the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Dynamically downscaled seasonal ocean forecasts for North American East Coast ecosystems
Abstract. Using a 1/12° regional model of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (MOM6-NWA12), we downscale an ensemble of retrospective seasonal forecasts from a 1° global forecast model. To evaluate whether downscaling improved the forecast skill for surface temperature and salinity and bottom temperature, the global and downscaled forecasts are compared with each other and with a reference forecast of persistence using anomaly correlation. Both sets of forecasts are also evaluated on the basis of mean bias and ensemble spread. We find that downscaling significantly improved the forecast skill for monthly sea surface temperature anomalies in the Northeast U.S. Large Marine Ecosystem, a region that global models have historically struggled to predict skillfully. The downscaled SST predictions for this region were also more skillful than the persistence baseline across most initialization months and lead times. Although some of the SST prediction skill in this region stems from the recent, rapid warming trend, prediction skill above persistence is generally maintained after removing the contribution of the trend, and patterns of skill suggestive of predictable processes are also preserved. While downscaling mainly improved SST skill in the Northeast U.S. region, it improved bottom temperature and sea surface salinity skill across many of the marine ecosystems along the North American East Coast. Downscaling generally reduced the mean surface salinity biases found in the global model, particularly in regions with sharp salinity gradients (the Northern Gulf of Mexico and the Northeast U.S.). In some cases, however, downscaling amplified the surface and bottom temperature biases found in the global predictions. We discuss several processes that are better resolved in the regional model and contribute to the improved skill, including the autumn re-emergence of temperature anomalies and advection of water masses by coastal currents. Overall, the results show that a downscaled, high resolution model can produce improved seasonal forecast skill by representing fine-scale processes that drive predictability.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(4624 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4624 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2024
The paper provides an extensive study on downscaled retrospective forecast in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from GFDL global model using a 1/12 configuration based on MOM6, previously designed and assessed by the Authors in another dedicated paper.
The methodology used for assessing the forecast is very interesting and quite comprehensive as well as the process-oriented analysis, supported by discussed results.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
We appreciate the reviewer for reading the manuscript and providing encouraging comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2024
I very much appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. This paper focuses on evaluating seasonal predictability of surface temperature and salinity and bottom temperature over the North America East Coast by using a dynamically downscaled model forecast system (MOM6-NWA12) and compared with the parent SPEAR model forecasts. Detailed discussions about sources of improved prediction skill from downscaling are included for the Northeast U.S. region, as well as discussions on the effect of long-term warming trends over this area. Besides, this paper also contributes a useful discussion on the ensemble size for reasonable prediction skill when predicting SST. This is a very important work with high quality contributing to the research field, and I only have a few minor comments on this work:
1. Some description about seasons in the Result section are confusing, not sure if authors are talking about initialization seasons or forecast seasons. For example, on lines 237-239, “the downscaled model has skill greater than persistence and SPEAR across a wide range of times, except in the winter…”. It is not clear if “winter” here refers to the initialization month of December or forecast months in winter.
2. Lines 267-268, the Southeast U.S. LME, as shown in Figure 1, is not narrow compared to most other LMEs. I also question on its dominance by the Gulf Stream, as Gulf Stream is usually referred to the western boundary current north of Cape Hatteras (so north of the Southeast U.S. LME).
3. Description of the forecast-observation mean bias (for Figs 5-7) could be more focused on those forecasts that have significant forecast-observation correlation coefficient (Figs 2-4).
4. Lines 278-284: authors could just write out the season name, instead of “first season”, “last season”, and “seasons 0 and 2”.
5. Lines 294-295: (1) “remaining three regions” -> “remaining four regions”? (2) “aside from the increased spread in the Southeast U.S.” not sure why it is “increased” when comparing with SS and NEUS based on Figure 9, please consider rephrasing this sentence.
6. Line 340: “mid-Atlantic Bight” -> MAB
7. Figure 11: Please indicate correlation significance in the figure for each panel. Figure 11 shows the correlation in the GOM is minimum at Lead 6 but increases at Lead 7. Could you please explain it? Please consider adding the location of the Scotian Shelf box in Figure 1.
8. Figure 12-13: please consider adding correlation significance in each correlation map.
9. Figure 20: Do predictions of bottom temperature also require approximately 4 ensemble members to provide a reasonable compromise between computational costs and prediction skill?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Aug 2024
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Mar 2024
The paper provides an extensive study on downscaled retrospective forecast in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from GFDL global model using a 1/12 configuration based on MOM6, previously designed and assessed by the Authors in another dedicated paper.
The methodology used for assessing the forecast is very interesting and quite comprehensive as well as the process-oriented analysis, supported by discussed results.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
We appreciate the reviewer for reading the manuscript and providing encouraging comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2024
I very much appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript. This paper focuses on evaluating seasonal predictability of surface temperature and salinity and bottom temperature over the North America East Coast by using a dynamically downscaled model forecast system (MOM6-NWA12) and compared with the parent SPEAR model forecasts. Detailed discussions about sources of improved prediction skill from downscaling are included for the Northeast U.S. region, as well as discussions on the effect of long-term warming trends over this area. Besides, this paper also contributes a useful discussion on the ensemble size for reasonable prediction skill when predicting SST. This is a very important work with high quality contributing to the research field, and I only have a few minor comments on this work:
1. Some description about seasons in the Result section are confusing, not sure if authors are talking about initialization seasons or forecast seasons. For example, on lines 237-239, “the downscaled model has skill greater than persistence and SPEAR across a wide range of times, except in the winter…”. It is not clear if “winter” here refers to the initialization month of December or forecast months in winter.
2. Lines 267-268, the Southeast U.S. LME, as shown in Figure 1, is not narrow compared to most other LMEs. I also question on its dominance by the Gulf Stream, as Gulf Stream is usually referred to the western boundary current north of Cape Hatteras (so north of the Southeast U.S. LME).
3. Description of the forecast-observation mean bias (for Figs 5-7) could be more focused on those forecasts that have significant forecast-observation correlation coefficient (Figs 2-4).
4. Lines 278-284: authors could just write out the season name, instead of “first season”, “last season”, and “seasons 0 and 2”.
5. Lines 294-295: (1) “remaining three regions” -> “remaining four regions”? (2) “aside from the increased spread in the Southeast U.S.” not sure why it is “increased” when comparing with SS and NEUS based on Figure 9, please consider rephrasing this sentence.
6. Line 340: “mid-Atlantic Bight” -> MAB
7. Figure 11: Please indicate correlation significance in the figure for each panel. Figure 11 shows the correlation in the GOM is minimum at Lead 6 but increases at Lead 7. Could you please explain it? Please consider adding the location of the Scotian Shelf box in Figure 1.
8. Figure 12-13: please consider adding correlation significance in each correlation map.
9. Figure 20: Do predictions of bottom temperature also require approximately 4 ensemble members to provide a reasonable compromise between computational costs and prediction skill?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-394-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-394', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Aug 2024
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Andrew C. Ross, 16 Sep 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Model output for "Dynamically downscaled seasonal ocean forecasts for North American East Coast ecosystems" Andrew C. Ross, Charles A. Stock, Vimal Koul, Thomas L. Delworth, Feiyu Lu, Andrew Wittenberg, and Michael A. Alexander https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10642294
Model code and software
Model source code for "A high-resolution physical-biogeochemical model for marine resource applications in the Northwest Atlantic (MOM6-COBALT-NWA12)" Andrew C. Ross, Charles A. Stock, Alistair Adcroft, Enrique Curchitser, Robert Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Katherine Hedstrom, Niki Zadeh, Michael Alexander, Wenhao Chen, Elizabeth J. Drenkard, Hubert du Pontavice, Raphael Dussin, Fabian Gomez, Jasmin G. John, Dujuan Kang, Diane Lavoie, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Vincent Saba, Sang-Ik Shin, Samantha Siedlecki, and James Simkins https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7893349
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
590 | 255 | 239 | 1,084 | 20 | 19 |
- HTML: 590
- PDF: 255
- XML: 239
- Total: 1,084
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Andrew C. Ross
Charles A. Stock
Vimal Koul
Thomas L. Delworth
Feiyu Lu
Andrew Wittenberg
Michael A. Alexander
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4624 KB) - Metadata XML