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

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

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

revision 1.1 by dimitri, Tue Feb 26 19:27:26 2008 UTC revision 1.9 by dimitri, Thu Aug 14 16:12:41 2008 UTC
# Line 1  Line 1 
1  \section{Introduction}  \section{Introduction}
2  \label{sec:intro}  \label{sec:intro}
3    
4  The availability of an adjoint model as a powerful research tool  Ocean state estimation has matured to the extent that estimates of the
5  complementary to an ocean model was a major design requirement early  time-evolving ocean circulation, constrained by a multitude of in-situ and
6  on in the development of the MIT general circulation model (MITgcm)  remotely sensed global observations, are now routinely available and being
7  [Marshall et al. 1997a, Marotzke et al. 1999, Adcroft et al. 2002]. It  applied to myriad scientific problems \citep[and references therein]{wun07}.
8  was recognized that the adjoint model permitted computing the  As formulated by the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of
9  gradients of various scalar-valued model diagnostics, norms or,  the Ocean (ECCO), least-squares methods are used to fit the Massachusetts
10  generally, objective functions with respect to external or independent  Institute of Technology general circulation model \citep[MITgcm;][]{mar97a} to
11  parameters very efficiently. The information associtated with these  the available data.  Much has been achieved but the existing ECCO estimates
12  gradients is useful in at least two major contexts. First, for state  lack interactive sea ice.  This limits the ability to utilize satellite data
13  estimation problems, the objective function is the sum of squared  constraints over sea-ice covered regions.  This also limits the usefulness of
14  differences between observations and model results weighted by the  the derived ocean state estimates for describing and studying polar-subpolar
15  inverse error covariances. The gradient of such an objective function  interactions.  In this paper we describe a dynamic and thermodynamic sea ice
16  can be used to reduce this measure of model-data misfit to find the  model that has been coupled to the MITgcm and that has been modified to permit
17  optimal model solution in a least-squares sense.  Second, the  efficient and accurate forward and adjoint integration.  The forward model
18  objective function can be a key oceanographic quantity such as  borrows many components from current-generation sea ice models but these
19  meridional heat or volume transport, ocean heat content or mean  components are reformulated on an Arakawa C grid in order to match the MITgcm
20  surface temperature index. In this case the gradient provides a  oceanic grid and they are modified in many ways to permit efficient and
21  complete set of sensitivities of this quantity to all independent  accurate automatic differentiation.  To illustrate how the use of the forward and
22  variables simultaneously. These sensitivities can be used to address  adjoint parts together can help give insight into discrete model dynamics, we
23  the cause of, say, changing net transports accurately.  study the interaction between littoral regions in the Canadian Arctic
24    Archipelago and sea-ice model dynamics.
25  References to existing sea-ice adjoint models, explaining that they are either  
26  for simplified configurations, for ice-only studies, or for short-duration  Because early numerical ocean models were formulated on the Arakawa-B grid and
27  studies to motivate the present work.  because of the easier treatment of the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice
28    models are discretized on Arakawa-B grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99,
29  Traditionally, probably for historical reasons and the ease of    kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}.  As model resolution increases, more and
30  treating the Coriolis term, most standard sea-ice models are  more ocean and sea ice models are being formulated on the Arakawa-C grid
31  discretized on Arakawa-B-grids \citep[e.g.,][]{hibler79, harder99,  \citep[e.g.,][]{mar97a,ip91,tremblay97,lemieux09}.
32    kreyscher00, zhang98, hunke97}. From the perspective of coupling a  %\ml{[there is also MI-IM, but I only found this as a reference:
33  sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the exchange of fluxes of heat  %  \url{http://retro.met.no/english/r_and_d_activities/method/num_mod/MI-IM-Documentation.pdf}]}
34  and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid sea-ice model  From the perspective of coupling a sea ice-model to a C-grid ocean model, the
35  \citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}. However, surface stress is defined at  exchange of fluxes of heat and fresh-water pose no difficulty for a B-grid
36  velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a B-grid  sea-ice model \citep[e.g.,][]{timmermann02a}.  However, surface stress is
37  sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly  defined at velocities points and thus needs to be interpolated between a
38  associated with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise and may  B-grid sea-ice model and a C-grid ocean model. Smoothing implicitly associated
39  contribute to stabilizing the solution. On the other hand, by  with this interpolation may mask grid scale noise and may contribute to
40  smoothing the stress signals are damped which could lead to reduced  stabilizing the solution.  On the other hand, by smoothing the stress signals
41  variability of the system. By choosing a C-grid for the sea-ice model,  are damped which could lead to reduced variability of the system. By choosing
42  we circumvent this difficulty altogether and render the stress  a C-grid for the sea-ice model, we circumvent this difficulty altogether and
43  coupling as consistent as the buoyancy coupling.  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:
65    %%% mode: latex
66    %%% TeX-master: "ceaice"
67    %%% End:
Legend:
Removed from v.1.1  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.9
  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22