the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A high-resolution physical-biogeochemical model for marine resource applications in the Northern Indian Ocean (MOM6-COBALT-IND12 v1.0)
Abstract. We introduce and evaluate the regional ocean model MOM6-COBALT-IND12 version 1 coupling the MOM6 ocean dynamics model to the Carbon, Ocean Biogeochemistry and Lower Trophics (COBALT) biogeochemical model at a horizontal resolution of 1/12°. The model covers the northern Indian Ocean (north of 8° S), central to the livelihoods and economies of countries that comprise about one-third of the world’s population. We demonstrate that the model effectively captures the key physical and biogeochemical basin-scale features related to seasonal monsoon reversal, interannual Indian Ocean Dipole and multi-decadal variability, as well as intraseasonal and fine-scale variability (e.g., eddies and planetary waves), which are all essential for accurately simulating patterns of coastal upwelling, primary productivity, temperature, salinity, and oxygen levels. Well represented features include the timing and amplitude of the monsoonal blooms triggered by summer coastal upwelling and winter mixing, the strong contrast between the high evaporation / high salinity Arabian Sea and high precipitation / high runoff / low salinity Bay of Bengal, the seasonality of the Great Whirl gyre and coastal Kelvin upwelling/downwelling waves, as well as the physical and biogeochemical patterns associated with intraseasonal and interannual variability. A major model bias is the larger oxygen minimum zone simulated in the Bay of Bengal, a common challenge of ocean and Earth system models in this region. This bias was partly mitigated by improving the representation of the export and burial of organic detritus to the deep ocean (e.g., sinking speed, riverine lithogenic material inputs that protect organic material and burial fraction) and water-column denitrification (e.g., nitrate-based respiration at higher oxygen levels) using observational constraints. These results indicate that the regional MOM6-COBALT-IND12 v1.0 model is well suited for physical and biogeochemical studies on timescales ranging from weeks to decades, in addition to supporting marine resource applications and management in the northern Indian Ocean.
- Preprint
(17944 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3646', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2025
reply
This article is discussing the development and validation of an ocean-bio-geochemistry model customized for the north Indian Ocean. The authors make a good effort to get the simulations done and for the validation, and is publishable. Modelling ocean bio-geochemistry is very difficult and many models still struggle to get the bio-geochemistry right in those simulations. However, I have some concerns, which need to be addressed before it can be accepted.
Major:
1. I do not see any wind simulation and its validation in the model. Since the monsoonal currents dictate the dynamics and associated processes in NIO, the wind simulations and their assessment are very important and must be presented in the main text.
- I thought, generally the models have relatively good simulations for surface Chl-a and compare well with the satellite and Argo data, which is not the case here in your model simulations. It is good to have a discussion based on other model simulations for NIO and other oceanic regions for Chl-a comparisons. Please see this and mention such model simulations and validation: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102419
- There is a subsurface maximum for Chl-a in the NIO. Please show the model simulations and comparison with Argo measurements.
- L459: If the model overestimates, how that would affect the OMZ in AS and BoB? Which oceanic region has large OMZs? L463, you say that in AS, it is well represented, but BoB overestimated. Fig 16 provides no clue that any basin is better for this. Also, why the equatorial region has such a big difference?
- Write the validation information with bias values in the abstract
- Developed or customized the model, please make sure that you use a correct word for this
- L336: reproduced is a “lighter” word; how good is the comparison? Please write some numbers.
- LK353: Why the Chl-a simulation is not good in the Somali coast or western Indian Ocean? Summer Chl-a is even worse?
- L371-372: How did you arrive into this conclusion; is this about the size of the plankton?
Minor:
L4: north of 8S? It can be anywhere north of that latitude. Please be specific
L22: and is missing
L23; separate the Roy citation from the bracket
L40: about the NIO stressors: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2023.103164
L53: models are “tools” for studying
L55: this is another model validation for this region: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102419
L85: coordinates of the region
L113: salinity from 1998 data, any updated version?
L115: How long was the spin up and when did the model stabilize? Which year onward you analyse the model results for science?
L119: citation format is not correct
Figure 1: rivers can be in red color, to differentiate from the bathymetry blue color
L147: any reference for this? Overestimation and scaling have got any criterion? Why 25%?
L175: not from WOA 2023?
L176: CO2 is increasing, so the old climatology values are good?
L192: SSP 5-8.5 is an extreme case. So how much that would influence your simulations?
L223: How the adjustments are made? Just random or any criterion followed?
L243: citation format is not correct
L274: SST has been already defined
L276: particularly and especially, Please rephrase
Figure 4: Why summer MLD is bad in the model?
L337: SSS has been defined already
L350: Narmada-Tapti
Fig 17: How that affects simulations of SLA?
L495-500: remarkably well? Not sure, if you look at the SLA figure.
L514: IOD has been defined, as for L528: RAMA, OISST
579-580: model is good because of its good bio-geochemistry simulations? What about the model physics?
L584: a detailed account of winter blooms are here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117435
L588: different response? please be specific
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3646-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
132 | 47 | 7 | 186 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 132
- PDF: 47
- XML: 7
- Total: 186
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1