/[MITgcm]/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice.tex
ViewVC logotype

Diff of /MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice.tex

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Revision Graph Revision Graph | View Patch Patch

revision 1.12 by dimitri, Mon Feb 25 22:06:17 2008 UTC revision 1.15 by mlosch, Tue Feb 26 17:21:48 2008 UTC
# Line 52  Line 52 
52  \maketitle  \maketitle
53    
54  \begin{abstract}  \begin{abstract}
   
55  As part of ongoing efforts to obtain a best possible synthesis of most  As part of ongoing efforts to obtain a best possible synthesis of most
56  available, global-scale, ocean and sea ice data, a dynamic and thermodynamic  available, global-scale, ocean and sea ice data, a dynamic and thermodynamic
57  sea-ice model has been coupled to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology  sea-ice model has been coupled to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
# Line 76  example results from coupled ocean and s Line 75  example results from coupled ocean and s
75  \section{Introduction}  \section{Introduction}
76  \label{sec:intro}  \label{sec:intro}
77    
78  \section{Model}  The availability of an adjoint model as a powerful research
79  \label{sec:model}  tool complementary to an ocean model was a major design
80    requirement early on in the development of the MIT general
81    circulation model (MITgcm) [Marshall et al. 1997a,
82    Marotzke et al. 1999, Adcroft et al. 2002]. It was recognized
83    that the adjoint permitted very efficient computation
84    of gradients of various scalar-valued model diagnostics,
85    norms or, generally, objective functions with respect
86    to external or independent parameters. Such gradients
87    arise in at least two major contexts. If the objective function
88    is the sum of squared model vs. obervation differences
89    weighted by e.g. the inverse error covariances, the gradient
90    of the objective function can be used to optimize this measure
91    of model vs. data misfit in a least-squares sense. One
92    is then solving a problem of statistical state estimation.
93    If the objective function is a key oceanographic quantity
94    such as meridional heat or volume transport, ocean heat
95    content or mean surface temperature index, the gradient
96    provides a complete set of sensitivities of this quantity
97    with respect to all independent variables simultaneously.
98    
99    References to existing sea-ice adjoint models, explaining that they are either
100    for simplified configurations, for ice-only studies, or for short-duration
101    studies to motivate the present work.
102    
103  Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of  Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of
104  treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are  treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are
105  discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99,  discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99,
106    kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}. From the perspective of coupling a  kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}. From the perspective of coupling a
107  sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat  sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat
108  and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model  and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model
109  \citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at  \citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at
# Line 90  velocities points and thus needs to be i Line 111  velocities points and thus needs to be i
111  sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. While the smoothing implicitly  sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. While the smoothing implicitly
112  associated with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise, it may  associated with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise, it may
113  in two-way coupling lead to a computational mode as will be shown. By  in two-way coupling lead to a computational mode as will be shown. By
114  choosing a C-grid for the sea-ice model, we circumvene this difficulty  choosing a C-grid for the sea-ice model, we circumvent this difficulty
115  altogether and render the stress coupling as consistent as the  altogether and render the stress coupling as consistent as the
116  buoyancy coupling.  buoyancy coupling.
117    
# Line 98  A further advantage of the C-grid formul Line 119  A further advantage of the C-grid formul
119  straits. In the limit of only one grid cell between coasts there is no  straits. In the limit of only one grid cell between coasts there is no
120  flux allowed for a B-grid (with no-slip lateral boundary counditions),  flux allowed for a B-grid (with no-slip lateral boundary counditions),
121  whereas the C-grid formulation allows a flux of sea-ice through this  whereas the C-grid formulation allows a flux of sea-ice through this
122  passage for all types of lateral boundary conditions. We (will)  passage for all types of lateral boundary conditions. We
123  demonstrate this effect in the Candian archipelago.  demonstrate this effect in the Candian archipelago.
124    
125    Talk about problems that make the sea-ice-ocean code very sensitive and
126    changes in the code that reduce these sensitivities.
127    
128    This paper describes the MITgcm sea ice
129    model; it presents example Arctic and Antarctic results from a realistic,
130    eddy-permitting, global ocean and sea-ice configuration; it compares B-grid
131    and C-grid dynamic solvers in a regional Arctic configuration; and it presents
132    example results from coupled ocean and sea-ice adjoint-model integrations.
133    
134    \section{Model}
135    \label{sec:model}
136    
137  \subsection{Dynamics}  \subsection{Dynamics}
138  \label{sec:dynamics}  \label{sec:dynamics}
139    
140  The momentum equations of the sea-ice model are standard with  The momentum equation of the sea-ice model is
141  \begin{equation}  \begin{equation}
142    \label{eq:momseaice}    \label{eq:momseaice}
143    m \frac{D\vek{u}}{Dt} = -mf\vek{k}\times\vek{u} + \vtau_{air} +    m \frac{D\vek{u}}{Dt} = -mf\vek{k}\times\vek{u} + \vtau_{air} +
144    \vtau_{ocean} - m \nabla{\phi(0)} + \vek{F},    \vtau_{ocean} - m \nabla{\phi(0)} + \vek{F},
145  \end{equation}  \end{equation}
146  where $\vek{u} = u\vek{i}+v\vek{j}$ is the ice velocity vectory, $m$  where $m=m_{i}+m_{s}$ is the ice and snow mass per unit area;
147  the ice mass per unit area, $f$ the Coriolis parameter, $g$ is the  $\vek{u}=u\vek{i}+v\vek{j}$ is the ice velocity vector;
148  gravity accelation, $\nabla\phi$ is the gradient (tilt) of the sea  $\vek{i}$, $\vek{j}$, and $\vek{k}$ are unit vectors in the $x$, $y$, and $z$
149  surface height potential beneath the ice. $\phi$ is the sum of  directions, respectively;
150  atmpheric pressure $p_{a}$ and loading due to ice and snow  $f$ is the Coriolis parameter;
151  $(m_{i}+m_{s})g$. $\vtau_{air}$ and $\vtau_{ocean}$ are the wind and  $\vtau_{air}$ and $\vtau_{ocean}$ are the wind-ice and ocean-ice stresses,
152  ice-ocean stresses, respectively.  $\vek{F}$ is the interaction force  respectively;
153  and $\vek{i}$, $\vek{j}$, and $\vek{k}$ are the unit vectors in the  $g$ is the gravity accelation;
154  $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions.  Advection of sea-ice momentum is  $\nabla\phi(0)$ is the gradient (or tilt) of the sea surface height;
155  neglected. The wind and ice-ocean stress terms are given by  $\phi(0) = g\eta + p_{a}/\rho_{0}$ is the sea surface height potential
156    in response to ocean dynamics ($g\eta$) and to atmospheric pressure
157    loading ($p_{a}/\rho_{0}$, where $\rho_{0}$ is a reference density);
158    and $\vek{F}=\nabla\cdot\sigma$ is the divergence of the internal ice stress
159    tensor $\sigma_{ij}$.
160    When using the rescaled vertical coordinate system, z$^\ast$, of
161    \citet{cam08}, $\phi(0)$ also includes a term due to snow and ice
162    loading, $mg/\rho_{0}$.
163    Advection of sea-ice momentum is neglected. The wind and ice-ocean stress
164    terms are given by
165  \begin{align*}  \begin{align*}
166    \vtau_{air} =& \rho_{air} |\vek{U}_{air}|R_{air}(\vek{U}_{air}) \\    \vtau_{air}   = & \rho_{air}  C_{air}   |\vek{U}_{air}  -\vek{u}|
167    \vtau_{ocean} =& \rho_{ocean} |\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}|                     R_{air}  (\vek{U}_{air}  -\vek{u}), \\
168      \vtau_{ocean} = & \rho_{ocean}C_{ocean} |\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}|
169                     R_{ocean}(\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}), \\                     R_{ocean}(\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}), \\
170  \end{align*}  \end{align*}
171  where $\vek{U}_{air/ocean}$ are the surface winds of the atmosphere  where $\vek{U}_{air/ocean}$ are the surface winds of the atmosphere
172  and surface currents of the ocean, respectively. $C_{air/ocean}$ are  and surface currents of the ocean, respectively; $C_{air/ocean}$ are
173  air and ocean drag coefficients, $\rho_{air/ocean}$ reference  air and ocean drag coefficients; $\rho_{air/ocean}$ are reference
174  densities, and $R_{air/ocean}$ rotation matrices that act on the  densities; and $R_{air/ocean}$ are rotation matrices that act on the
175  wind/current vectors. $\vek{F} = \nabla\cdot\sigma$ is the divergence  wind/current vectors.
176  of the interal stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}$.  
177    For an isotropic system the stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}$ ($i,j=1,2$) can
178  For an isotropic system this stress tensor can be related to the ice  be related to the ice strain rate and strength by a nonlinear
179  strain rate and strength by a nonlinear viscous-plastic (VP)  viscous-plastic (VP) constitutive law \citep{hibler79, zhang98}:
 constitutive law \citep{hibler79, zhang98}:  
180  \begin{equation}  \begin{equation}
181    \label{eq:vpequation}    \label{eq:vpequation}
182    \sigma_{ij}=2\eta(\dot{\epsilon}_{ij},P)\dot{\epsilon}_{ij}    \sigma_{ij}=2\eta(\dot{\epsilon}_{ij},P)\dot{\epsilon}_{ij}
# Line 174  The bulk viscosities are bounded above b Line 216  The bulk viscosities are bounded above b
216  $\Delta_{\min}=10^{-11}\text{\,s}^{-1}$ (for numerical reasons) and a  $\Delta_{\min}=10^{-11}\text{\,s}^{-1}$ (for numerical reasons) and a
217  maximum $\zeta_{\max} = P_{\max}/\Delta^*$, where  maximum $\zeta_{\max} = P_{\max}/\Delta^*$, where
218  $\Delta^*=(5\times10^{12}/2\times10^4)\text{\,s}^{-1}$. For stress  $\Delta^*=(5\times10^{12}/2\times10^4)\text{\,s}^{-1}$. For stress
219  tensor compuation the replacement pressure $P = 2\,\Delta\zeta$  tensor computation the replacement pressure $P = 2\,\Delta\zeta$
220  \citep{hibler95} is used so that the stress state always lies on the  \citep{hibler95} is used so that the stress state always lies on the
221  elliptic yield curve by definition.  elliptic yield curve by definition.
222    
# Line 182  In the so-called truncated ellipse metho Line 224  In the so-called truncated ellipse metho
224  is capped to suppress any tensile stress \citep{hibler97, geiger98}:  is capped to suppress any tensile stress \citep{hibler97, geiger98}:
225  \begin{equation}  \begin{equation}
226    \label{eq:etatem}    \label{eq:etatem}
227    \eta = \min(\frac{\zeta}{e^2}    \eta = \min\left(\frac{\zeta}{e^2},
228    \frac{\frac{P}{2}-\zeta(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})}    \frac{\frac{P}{2}-\zeta(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})}
229    {\sqrt{(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})^2    {\sqrt{(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})^2
230        +4\dot{\epsilon}_{12}^2}}        +4\dot{\epsilon}_{12}^2}}\right).
231  \end{equation}  \end{equation}
232    
233  In the current implementation, the VP-model is integrated with the  In the current implementation, the VP-model is integrated with the
234  semi-implicit line successive over relaxation (LSOR)-solver of  semi-implicit line successive over relaxation (LSOR)-solver of
235  \citet{zhang98}, which allows for long time steps that, in our case,  \citet{zhang98}, which allows for long time steps that, in our case,
236  is limited by the explicit treatment of the Coriolis term. The  are limited by the explicit treatment of the Coriolis term. The
237  explicit treatment of the Coriolis term does not represent a severe  explicit treatment of the Coriolis term does not represent a severe
238  limitation because it restricts the time step to approximately the  limitation because it restricts the time step to approximately the
239  same length as in the ocean model where the Coriolis term is also  same length as in the ocean model where the Coriolis term is also
240  treated explicitly.  treated explicitly.
241    
242  \citet{hunke97}'s introduced an elastic contribution to the strain  \citet{hunke97}'s introduced an elastic contribution to the strain
243  rate elatic-viscous-plastic in order to regularize  rate in order to regularize Eq.\refeq{vpequation} in such a way that
244  Eq.\refeq{vpequation} in such a way that the resulting  the resulting elastic-viscous-plastic (EVP) and VP models are
245  elatic-viscous-plastic (EVP) and VP models are identical at steady  identical at steady state,
 state,  
246  \begin{equation}  \begin{equation}
247    \label{eq:evpequation}    \label{eq:evpequation}
248    \frac{1}{E}\frac{\partial\sigma_{ij}}{\partial{t}} +    \frac{1}{E}\frac{\partial\sigma_{ij}}{\partial{t}} +
# Line 226  $\sigma_{12}$. Introducing the divergenc Line 267  $\sigma_{12}$. Introducing the divergenc
267  \dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$, and the horizontal tension  \dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$, and the horizontal tension
268  and shearing strain rates, $D_T =  and shearing strain rates, $D_T =
269  \dot{\epsilon}_{11}-\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$ and $D_S =  \dot{\epsilon}_{11}-\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$ and $D_S =
270  2\dot{\epsilon}_{12}$, respectively and using the above abbreviations,  2\dot{\epsilon}_{12}$, respectively, and using the above abbreviations,
271  the equations can be written as:  the equations can be written as:
272  \begin{align}  \begin{align}
273    \label{eq:evpstresstensor1}    \label{eq:evpstresstensor1}
# Line 248  $E_{0} = \frac{1}{3}$. Line 289  $E_{0} = \frac{1}{3}$.
289  For details of the spatial discretization, the reader is referred to  For details of the spatial discretization, the reader is referred to
290  \citet{zhang98, zhang03}. Our discretization differs only (but  \citet{zhang98, zhang03}. Our discretization differs only (but
291  importantly) in the underlying grid, namely the Arakawa C-grid, but is  importantly) in the underlying grid, namely the Arakawa C-grid, but is
292  otherwise straightforward. The EVP model in particular is discretized  otherwise straightforward. The EVP model, in particular, is discretized
293  naturally on the C-grid with $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$ on the  naturally on the C-grid with $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$ on the
294  center points and $\sigma_{12}$ on the corner (or vorticity) points of  center points and $\sigma_{12}$ on the corner (or vorticity) points of
295  the grid. With this choice all derivatives are discretized as central  the grid. With this choice all derivatives are discretized as central
# Line 256  differences and averaging is only involv Line 297  differences and averaging is only involv
297  $P$ at vorticity points.  $P$ at vorticity points.
298    
299  For a general curvilinear grid, one needs in principle to take metric  For a general curvilinear grid, one needs in principle to take metric
300  terms into account that arise in the transformation a curvilinear grid  terms into account that arise in the transformation of a curvilinear
301  on the sphere. However, for now we can neglect these metric terms  grid on the sphere. For now, however, we can neglect these metric
302  because they are very small on the cubed sphere grids used in this  terms because they are very small on the \ml{[modify following
303  paper; in particular, only near the edges of the cubed sphere grid, we    section3:] cubed sphere grids used in this paper; in particular,
304  expect them to be non-zero, but these edges are at approximately  only near the edges of the cubed sphere grid, we expect them to be
305  35\degS\ or 35\degN\ which are never covered by sea-ice in our  non-zero, but these edges are at approximately 35\degS\ or 35\degN\
306  simulations.  Everywhere else the coordinate system is locally nearly  which are never covered by sea-ice in our simulations.  Everywhere
307  cartesian.  However, for last-glacial-maximum or snowball-earth-like  else the coordinate system is locally nearly cartesian.}  However, for
308  simulations the question of metric terms needs to be reconsidered.  last-glacial-maximum or snowball-earth-like simulations the question
309  Either, one includes these terms as in \citet{zhang03}, or one finds a  of metric terms needs to be reconsidered.  Either, one includes these
310  vector-invariant formulation fo the sea-ice internal stress term that  terms as in \citet{zhang03}, or one finds a vector-invariant
311  does not require any metric terms, as it is done in the ocean dynamics  formulation for the sea-ice internal stress term that does not require
312  of the MITgcm \citep{adcroft04:_cubed_sphere}.  any metric terms, as it is done in the ocean dynamics of the MITgcm
313    \citep{adcroft04:_cubed_sphere}.
314    
315    Lateral boundary conditions are naturally ``no-slip'' for B-grids, as
316    the tangential velocities points lie on the boundary. For C-grids, the
317    lateral boundary condition for tangential velocities is realized via
318    ``ghost points'', allowing alternatively no-slip or free-slip
319    conditions. In ocean models free-slip boundary conditions in
320    conjunction with piecewise-constant (``castellated'') coastlines have
321    been shown to reduce in effect to no-slip boundary conditions
322    \citep{adcroft98:_slippery_coast}; for sea-ice models the effects of
323    lateral boundary conditions have not yet been studied.
324    
325  Moving sea ice exerts a stress on the ocean which is the opposite of  Moving sea ice exerts a stress on the ocean which is the opposite of
326  the stress $\vtau_{ocean}$ in Eq.\refeq{momseaice}. This stess is  the stress $\vtau_{ocean}$ in Eq.\refeq{momseaice}. This stess is
# Line 287  velocity and the ice velocity leading to Line 339  velocity and the ice velocity leading to
339  temperature and salinity are different from the oceanic variables.  temperature and salinity are different from the oceanic variables.
340    
341  Sea ice distributions are characterized by sharp gradients and edges.  Sea ice distributions are characterized by sharp gradients and edges.
342  For this reason, we employ a positive 3rd-order advection scheme  For this reason, we employ positive, multidimensional 2nd and 3rd-order
343  \citep{hundsdorfer94} for the thermodynamic variables discussed in the  advection scheme with flux limiter \citep{roe85, hundsdorfer94} for the
344  next section.  thermodynamic variables discussed in the next section.
345    
346  \subparagraph{boundary conditions: no-slip, free-slip, half-slip}  \subparagraph{boundary conditions: no-slip, free-slip, half-slip}
347    
# Line 326  content by means of enthalphy conservati Line 378  content by means of enthalphy conservati
378  addition to ice-thickness and compactness (fractional area) additional  addition to ice-thickness and compactness (fractional area) additional
379  state variables to be advected by ice velocities, namely enthalphy of  state variables to be advected by ice velocities, namely enthalphy of
380  the two ice layers and the thickness of the overlying snow layer.  the two ice layers and the thickness of the overlying snow layer.
381    \ml{[Jean-Michel, your turf: ]Care must be taken in advecting these
382      quantities in order to ensure conservation of enthalphy. Currently
383      this can only be accomplished with a 2nd-order advection scheme with
384      flux limiter \citep{roe85}.}
385    
386    
387  \subsection{C-grid}  \subsection{C-grid}

Legend:
Removed from v.1.12  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.15

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22