsewhere. GFD, as usually understood, is a branch of the geosciences that deals with fluid dynamics and that, by tradition, seeks to extract the bare essence of a phenomenon, omitting detail where possible. The geosciences in general deal with complex interacting systems and in some ways resemble condensed matter physics or aspects of biology, where we seek explanations of phenomena at a higher level than simply directly calculating the interactions of all the constituent parts. That is, we try to develop theories or make simple models of the behaviour of the system as a whole. However, these days in many geophysical systems of interest, we can also obtain information for how the system behaves by almost direct numerical simulation from the governing equations. The numerical model itself then explicitly predicts the emergent phenomenathe Gulf Stream, for example-something that is still usually impossible in biology or condensed matter physics. Such simulations, as manifested, for example, in complicated general circulation models, have in some ways been extremely successful and one may reasonably now ask whether understanding a complex geophysical system is necessary for predicting it. In what follows we discuss such issues and the roles that GFD has played in the past and will play in the future.

show abstract

Parameterization of Mixed Layer Eddies. Part I: Theory and Diagnosis

Cited by 585 publications

References 68 publications

OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project

OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project

Evaluation of NorESM-OC (versions 1 and 1.2), the ocean carbon-cycle stand-alone configuration of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM1)

Geophysical fluid dynamics: whence, whither and why?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About