the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of a coupled ocean and sea-ice model (MOM6-NEP10k) over the Bering Sea and its sensitivity to turbulence decay scales
Abstract. Understanding and predicting the ocean environment and marine ecosystem status depends on accurate representations of regional ocean dynamics. Recently, the Modular Ocean Model version 6 (MOM6) has been configured to span the Northeast Pacific Ocean from Baja California to the Chukchi Sea (MOM6-NEP). In this study we present a physical hindcast (1993–2018) simulation of MOM6-NEP where it is coupled to a thermodynamic-dynamic sea-ice module and includes tides. We evaluate performance of this model in the Bering Sea. Various model metrics are benchmarked against in-situ mooring data and satellite observations. The simulation captures the general characteristics of Bering Sea dynamics, particularly with respect to seasonal and interannual variability of the middle shelf water mass properties. Modeling of shear induced mixing was found to be critical to the model's ability to reproduce the observed sharp summer thermocline and its depth. The hindcast simulation reproduces the long-term mean timing of sea-ice arrival and retreat in both the northern and southern Bering Sea, with the remaining mild biases primarily occurring in May over the northern shelf - the modeled sea ice tends to retreat earlier (later) in cold (warm) years than observations. This pattern in biases suggests that the melting rate in the model likely lacks the well-known melt-rate dependency on ice property whereby thicker (thinner) ice melts more slowly (quickly). As a result of high skills in reproducing sea ice areal coverage, the interannual variability of the cold pool (the cold-water mass present on the bottom of the Bering Sea shelf in summer) extent is accurately reproduced by the model. Skillful representation of sea ice and cold pool is essential for understanding ecosystem dynamics and successful fisheries management in the Bering Sea. The findings of this study contribute to the development of reliable oceanographic modeling and forecasting of marine ecosystem conditions to support fisheries management decision making.
- Preprint
(19390 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5993 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Juan Antonio Añel, 20 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Vivek Seelanki, 21 Jun 2025
Dear Juan A. Añel,
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Thank you for your feedback. In response, I have archived all the model output and analysis code used in the manuscript on Zenodo. This includes the model output files and Python Jupyter Notebooks necessary to reproduce all the figures in the manuscript.Each figure-specific archive (Figure_X.tar.gz) contains the data and scripts required to generate that figure. Where applicable, shared data and code used for multiple figures are included within the same archive.
The dataset is permanently available at:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
Link: https://zenodo.org/records/15712750?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiIsImlhdCI6MTc1MDU0MDI2MywiZXhwIjoxNzY1NzU2Nzk5fQ.eyJpZCI6IjEzYjRmOGI4LTYzNzEtNGU1OS05ZjU5LTQ0ODg0NDg0NWFlZiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI2OTE4M2YxYTM4MjczYWYxMWJlODlhNzllNzJkYzY5ZSJ9.YkGFIoqoS28nNwaQsRJ-XcTULBEO4rCncEGDaiBC3IRCun4qmFQBKSrrt7uNsSOHMjAv_IdfmBoKaI_XSL7GGw
Citation:
Seelanki, V., Cheng, W., Stabeno, P. J., Hermann, A. J., Drenkard, E. J., Stock, C. A., & Hedstrom, K. (2025). Model output and analysis codes for "Evaluation of a coupled ocean and sea-ice model (MOM6-NEP10k) over the Bering Sea and its sensitivity to turbulence decay scales" [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
Please let me know if any additional information is required.
Thanks & regards,
--Vivek Seelanki
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, your reply does not address my comment, and therefore your manuscript continues to do not comply with the policy of the journal.
First, the Zenodo repository that you have provided is restricted. We can not accept this; the repository must be public and available to anyone without restriction. Please, provide a new repository that complies with the requirements of the journal.
Second, you do not provide the code of the MOM6-NEP model, and you must share it too.
Please, address these outstanding issues, replying to this comment with the necessary information.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Vivek Seelanki, 22 Jun 2025
Dear Juan A. Añel,
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the required steps to ensure compliance with the journal’s data and code policy.
In response:
1. The Zenodo archive containing all model output and figure-generation notebooks has now been made public and is accessible without restrictions. This archive includes the output files and Jupyter notebooks used to generate each figure in the manuscript:
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
2. The source code of the MOM6-NEP model and configuration is already publicly archived and cited in the manuscript:
- MOM6 model component source code: DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15009640
(Seelanki et al., 2025a) - MOM6-NEP10k configuration (parameter, forcing, and initial condition files): DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15009973 (Seelanki et al., 2025b)
For your response, I updated this Zenodo repository, where you can find parameter, forcing, and initial condition files: DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15717037
Please let me know if any additional information is needed to complete the review process.
Thanks & regards,
-- Vivek Seelanki
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Many thanks for the quick reply, and for addressing the outstanding issues. We can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code and data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-CEC3
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Vivek Seelanki, 22 Jun 2025
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Vivek Seelanki, 21 Jun 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2025
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Vivek Seelanki, 15 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jul 2025
This manuscript presents a comprehensive evaluation of the MOM6-NEP10k model's performance over the Bering Sea, along with sensitivity tests on turbulent mixing parameterizations. The work is rigorous, well-motivated, and makes valuable contributions to regional modeling, particularly in high-latitude domains where ocean–ice interactions and cold pool dynamics are essential for ecological forecasting.
The paper is timely and technically sound. However, the manuscript could be strengthened through greater clarity in presentation, more quantitative analysis in some sections, and deeper contextualization of the results, especially with respect to model biases and sensitivity test implications.
Line 20. Clarify "retreat earlier (later) in cold (warm) years"—this may seem counterintuitive. Explain mechanism briefly.
Line 56. “northeasterly winds in winter” → add citation or mean wind speed for reference.\
Line 86. Abbreviate NOAA
Line 94. Please provide citation that reports the excessive shear-driven vertical mixing found in MOM6-NEP default configuration.
Line 95. The physical justification for the particular choices of scaling factors could be expanded. What guided the specific values tested? Clarify whether these fall within observed oceanographic ranges or are purely numerical tuning.
Lines 118-119. It could be confusing to the readers to mention the boundary that connects to the Pacific as "western" when most of it appears to be a "southern" boundary.
Line 125. GLORYS12 is said to perform well in coastal areas—consider supporting with performance metrics from the cited studies.
Line 140. Can you mention the reasons/justifications for using a 3-hourly product vs 1-hourly product of ECMWF for atmospheric forcing?
Lines 305–360: “...model tends to underestimate sea-ice cover...melts all ice at the same rate...”
This is an important insight into model limitation. I'd suggest incorporating references to ongoing work or methods that include age-dependent melt rates. Could this be easily incorporated in future iterations?Line 310: “mean ± std dev of areal ice extent” → good summary; you might also include coefficient of variation to show relative interannual variability.
Lines 365–400: “...agreement in summer was poorer...SST is highly sensitive...”
Consider plotting correlation maps of SST biases against ice retreat dates to support the hypothesis. A brief regression analysis could further validate the sensitivity relationship.Lines 405–415: “MLD biases in winter increase significantly…”
This is a critical point. MLD overestimation in winter could lead to errors in nutrient entrainment and ecosystem models. Include a brief discussion on whether this is driven by JRA55 biases or turbulent mixing choices.Lines 440–460. It would help to add a histogram of thermocline depth differences (model – obs) across seasons. Also clarify the threshold logic—what happens when vertical gradients are weak or noisy?
Lines 510–530. Consider adding a short discussion of potential ecological implications (e.g., fish spawning habitat or match/mismatch hypothesis) to emphasize why this matters.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-RC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Vivek Seelanki, 15 Aug 2025
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Juan Antonio Añel, 20 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived part of the code used for your work only in GitHub, at least the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) R code and the AFSC akgfmaps toolset. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Please, publish all the code necessary to produce your work in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy.I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Vivek Seelanki, 21 Jun 2025
Dear Juan A. Añel,
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Thank you for your feedback. In response, I have archived all the model output and analysis code used in the manuscript on Zenodo. This includes the model output files and Python Jupyter Notebooks necessary to reproduce all the figures in the manuscript.Each figure-specific archive (Figure_X.tar.gz) contains the data and scripts required to generate that figure. Where applicable, shared data and code used for multiple figures are included within the same archive.
The dataset is permanently available at:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
Link: https://zenodo.org/records/15712750?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiIsImlhdCI6MTc1MDU0MDI2MywiZXhwIjoxNzY1NzU2Nzk5fQ.eyJpZCI6IjEzYjRmOGI4LTYzNzEtNGU1OS05ZjU5LTQ0ODg0NDg0NWFlZiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI2OTE4M2YxYTM4MjczYWYxMWJlODlhNzllNzJkYzY5ZSJ9.YkGFIoqoS28nNwaQsRJ-XcTULBEO4rCncEGDaiBC3IRCun4qmFQBKSrrt7uNsSOHMjAv_IdfmBoKaI_XSL7GGw
Citation:
Seelanki, V., Cheng, W., Stabeno, P. J., Hermann, A. J., Drenkard, E. J., Stock, C. A., & Hedstrom, K. (2025). Model output and analysis codes for "Evaluation of a coupled ocean and sea-ice model (MOM6-NEP10k) over the Bering Sea and its sensitivity to turbulence decay scales" [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
Please let me know if any additional information is required.
Thanks & regards,
--Vivek Seelanki
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, your reply does not address my comment, and therefore your manuscript continues to do not comply with the policy of the journal.
First, the Zenodo repository that you have provided is restricted. We can not accept this; the repository must be public and available to anyone without restriction. Please, provide a new repository that complies with the requirements of the journal.
Second, you do not provide the code of the MOM6-NEP model, and you must share it too.
Please, address these outstanding issues, replying to this comment with the necessary information.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Vivek Seelanki, 22 Jun 2025
Dear Juan A. Añel,
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Thank you for your feedback and for highlighting the required steps to ensure compliance with the journal’s data and code policy.
In response:
1. The Zenodo archive containing all model output and figure-generation notebooks has now been made public and is accessible without restrictions. This archive includes the output files and Jupyter notebooks used to generate each figure in the manuscript:
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15712750
2. The source code of the MOM6-NEP model and configuration is already publicly archived and cited in the manuscript:
- MOM6 model component source code: DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15009640
(Seelanki et al., 2025a) - MOM6-NEP10k configuration (parameter, forcing, and initial condition files): DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15009973 (Seelanki et al., 2025b)
For your response, I updated this Zenodo repository, where you can find parameter, forcing, and initial condition files: DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15717037
Please let me know if any additional information is needed to complete the review process.
Thanks & regards,
-- Vivek Seelanki
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 23 Jun 2025
Dear authors,
Many thanks for the quick reply, and for addressing the outstanding issues. We can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code and data policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-CEC3
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Vivek Seelanki, 22 Jun 2025
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 22 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Vivek Seelanki, 21 Jun 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2025
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Vivek Seelanki, 15 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1229', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Jul 2025
This manuscript presents a comprehensive evaluation of the MOM6-NEP10k model's performance over the Bering Sea, along with sensitivity tests on turbulent mixing parameterizations. The work is rigorous, well-motivated, and makes valuable contributions to regional modeling, particularly in high-latitude domains where ocean–ice interactions and cold pool dynamics are essential for ecological forecasting.
The paper is timely and technically sound. However, the manuscript could be strengthened through greater clarity in presentation, more quantitative analysis in some sections, and deeper contextualization of the results, especially with respect to model biases and sensitivity test implications.
Line 20. Clarify "retreat earlier (later) in cold (warm) years"—this may seem counterintuitive. Explain mechanism briefly.
Line 56. “northeasterly winds in winter” → add citation or mean wind speed for reference.\
Line 86. Abbreviate NOAA
Line 94. Please provide citation that reports the excessive shear-driven vertical mixing found in MOM6-NEP default configuration.
Line 95. The physical justification for the particular choices of scaling factors could be expanded. What guided the specific values tested? Clarify whether these fall within observed oceanographic ranges or are purely numerical tuning.
Lines 118-119. It could be confusing to the readers to mention the boundary that connects to the Pacific as "western" when most of it appears to be a "southern" boundary.
Line 125. GLORYS12 is said to perform well in coastal areas—consider supporting with performance metrics from the cited studies.
Line 140. Can you mention the reasons/justifications for using a 3-hourly product vs 1-hourly product of ECMWF for atmospheric forcing?
Lines 305–360: “...model tends to underestimate sea-ice cover...melts all ice at the same rate...”
This is an important insight into model limitation. I'd suggest incorporating references to ongoing work or methods that include age-dependent melt rates. Could this be easily incorporated in future iterations?Line 310: “mean ± std dev of areal ice extent” → good summary; you might also include coefficient of variation to show relative interannual variability.
Lines 365–400: “...agreement in summer was poorer...SST is highly sensitive...”
Consider plotting correlation maps of SST biases against ice retreat dates to support the hypothesis. A brief regression analysis could further validate the sensitivity relationship.Lines 405–415: “MLD biases in winter increase significantly…”
This is a critical point. MLD overestimation in winter could lead to errors in nutrient entrainment and ecosystem models. Include a brief discussion on whether this is driven by JRA55 biases or turbulent mixing choices.Lines 440–460. It would help to add a histogram of thermocline depth differences (model – obs) across seasons. Also clarify the threshold logic—what happens when vertical gradients are weak or noisy?
Lines 510–530. Consider adding a short discussion of potential ecological implications (e.g., fish spawning habitat or match/mismatch hypothesis) to emphasize why this matters.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1229-RC2 - AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Vivek Seelanki, 15 Aug 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,018 | 90 | 28 | 1,136 | 35 | 21 | 41 |
- HTML: 1,018
- PDF: 90
- XML: 28
- Total: 1,136
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived part of the code used for your work only in GitHub, at least the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) R code and the AFSC akgfmaps toolset. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo. Therefore, the current situation with your manuscript is irregular. Please, publish all the code necessary to produce your work in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible, as we can not accept manuscripts in Discussions that do not comply with our policy.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we will have to reject your manuscript for publication in our journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor