the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development of a next-generation general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes
Abstract. The Laurentian Great Lakes share several physical characteristics with the coastal ocean, including atmosphere-water interactions, rotational dynamics, and ice cover processes. However, their weak density stratification, relatively small surface area, and distinct seasonal mixing cycles pose unique challenges for numerical modeling. Modeling approaches and parameterizations developed for global applications, however, may yet provide valuable pathways for addressing persistent biases in lake models. To examine these possibilities, we develop a 3D hydrodynamic model for Lake Michigan-Huron (LMH) using the Modular Ocean Model version 6.0 coupled with the Sea Ice Simulator version 2.0 (MOM6-SIS2). Originally designed for global ocean and earth system modeling, MOM6 offers flexible vertical coordinate systems (VCSs) to maintain density gradients and improved handling of complex bathymetry, both potential advantages for application in inland water bodies like the Great Lakes. This is the first study to investigate MOM6-SIS2’s ability to simulate key features of hydrography and circulation in freshwater systems under different VCSs. This study tested z* (depth-based) and hybrid (depth and isopycnal) VCSs. Simulations were performed for the years 2017 and 2018 and evaluated against in situ and remote sensing observations, as well as outputs from a contemporary Finite Volume Community Ocean Model (FVCOM) of LMH (LMH-FVCOM), used in an operational forecast system. MOM6-SIS2-LMH skillfully simulated daily averaged lake surface temperature (LST), vertical thermal structure, and ice concentration, with biases in LST and ice concentration generally below 0.5 °C and 2 %, respectively. It also produced comparable results to LMH-FVCOM in terms of LST, vertical thermal structure, and ice concentration. Both VCSs (z* and hybrid) successfully captured large-scale circulation patterns and seasonal overturning. The hybrid VCS, reduced excessive thermocline diffusion in deep waters, observed in both FVCOM and MOM6-SIS2 with z* VCS and allowed the model to maintain ecologically important deep cold water in the summer months. These improvements highlight the potential of MOM6-SIS2 to successfully simulate lake dynamics and offer the potential to more accurately resolve the delicate balance of thermal structure and mixing in stratified lake environments. However, the limited nearshore resolution resulting from MOM6’s structured grid degraded the simulation of flows through the Straits of Mackinac, as well as nearshore temperature and water level variability.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors serves as topic editor for the special issue to which this paper belongs.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(5236 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(530 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Mar 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6556', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Feb 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6556', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Mar 2026
reply
The manuscript presents an interesting and relevant study on the development of model configurations in the MOM6 general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes. The work highlights the sensitivity of different vertical coordinate systems (VCS) available in MOM6 and compares the simulations with satellite observations and outputs from the well-established LMH-FVCOM model. The study is generally well organized and scientifically motivated. However, several important issues require clarification and further analysis before a final decision can be made. The following points should be addressed to improve the rigor, clarity, and overall presentation of the manuscript:
1) Model time step and computational comparison
The time step used in the model configuration appears relatively large. As stated in the manuscript, LMH-FVCOM (with 100 m–2.5 km resolution) uses a time step of less than 10 s. Have the authors conducted any time-step sensitivity experiments to evaluate its impact on model stability and accuracy?
Furthermore, the comparison of processor hours between the two models (lines 554–560) is not meaningful if different time steps are used. A fair comparison would require simulations with similar time-step settings. The authors are encouraged to reconsider this comparison or perform additional experiments.2) Formatting issue
Please correct the font inconsistency on line 134.3) Spin-up time
The specified spin-up duration appears short for a lake-scale circulation model. The authors should justify the chosen spin-up time, ideally by presenting LST evolution plots or comparisons with observational products to demonstrate model stabilization.
Additionally, the relatively poor performance in 2017 (after Section 3.4) may be linked to insufficient spin-up. Please clarify whether this was assessed.4) Closed lateral boundaries and absence of freshwater fluxes
Lines 150–151 indicate that the model uses closed lateral boundaries and excludes evaporation and precipitation. This configuration will affect both radiation balance and water discharge.
Have the authors tested simulations including freshwater forcing? A comparison between the current setup and a freshwater-forced configuration would strengthen the manuscript. Please discuss the implications of excluding freshwater fluxes.5) Warm bias in nearshore regions (Figure 3)
In Figure 3, the warm bias is particularly pronounced in nearshore regions during summer. Is this related to insufficient vertical grid resolution near the lake boundary or limitations in VCS representation?
Please elaborate on the sensitivity of LST to the vertical coordinate system in these regions.
Additionally, improve the resolution and clarity of Figure 3.6) Performance of z* VCS
In Subsection 3.4, the performance of the z* VCS configuration is not sufficiently described. Please provide a clearer quantitative and qualitative assessment.7) Clarification of statement (lines 380–381)
The statement in lines 380–381 requires further explanation. Please elaborate on the physical reasoning or provide supporting evidence.8) Water level comparison
In my opinion, the water-level comparison (lines 399–409) is not meaningful due to the absence of freshwater fluxes in the model configuration. Without river inflow, precipitation, and evaporation, water-level validation lacks physical consistency. I recommend removing this comparison and Figure 12.9) Surface wind forcing (NARR data)
Why was North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) not tested as a surface wind forcing dataset? Please justify this choice and support the findings with appropriate discussion.10) Future applications section
Please consider creating a dedicated “Future Applications” section (lines 575–600) to clearly articulate potential extensions and practical applications of the modeling framework.11) Conclusion – spatial specificity
In Point 1 of the conclusion, please specify that the stated performance primarily applies to offshore regions, as nearshore summer biases are comparatively large.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6556-RC2
Data sets
Model input for initial submission of "Development of a next-generation general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes" to Geoscientific Model Development. Meena Raju et al. https://zenodo.org/records/18291944
Model code and software
Model source code for " Development of a next-generation general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes" Meena Raju et al. https://zenodo.org/records/18291850
MOM6 Modular Ocean Model https://github.com/mom-ocean/MOM6
MOM6 NOAA-GFDL https://github.com/NOAA-GFDL/MOM6
User guide on installation, setup of Modular Ocean Model version 6.0 – Sea Ice Simulator version 2.0, MOM6-SIS2 used in "Development of a next-generation general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes" Meena Raju et al. https://zenodo.org/records/18275689
Interactive computing environment
Model output and analysis codes for "Development of a next-generation general ocean circulation model for the Great Lakes" Meena Raju et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18091176
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 129 | 87 | 18 | 234 | 27 | 18 | 18 |
- HTML: 129
- PDF: 87
- XML: 18
- Total: 234
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper describes a novel application of large-scale MOM6 to Great Lakes region (Lakes Michigan and Huron in particular), and assess its performance against observed temperature profile, currents and seiche signature. The paper is well written, logical, and provide a good historic prospective on the challenges and successes of GL modeling. I only have some relatively minor comments.