The Ocean Reanalysis Intercomparison project (ORA-IP)

Uncertainty in ocean analysis methods and deficiencies in the observing system are major obstacles for the reliable reconstruction of the past ocean climate. The variety of existing ocean reanalyses is exploited in a multi-reanalysis ensemble to improve the ocean state estimation and to gauge uncertainty levels. The ensemble-based analysis of signal-to-noise ratio allows the identification of ocean characteristics for which the estimation is robust (such as tropical mixed-layer-depth, upper ocean heat content), and where large uncertainty exists (deep ocean, Southern Ocean, sea ice thickness, salinity), providing guidance for future enhancement of the observing and data assimilation systems.

Intercomparison of the Arctic sea ice cover in global ocean–sea ice reanalyses from the ORA-IP project

Ocean–sea ice reanalyses are crucial for assessing the variability and recent trends in the Arctic sea ice cover. This is especially true for sea ice volume, as long-term and large scale sea ice thickness observations are inexistent. Results from the Ocean ReAnalyses Intercomparison Project (ORA-IP) are presented, with a focus on Arctic sea ice fields reconstructed by state-of-the-art global ocean reanalyses. Differences between the various reanalyses are explored in terms of the effects of data assimilation, model physics and atmospheric forcing on properties of the sea ice cover, including concentration, thickness, velocity and snow. Amongst the 14 reanalyses studied here, 9 assimilate sea ice concentration, and none assimilate sea ice thickness data. The comparison reveals an overall agreement in the reconstructed concentration fields, mainly because of the constraints in surface temperature imposed by direct assimilation of ocean observations, prescribed or assimilated atmospheric forcing and assimilation of sea ice concentration. However, some spread still exists amongst the reanalyses, due to a variety of factors. In particular, a large spread in sea ice thickness is found within the ensemble of reanalyses, partially caused by the biases inherited from their sea ice model components. Biases are also affected by the assimilation of sea ice concentration and the treatment of sea ice thickness in the data assimilation process. An important outcome of this study is that the spatial distribution of ice volume varies widely between products, with no reanalysis standing out as clearly superior as compared to altimetry estimates. The ice thickness from systems without assimilation of sea ice concentration is not worse than that from systems constrained with sea ice observations. An evaluation of the sea ice velocity fields reveals that ice drifts too fast in most systems. As an ensemble, the ORA-IP reanalyses capture trends in Arctic sea ice area and extent relatively well. However, the ensemble can not be used to get a robust estimate of recent trends in the Arctic sea ice volume. Biases in the reanalyses certainly impact the simulated air–sea fluxes in the polar regions, and questions the suitability of current sea ice reanalyses to initialize seasonal forecasts.

Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation. 2: Comparison over non-uniform surface conditions

As part of an international intercomparison project, the weak temperature gradient (WTG) and damped gravity wave (DGW) methods are used to parameterize large-scale dynamics in a set of cloud-resolving models (CRMs) and single column models (SCMs). The WTG or DGW method is implemented using a configuration that couples a model to a reference state defined with profiles obtained from the same model in radiative-convective equilibrium. We investigated the sensitivity of each model to changes in SST, given a fixed reference state. We performed a systematic comparison of the WTG and DGW methods in different models, and a systematic comparison of the behavior of those models using the WTG method and the DGW method. The sensitivity to the SST depends on both the large-scale parameterization method and the choice of the cloud model. In general, SCMs display a wider range of behaviors than CRMs. All CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show an increase of precipitation with SST, while SCMs show sensitivities which are not always monotonic. CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show a similar relationship between mean precipitation rate and column-relative humidity, while SCMs exhibit a much wider range of behaviors. DGW simulations produce large-scale velocity profiles which are smoother and less top-heavy compared to those produced by the WTG simulations. These large-scale parameterization methods provide a useful tool to identify the impact of parameterization differences on model behavior in the presence of two-way feedback between convection and the large-scale circulation.