| 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 |
| 5 |
|
extent that estimates of the evolving circulation of the ocean constrained by |
| 6 |
|
in-situ and remotely sensed global observations are now routinely available |
| 7 |
|
and being applied to myriad scientific problems \citep{wun07}. Ocean state |
| 8 |
|
estimation is the process of fitting an ocean general circulation model (GCM) |
| 9 |
|
to a multitude of observations. As formulated by the consortium Estimating |
| 10 |
|
the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO), an automatic differentiation |
| 11 |
|
tool is used to calculate the so-called adjoint code of a GCM. The method of |
| 12 |
|
Lagrange multipliers is then used to render the problem one of unconstrained |
| 13 |
|
least-squares minimization. Although much has been achieved, the existing |
| 14 |
|
ECCO estimates lack intercative sea ice. This limits the ability of ECCO to |
| 15 |
|
utilize satellite data constraints over sea-ice covered regions. This also |
| 16 |
|
limits the usefulness of the ECCO ocean state estimates for describing and |
| 17 |
|
studying polar-subpolar interactions. |
| 18 |
|
|
| 19 |
The availability of an adjoint model as a powerful research tool |
The availability of an adjoint model as a powerful research tool |
| 20 |
complementary to an ocean model was a major design requirement early |
complementary to an ocean model was a major design requirement early |
| 21 |
on in the development of the MIT general circulation model (MITgcm) |
on in the development of the MIT general circulation model (MITgcm) |
| 44 |
Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of |
Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of |
| 45 |
treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are |
treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are |
| 46 |
discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99, |
discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99, |
| 47 |
kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}. From the perspective of coupling a |
kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}\ml{, although there are sea ice only |
| 48 |
sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat |
models diretized on a C-grid \citep[e.g.,][]{ip91, tremblay97, |
| 49 |
and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model |
lemieux09}}. From the perspective of coupling a sea ice-model to a |
| 50 |
|
C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat and fresh-water |
| 51 |
|
pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model |
| 52 |
\citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at |
\citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at |
| 53 |
velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a B-grid |
velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a B-grid |
| 54 |
sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly |
sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly |
| 76 |
eddy-permitting, global ocean and sea-ice configuration; it compares B-grid |
eddy-permitting, global ocean and sea-ice configuration; it compares B-grid |
| 77 |
and C-grid dynamic solvers in a regional Arctic configuration; and it presents |
and C-grid dynamic solvers in a regional Arctic configuration; and it presents |
| 78 |
example results from coupled ocean and sea-ice adjoint-model integrations. |
example results from coupled ocean and sea-ice adjoint-model integrations. |
| 79 |
|
|
| 80 |
|
%%% Local Variables: |
| 81 |
|
%%% mode: latex |
| 82 |
|
%%% TeX-master: "ceaice" |
| 83 |
|
%%% End: |
Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log
| 
Revision Graph
| 
Patch