Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model
Abstract There are two distinct parameterizations for the restratification effect of mesoscale eddies: the Greatbatch and Lamb (1990, GL90, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/20/10/1520-0485_1990_020_1634_opvmom_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=abstract-display) parameterization, which mixes horiz...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003518 |
| _version_ | 1797356807549616128 |
|---|---|
| author | Nora Loose Gustavo M. Marques Alistair Adcroft Scott Bachman Stephen M. Griffies Ian Grooms Robert W. Hallberg Malte F. Jansen |
| author_facet | Nora Loose Gustavo M. Marques Alistair Adcroft Scott Bachman Stephen M. Griffies Ian Grooms Robert W. Hallberg Malte F. Jansen |
| author_sort | Nora Loose |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract There are two distinct parameterizations for the restratification effect of mesoscale eddies: the Greatbatch and Lamb (1990, GL90, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/20/10/1520-0485_1990_020_1634_opvmom_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=abstract-display) parameterization, which mixes horizontal momentum in the vertical, and the Gent and McWilliams (1990, GM90, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/20/1/1520-0485_1990_020_0150_imiocm_2_0_co_2.xml) parameterization, which flattens isopycnals adiabatically. Even though these two parameterizations are effectively equivalent under the assumption of quasi‐geostrophy, GL90 has been used much less than GM90, and exclusively in z‐coordinate models. In this paper, we compare the GL90 and GM90 parameterizations in an idealized isopycnal coordinate model, both from a theoretical and practical perspective. From a theoretical perspective, GL90 is more attractive than GM90 for isopycnal coordinate models because GL90 provides an interpretation that is fully consistent with thickness‐weighted isopycnal averaging, while GM90 cannot be entirely reconciled with any fully isopycnal averaging framework. From a practical perspective, the GL90 and GM90 parameterizations lead to extremely similar energy levels, flow and vertical structure, even though their energetic pathways are very different. The striking resemblance between the GL90 and GM90 simulations persists from non‐eddying through eddy‐permitting resolution. We conclude that GL90 is a promising alternative to GM90 for isopycnal coordinate models, where it is more consistent with theory, computationally more efficient, easier to implement, and numerically more stable. Assessing the applicability of GL90 in realistic global ocean simulations with hybrid coordinate schemes should be a priority for future work. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:35:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5ffd8289cc9b4648a62492271e4803d5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1942-2466 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:35:02Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | American Geophysical Union (AGU) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems |
| spelling | doaj.art-5ffd8289cc9b4648a62492271e4803d52024-01-12T05:31:24ZengAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU)Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems1942-24662023-12-011512n/an/a10.1029/2022MS003518Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean ModelNora Loose0Gustavo M. Marques1Alistair Adcroft2Scott Bachman3Stephen M. Griffies4Ian Grooms5Robert W. Hallberg6Malte F. Jansen7Department of Applied Mathematics University of Colorado Boulder CO USAClimate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USAAtmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Princeton University Princeton NJ USAClimate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USAAtmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Princeton University Princeton NJ USADepartment of Applied Mathematics University of Colorado Boulder CO USAAtmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Princeton University Princeton NJ USADepartment of the Geophysical Sciences The University of Chicago Chicago IL USAAbstract There are two distinct parameterizations for the restratification effect of mesoscale eddies: the Greatbatch and Lamb (1990, GL90, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/20/10/1520-0485_1990_020_1634_opvmom_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=abstract-display) parameterization, which mixes horizontal momentum in the vertical, and the Gent and McWilliams (1990, GM90, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/phoc/20/1/1520-0485_1990_020_0150_imiocm_2_0_co_2.xml) parameterization, which flattens isopycnals adiabatically. Even though these two parameterizations are effectively equivalent under the assumption of quasi‐geostrophy, GL90 has been used much less than GM90, and exclusively in z‐coordinate models. In this paper, we compare the GL90 and GM90 parameterizations in an idealized isopycnal coordinate model, both from a theoretical and practical perspective. From a theoretical perspective, GL90 is more attractive than GM90 for isopycnal coordinate models because GL90 provides an interpretation that is fully consistent with thickness‐weighted isopycnal averaging, while GM90 cannot be entirely reconciled with any fully isopycnal averaging framework. From a practical perspective, the GL90 and GM90 parameterizations lead to extremely similar energy levels, flow and vertical structure, even though their energetic pathways are very different. The striking resemblance between the GL90 and GM90 simulations persists from non‐eddying through eddy‐permitting resolution. We conclude that GL90 is a promising alternative to GM90 for isopycnal coordinate models, where it is more consistent with theory, computationally more efficient, easier to implement, and numerically more stable. Assessing the applicability of GL90 in realistic global ocean simulations with hybrid coordinate schemes should be a priority for future work.https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003518parameterizationisopycnal coordinatesmesoscale eddiesocean modelthickness‐weighted averagevertical viscosity |
| spellingShingle | Nora Loose Gustavo M. Marques Alistair Adcroft Scott Bachman Stephen M. Griffies Ian Grooms Robert W. Hallberg Malte F. Jansen Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems parameterization isopycnal coordinates mesoscale eddies ocean model thickness‐weighted average vertical viscosity |
| title | Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model |
| title_full | Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model |
| title_fullStr | Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model |
| title_short | Comparing Two Parameterizations for the Restratification Effect of Mesoscale Eddies in an Isopycnal Ocean Model |
| title_sort | comparing two parameterizations for the restratification effect of mesoscale eddies in an isopycnal ocean model |
| topic | parameterization isopycnal coordinates mesoscale eddies ocean model thickness‐weighted average vertical viscosity |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003518 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT noraloose comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT gustavommarques comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT alistairadcroft comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT scottbachman comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT stephenmgriffies comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT iangrooms comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT robertwhallberg comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel AT maltefjansen comparingtwoparameterizationsfortherestratificationeffectofmesoscaleeddiesinanisopycnaloceanmodel |