the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying Coupling Errors in Atmosphere-Ocean-Sea Ice Models: A Study of Iterative and Non-Iterative Approaches in the EC-Earth AOSCM
Abstract. The atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components in Earth system models are coupled via boundary conditions at the sea surface. Standard coupling algorithms correspond to the first step of an iteration, so-called Schwarz waveform relaxation. Not iterating is computationally cheap but introduces a numerical coupling error, which we aim to quantify for the case of a coupled single column model: the EC-Earth AOSCM, which uses the same coupling setup and model physics as its host model, EC-Earth. To this end, we iterate until a reference solution is obtained and compare this with standard, non-iterative algorithms. Understanding the convergence behavior of the iteration, as well as the size of the coupling error, can inform model and algorithm development. Our implementation is based on the OASIS3-MCT coupler and allows to estimate the coupling error of multi-day simulations.
In the absence of sea ice, SWR convergence is robust. Coupling errors for atmospheric variables can be substantial. When sea ice is present, results strongly depend on the model version. In the latest model version, coupling errors in sea ice surface and atmospheric boundary layer temperature are often large. Generally, we find that abrupt transitions between distinct physical regimes in certain parameterizations can lead to substantial coupling errors and even non-convergence of the iteration. We attribute discontinuities in the computation of atmospheric vertical turbulence and sea ice albedo as sources for these problems.
- Preprint
(1801 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1342', Charles Pelletier, 09 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Clarification Questions on RC1', Valentina Schüller, 14 Jul 2025
Thank you for the thorough and constructive review! While we are in the process of addressing your questions and comments in detail, we have some minor follow-up questions:
-
In your first major comment, you write “I’m not sure I understand the logics of L. 257, with the ‘or’."Could you clarify why you feel that you do not understand the sentence? Is it unclear what “In this case” refers to (i.e., non-convergence)? Or is it unclear why both non-convergence and slow convergence imply revisiting the coupling setup?
-
We do not understand your comment “L. 175: well-posedness and eq. 8.“ Could you please clarify?
-
Similarly, what do you mean by “L. 318: Please specify the year at that point.”, since the year is mentioned here (July 2014)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1342-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Charles Pelletier, 14 Jul 2025
-
The manuscript seems to infer that regularity is a necessary condition for the well-posedness of the coupled problem. Therefore, the phrasing "the underlying coupled problem might not “obey regularity” or could even be ill-posed" is somehow counter-intuitive to me, particularly the word "even". From my understanding of the manuscript, a coupled problem that does not obey regularity is already expected to be ill-posed, precisely because it is not regular. So why insisting on "or it could even be ill-posed", as if this consisted in a stronger statement?
-
Sorry about this obscure comment, that's a leftover from earlier drafting that should have been removed. I was thinking about eq. 8 in itself probably having a few terms keeping the coupled problem from being well-posed. At least because $C_H$ tends to not be a regular function of the solution. Potentially also the lack of surface currents representation (although that might just be an issue for momentum fluxes, not heat ones). But it’s not the point of the manuscript – please feel free to ignore this.
-
Sorry, wrong line numbering. The year is indeed there L. 318. I would just also repeat the year anytime a date is mentioned, e.g. L. 321 and L. 405.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1342-RC2 -
-
-
AC1: 'Clarification Questions on RC1', Valentina Schüller, 14 Jul 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1342', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1342/egusphere-2025-1342-RC3-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
727 | 46 | 15 | 788 | 11 | 21 |
- HTML: 727
- PDF: 46
- XML: 15
- Total: 788
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1