1 |
\section{Introduction} |
\section{Introduction} |
2 |
\label{sec:intro} |
\label{sec:intro} |
3 |
|
|
4 |
In the past five years, oceanographic state estimation has matured to the |
Ocean state estimation has matured to the extent that estimates of the |
5 |
extent that estimates of the evolving circulation of the ocean constrained by |
time-evolving ocean circulation, constrained by a multitude of in-situ and |
6 |
in-situ and remotely sensed global observations are now routinely available |
remotely sensed global observations, are now routinely available and being |
7 |
and being applied to myriad scientific problems \citep{wun07}. Ocean state |
applied to myriad scientific problems \citep[and references therein]{wun07}. |
8 |
estimation is the process of fitting an ocean general circulation model (GCM) |
As formulated by the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of |
9 |
to a multitude of observations. As formulated by the consortium Estimating |
the Ocean (ECCO), least-squares methods are used to fit the Massachusetts |
10 |
the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO), an automatic differentiation |
Institute of Technology general circulation model \citep[MITgcm;][]{mar97a} to |
11 |
tool is used to calculate the so-called adjoint code of a GCM. The method of |
the available data. Much has been achieved but the existing ECCO estimates |
12 |
Lagrange multipliers is then used to render the problem one of unconstrained |
lack interactive sea ice. This limits the ability to utilize satellite data |
13 |
least-squares minimization. Although much has been achieved, the existing |
constraints over sea-ice covered regions. This also limits the usefulness of |
14 |
ECCO estimates lack intercative sea ice. This limits the ability of ECCO to |
the derived ocean state estimates for describing and studying polar-subpolar |
15 |
utilize satellite data constraints over sea-ice covered regions. This also |
interactions. In this paper we describe a dynamic and thermodynamic sea ice |
16 |
limits the usefulness of the ECCO ocean state estimates for describing and |
model that has been coupled to the MITgcm and that has been modified to permit |
17 |
studying polar-subpolar interactions. |
efficient and accurate forward and adjoint integration. The forward model |
18 |
|
borrows many components from current-generation sea ice models but these |
19 |
The availability of an adjoint model as a powerful research tool |
components are reformulated on an Arakawa C grid in order to match the MITgcm |
20 |
complementary to an ocean model was a major design requirement early |
oceanic grid and they are modified in many ways to permit efficient and |
21 |
on in the development of the MIT general circulation model (MITgcm) |
accurate automatic differentiation. To illustrate how the use of the forward and |
22 |
[Marshall et al. 1997a, Marotzke et al. 1999, Adcroft et al. 2002]. It |
adjoint parts together can help give insight into discrete model dynamics, we |
23 |
was recognized that the adjoint model permitted computing the |
study the interaction between littoral regions in the Canadian Arctic |
24 |
gradients of various scalar-valued model diagnostics, norms or, |
Archipelago and sea-ice model dynamics. |
25 |
generally, objective functions with respect to external or independent |
|
26 |
parameters very efficiently. The information associtated with these |
Because early numerical ocean models were formulated on the Arakawa-B grid and |
27 |
gradients is useful in at least two major contexts. First, for state |
because of the easier treatment of the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice |
28 |
estimation problems, the objective function is the sum of squared |
models are discretized on Arakawa-B grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99, |
29 |
differences between observations and model results weighted by the |
kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}. As model resolution increases, more and |
30 |
inverse error covariances. The gradient of such an objective function |
more ocean and sea ice models are being formulated on the Arakawa-C grid |
31 |
can be used to reduce this measure of model-data misfit to find the |
\citep[e.g.,][]{mar97a,ip91,tremblay97,lemieux09}. |
32 |
optimal model solution in a least-squares sense. Second, the |
%\ml{[there is also MI-IM, but I only found this as a reference: |
33 |
objective function can be a key oceanographic quantity such as |
% \url{http://retro.met.no/english/r_and_d_activities/method/num_mod/MI-IM-Documentation.pdf}]} |
34 |
meridional heat or volume transport, ocean heat content or mean |
From the perspective of coupling a sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the |
35 |
surface temperature index. In this case the gradient provides a |
exchange of fluxes of heat and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid |
36 |
complete set of sensitivities of this quantity to all independent |
sea-ice model \citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is |
37 |
variables simultaneously. These sensitivities can be used to address |
defined at velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a |
38 |
the cause of, say, changing net transports accurately. |
B-grid sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly associated |
39 |
|
with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise and may contribute to |
40 |
References to existing sea-ice adjoint models, explaining that they are either |
stabilizing the solution. On the other hand, by smoothing the stress signals |
41 |
for simplified configurations, for ice-only studies, or for short-duration |
are damped which could lead to reduced variability of the system. By choosing |
42 |
studies to motivate the present work. |
a C-grid for the sea-ice model, we circumvent this difficulty altogether and |
43 |
|
render the stress coupling as consistent as the buoyancy coupling. |
|
Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of |
|
|
treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are |
|
|
discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99, |
|
|
kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}\ml{, although there are sea ice only |
|
|
models diretized on a C-grid \citep[e.g.,][]{tremblay97, |
|
|
lemieux09}}. From the perspective of coupling a sea ice-model to a |
|
|
C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat and fresh-water |
|
|
pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model |
|
|
\citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at |
|
|
velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a B-grid |
|
|
sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly |
|
|
associated with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise and may |
|
|
contribute to stabilizing the solution. On the other hand, by |
|
|
smoothing the stress signals are damped which could lead to reduced |
|
|
variability of the system. By choosing a C-grid for the sea-ice model, |
|
|
we circumvent this difficulty altogether and render the stress |
|
|
coupling as consistent as the buoyancy coupling. |
|
44 |
|
|
45 |
A further advantage of the C-grid formulation is apparent in narrow |
A further advantage of the C-grid formulation is apparent in narrow |
46 |
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 |
47 |
flux allowed for a B-grid (with no-slip lateral boundary counditions), |
flux allowed for a B-grid (with no-slip lateral boundary counditions), |
48 |
and models have used topographies artificially widened straits to |
and models have used topographies with artificially widened straits to |
49 |
avoid this problem \citep{holloway07}. The C-grid formulation on the |
avoid this problem \citep{holloway07}. The C-grid formulation on the |
50 |
other hand allows a flux of sea-ice through narrow passages if |
other hand allows a flux of sea-ice through narrow passages if |
51 |
free-slip along the boundaries is allowed. We demonstrate this effect |
free-slip along the boundaries is allowed. We demonstrate this effect |
52 |
in the Candian archipelago. |
in the Candian Arctic Archipelago (CAA). |
53 |
|
|
54 |
Talk about problems that make the sea-ice-ocean code very sensitive and |
Talk about problems that make the sea-ice-ocean code very sensitive and |
55 |
changes in the code that reduce these sensitivities. |
changes in the code that reduce these sensitivities. |
56 |
|
|
57 |
This paper describes the MITgcm sea ice |
This paper describes the MITgcm sea ice model; it presents example |
58 |
model; it presents example Arctic and Antarctic results from a realistic, |
Arctic and Antarctic results from a realistic, eddy-permitting, global |
59 |
eddy-permitting, global ocean and sea-ice configuration; it compares B-grid |
ocean and sea-ice configuration; it compares B-grid and C-grid dynamic |
60 |
and C-grid dynamic solvers in a regional Arctic configuration; and it presents |
solvers and investigates further aspects of sea ice modeling in a |
61 |
example results from coupled ocean and sea-ice adjoint-model integrations. |
regional Arctic configuration; and it presents example results from |
62 |
|
coupled ocean and sea-ice adjoint-model integrations. |
63 |
|
|
64 |
%%% Local Variables: |
%%% Local Variables: |
65 |
%%% mode: latex |
%%% mode: latex |