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

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 two different model versions at different grid resolutions and using two different atmospheric forcing data sets. Model version NorESM-OC1 corresponds to the version that is included in the fully coupled model NorESM-ME1, 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 prescribing a linear increase of 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 in 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 CO2 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

Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2)

The ocean carbon cycle is a key player in the climate system through its role in regulating the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and other processes that alter the Earth's radiative balance. In the second version of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2), the oceanic carbon cycle component has gone through numerous updates that include, amongst others, improved process representations, increased interactions with the atmosphere, and additional new tracers. Oceanic dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is now prognostically simulated and its fluxes are directly coupled with the atmospheric component, leading to a direct feedback to the climate. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and additional riverine inputs of other biogeochemical tracers have recently been included in the model. The implementation of new tracers such as “preformed” and “natural” tracers enables a separation of physical from biogeochemical drivers as well as of internal from external forcings and hence a better diagnostic of the simulated biogeochemical variability. Carbon isotope tracers have been implemented and will be relevant for studying long-term past climate changes. Here, we describe these new model implementations and present an evaluation of the model's performance in simulating the observed climatological states of water-column biogeochemistry and in simulating transient evolution over the historical period. Compared to its predecessor NorESM1, the new model's performance has improved considerably in many aspects. In the interior, the observed spatial patterns of nutrients, oxygen, and carbon chemistry are better reproduced, reducing the overall model biases. A new set of ecosystem parameters and improved mixed layer dynamics improve the representation of upper-ocean processes (biological production and air–sea CO2 fluxes) at seasonal timescale. Transient warming and air–sea CO2 fluxes over the historical period are also in good agreement with observation-based estimates. NorESM2 participates in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) through DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima) and several endorsed MIP simulations.publishedVersio

NorCPM1 and its contribution to CMIP6 DCPP

The Norwegian Climate Prediction Model version 1 (NorCPM1) is a new research tool for performing climate reanalyses and seasonal-to-decadal climate predictions. It combines the Norwegian Earth System Model version 1 (NorESM1) – which features interactive aerosol-cloud schemes and an isopycnic-coordinate ocean component with biogeochemistry – with anomaly assimilation of SST and T/S-profile observations using the Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF).publishedVersio

An assessment of the Arctic Ocean in a suite of interannual CORE-II simulations. Part III: Hydrography and fluxes

In this paper we compare the simulated Arctic Ocean in 15 global ocean–sea ice models in the framework of the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments, phase II (CORE-II). Most of these models are the ocean and sea-ice components of the coupled climate models used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) experiments. We mainly focus on the hydrography of the Arctic interior, the state of Atlantic Water layer and heat and volume transports at the gateways of the Davis Strait, the Bering Strait, the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea Opening. We found that there is a large spread in temperature in the Arctic Ocean between the models, and generally large differences compared to the observed temperature at intermediate depths. Warm bias models have a strong temperature anomaly of inflow of the Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait. Another process that is not represented accurately in the CORE-II models is the formation of cold and dense water, originating on the eastern shelves. In the cold bias models, excessive cold water forms in the Barents Sea and spreads into the Arctic Ocean through the St. Anna Through. There is a large spread in the simulated mean heat and volume transports through the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea Opening. The models agree more on the decadal variability, to a large degree dictated by the common atmospheric forcing. We conclude that the CORE-II model study helps us to understand the crucial biases in the Arctic Ocean. The current coarse resolution state-of-the-art ocean models need to be improved in accurate representation of the Atlantic Water inflow into the Arctic and density currents coming from the shelves

Seasonal-to-decadal predictions with the ensemble Kalman filter and the Norwegian Earth System Model: a twin experiment

Here, we firstly demonstrate the potential of an advanced flow dependent data assimilation method for performing seasonal-to-decadal prediction and secondly, reassess the use of sea surface temperature (SST) for initialisation of these forecasts. We use the Norwegian Climate Prediction Model (NorCPM), which is based on the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM) and uses the deterministic ensemble Kalman filter to assimilate observations. NorESM is a fully coupled system based on the Community Earth System Model version 1, which includes an ocean, an atmosphere, a sea ice and a land model. A numerically efficient coarse resolution version of NorESM is used. We employ a twin experiment methodology to provide an upper estimate of predictability in our model framework (i.e. without considering model bias) of NorCPM that assimilates synthetic monthly SST data (EnKF-SST). The accuracy of EnKF-SST is compared to an unconstrained ensemble run (FREE) and ensemble predictions made with near perfect (i.e. microscopic SST perturbation) initial conditions (PERFECT). We perform 10 cycles, each consisting of a 10-yr assimilation phase, followed by a 10-yr prediction. The results indicate that EnKF-SST improves sea level, ice concentration, 2 m atmospheric temperature, precipitation and 3-D hydrography compared to FREE. Improvements for the hydrography are largest near the surface and are retained for longer periods at depth. Benefits in salinity are retained for longer periods compared to temperature. Near-surface improvements are largest in the tropics, while improvements at intermediate depths are found in regions of large-scale currents, regions of deep convection, and at the Mediterranean Sea outflow. However, the benefits are often small compared to PERFECT, in particular, at depth suggesting that more observations should be assimilated in addition to SST. The EnKF-SST system is also tested for standard ocean circulation indices and demonstrates decadal predictability for Atlantic overturning and sub-polar gyre circulations, and heat content in the Nordic Seas. The system beats persistence forecast and shows skill for heat content in the Nordic Seas that is close to PERFECT

Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP-2)

We present a new framework for global ocean- sea-ice model simulations based on phase 2 of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP-2), making use of the surface dataset based on the Japanese 55-year atmospheric reanalysis for driving ocean-sea-ice models (JRA55-do).We motivate the use of OMIP-2 over the framework for the first phase of OMIP (OMIP-1), previously referred to as the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (COREs), via the evaluation of OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations from 11 state-of-the-science global ocean-sea-ice models. In the present evaluation, multi-model ensemble means and spreads are calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations and overall performance is assessed considering metrics commonly used by ocean modelers. Both OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 multi-model ensemble ranges capture observations in more than 80% of the time and region for most metrics, with the multi-model ensemble spread greatly exceeding the difference between the means of the two datasets. Many features, including some climatologically relevant ocean circulation indices, are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP- 2 simulations, and yet we could also identify key qualitative improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP- 2. For example, the sea surface temperatures of the OMIP- 2 simulations reproduce the observed global warming during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the warming slowdown in the 2000s and the more recent accelerated warming, which were absent in OMIP-1, noting that the last feature is part of the design of OMIP-2 because OMIP-1 forcing stopped in 2009. A negative bias in the sea-ice concentration in summer of both hemispheres in OMIP-1 is significantly reduced in OMIP-2. The overall reproducibility of both seasonal and interannual variations in sea surface temperature and sea surface height (dynamic sea level) is improved in OMIP-2. These improvements represent a new capability of the OMIP-2 framework for evaluating processlevel responses using simulation results. Regarding the sensitivity of individual models to the change in forcing, the models show well-ordered responses for the metrics that are directly forced, while they show less organized responses for those that require complex model adjustments. Many of the remaining common model biases may be attributed either to errors in representing important processes in ocean-sea-ice models, some of which are expected to be reduced by using finer horizontal and/or vertical resolutions, or to shared biases and limitations in the atmospheric forcing. In particular, further efforts are warranted to resolve remaining issues in OMIP-2 such as the warm bias in the upper layer, the mismatch between the observed and simulated variability of heat content and thermosteric sea level before 1990s, and the erroneous representation of deep and bottom water formations and circulations. We suggest that such problems can be resolved through collaboration between those developing models (including parameterizations) and forcing datasets. Overall, the present assessment justifies our recommendation that future model development and analysis studies use the OMIP-2 framework

North Atlantic simulations in Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part I: Mean states

Simulation characteristics from eighteen global ocean–sea-ice coupled models are presented with a focus on the mean Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and other related fields in the North Atlantic. These experiments use inter-annually varying atmospheric forcing data sets for the 60-year period from 1948 to 2007 and are performed as contributions to the second phase of the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). The protocol for conducting such CORE-II experiments is summarized. Despite using the same atmospheric forcing, the solutions show significant differences. As most models also differ from available observations, biases in the Labrador Sea region in upper-ocean potential temperature and salinity distributions, mixed layer depths, and sea-ice cover are identified as contributors to differences in AMOC. These differences in the solutions do not suggest an obvious grouping of the models based on their ocean model lineage, their vertical coordinate representations, or surface salinity restoring strengths. Thus, the solution differences among the models are attributed primarily to use of different subgrid scale parameterizations and parameter choices as well as to differences in vertical and horizontal grid resolutions in the ocean models. Use of a wide variety of sea-ice models with diverse snow and sea-ice albedo treatments also contributes to these differences. Based on the diagnostics considered, the majority of the models appear suitable for use in studies involving the North Atlantic, but some models require dedicated development effort

Evaluation of global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on the experimental protocols of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (OMIP-2)

We present a new framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on phase 2 of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP-2), making use of the surface dataset based on the Japanese 55-year atmospheric reanalysis for driving ocean–sea-ice models (JRA55-do). We motivate the use of OMIP-2 over the framework for the first phase of OMIP (OMIP-1), previously referred to as the Coordinated Ocean–ice Reference Experiments (COREs), via the evaluation of OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations from 11 state-of-the-science global ocean–sea-ice models. In the present evaluation, multi-model ensemble means and spreads are calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations and overall performance is assessed considering metrics commonly used by ocean modelers. Both OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 multi-model ensemble ranges capture observations in more than 80 % of the time and region for most metrics, with the multi-model ensemble spread greatly exceeding the difference between the means of the two datasets. Many features, including some climatologically relevant ocean circulation indices, are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations, and yet we could also identify key qualitative improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP-2. For example, the sea surface temperatures of the OMIP-2 simulations reproduce the observed global warming during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the warming slowdown in the 2000s and the more recent accelerated warming, which were absent in OMIP-1, noting that the last feature is part of the design of OMIP-2 because OMIP-1 forcing stopped in 2009. A negative bias in the sea-ice concentration in summer of both hemispheres in OMIP-1 is significantly reduced in OMIP-2. The overall reproducibility of both seasonal and interannual variations in sea surface temperature and sea surface height (dynamic sea level) is improved in OMIP-2. These improvements represent a new capability of the OMIP-2 framework for evaluating process-level responses using simulation results. Regarding the sensitivity of individual models to the change in forcing, the models show well-ordered responses for the metrics that are directly forced, while they show less organized responses for those that require complex model adjustments. Many of the remaining common model biases may be attributed either to errors in representing important processes in ocean–sea-ice models, some of which are expected to be reduced by using finer horizontal and/or vertical resolutions, or to shared biases and limitations in the atmospheric forcing. In particular, further efforts are warranted to resolve remaining issues in OMIP-2 such as the warm bias in the upper layer, the mismatch between the observed and simulated variability of heat content and thermosteric sea level before 1990s, and the erroneous representation of deep and bottom water formations and circulations. We suggest that such problems can be resolved through collaboration between those developing models (including parameterizations) and forcing datasets. Overall, the present assessment justifies our recommendation that future model development and analysis studies use the OMIP-2 framework.This research has been supported by the Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models (TOUGOU) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan (grant nos. JPMXD0717935457 and JPMXD0717935561), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) (grant no. 274762653), the Helmholtz Climate Initiative REKLIM (Regional Climate Change) and European Union's Horizon 2020 Research & Innovation program (grant nos. 727862 and 800154), the Research Council of Norway (EVA (grant no. 229771) and INES (grant no. 270061)), the US National Science Foundation (NSF) (grant no. 1852977), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41931183 and 41976026), NOAA's Science Collaboration Program and administered by UCAR's Cooperative Programs for the Advancement of Earth System Science (CPAESS) (grant nos. NA16NWS4620043 and NA18NWS4620043B), and NOAA (grant no. NA18OAR4320123).Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version