Opinion: Status, Plans and Needs of Southern Ocean Modelling

Martin, Torge; Dufour, Carolina O.; Meijers, Andrew J. S.; Hancock, Alyce M.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-213

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213

Preprints

22 Jan 2026

| 22 Jan 2026

Opinion: Status, Plans and Needs of Southern Ocean Modelling

Torge Martin, Carolina O. Dufour, Andrew J. S. Meijers, and Alyce M. Hancock

Abstract. In preparation for the SOOS/OCEAN:ICE Workshop on ice-ocean observation harmonization and future priorities agenda, a survey targeting the modelling community was conducted to assess research priorities for the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. This initiative specifically supports the design of field activities from the open Southern Ocean to the Antarctic shelf for the forthcoming Antarctica InSync campaign and is aligned with broader strategic planning efforts ahead of the next International Polar Year (IPY). The survey results are a useful basis to further communication between modeling and observing science communities. We believe this is crucial for optimizing campaign planning, achieving enhanced data usage and improving numerical experiments.

Received: 14 Jan 2026 – Discussion started: 22 Jan 2026

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.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 993 KB)

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 (993 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 May 2026

Opinion: status, plans and needs of Southern Ocean modelling

Torge Martin, Carolina O. Dufour, Andrew J. S. Meijers, and Alyce M. Hancock

Ocean Sci., 22, 1429–1437, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-1429-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-1429-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Torge Martin, Carolina O. Dufour, Andrew J. S. Meijers, and Alyce M. Hancock

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Feb 2026

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Feb 2026

This is a well-written and thoughtful opinion piece. The abstract presents a nice layout of goals. I applaud the authors for this effort, as it is a useful contribution. I have only a couple of suggestions.
It is noted that the focus is primarily on climate modeling. Several caveats are given in the interpretations about the nature of the respondents and how this may influence the findings. Still, I think the piece would benefit from brief thoughts on how to engage stakeholders and how the results may vary by audience. What aspects are expected to change if the focus were shifted to seasonal to subseasonal scales? Models are tools, and it would be interesting to get broad stakeholder engagement and find out what they want from SO models. The responses depend on what the user's goals are, and it was telling that 40% of the respondents said ice sheet/shelf-ocean interaction is the key SO science topic.
The discussion distinguishing in situ vs gridded products is off-putting:
Line 217: ‘less valued’ is a poor word choice. You can’t have gridded products without in situ data and the respondents know this.
Line 244: ‘lesser use’: same thing as line 217. They are using it in gridded format, but they are using it.
Line 246: Maybe I am misunderstanding your inference here because I am struggling to link this to the survey questions, but I disagree with the interpretation. People know that gridded products are derived from in situ data. For example, it seems you are distinguishing between the Roemmich and Gilson mapped Argo product and Argo data, but not between the AVISO-mapped altimetry product and altimeters. I interpret the acknowledgement of the importance of in situ data as meaning they think the gridded products are important, not that they only want to have process study data. Respondents know they can’t have gridded products without in situ data.
Line 217: I would drop ‘The latter’ as all data go into many of the gridded products.
Line 220-227: Maybe this is more of a call for publishing open-source validation packages that incorporate data and help modelers use these data.

More specific comments:
Line 134: is the problem unique to “coarse-resolution” models?
Figure 2: The figure implies carbon uptake is in the pie explicitly, but the caption implies it is counted as ‘other’. Please reconcile this.
Line 181: Please clarify this. Did you mean ‘supporting model parameterization development’?
Line 200: I would change the wording here. These physical processes are fundamental prerequisites to address the ‘big questions’. You can’t address ice-ocean interactions without understanding ocean heat transport.
Line 253: I don’t see how caring about shelf processes (i.e. the main bias) is independent of calling for year-round observations. (Maybe I am getting lost comparing Figure 1 and Figure 3b, but regardless I don’t see desiring year-round obs being independent of any model bias.)
Line 260: This may not be justified as these (e.g. ‘sea ice’ or ‘radiative processes’) weren’t given as choices in the ‘most problematic ocean model bias’. I think sea ice - ocean interactions is a huge source of model uncertainty, but my response wouldn’t reflect my concern based on the questions asked. In fact, I may pick ‘mixing’ because that is related to sea ice - ocean interaction. I would give a caveat here that some of your impressions here may be due to the options given and the wording in the survey. (And this is a bit in conflict with Line 282-283, which seems to say sea ice is important.)
Line 289: Why only early-career?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Feb 2026

In this opinion piece, Martin et al. summarize the outcome from a questionaire on Southern Ocean modelling biases and needs that was answered by by of group of about 100 modellers, about half of them identifying as oceanographers, the rest modelling some other sub-field of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system.
Aim of the questionnaire was to get an idea of what are considered the most pressing questions in Southern Ocean research by modellers with the purpose to bring that perspective early on into the upcoming IPY and Antarctica InSync programs, and to better align observational and modelling efforts.
With a fairly high turnout of responses to the questionaire and a range of specific modelling sub-communities involved, the opinion piece is certainly helpful for that purpose, although the authors do mention that a few modelling communities are under-represented in the answers.
In their analysis of the answers given, the authors discuss that a large fraction of the questionnaires mentions processes occurring on the shelves, such as the representation of shelf-ice cavities, and open ocean convection as two processes requiring more attention in model development and evaluation. Many of these are connected with improving parameterizations of processes in cavities, scale-aware mixing modelling, or of topographic overflows.
Concerning the scientific focus, the authors note that many of the respondents mentioned the role of the Southern Ocean for heat, freshwater, and carbon budgets, i.e. in some way or another the role of the Southern Ocean in the climate system. They mention that processes shaping the oceanic processes themselves, such as an understanding of the circulation are not mentioned as part of the big questions anymore.
Concerning the observational needs by the community community, the authors note somewhat of a disconnect between the stated use of mostly gridded data sets like the World Ocean Atlas, and a desire for more direct in-situ observations. The authors interpret this as a need for using in-situ data for better process understanding, while gridded products are preferred for model evaluation, despite their larger distance from 'real' observations. This is an interesting point.
It is important to note that the manuscript not only presents the outcome of the questionnaire but in each of the three main points adds some perspective from the authors of the opinion piece themselves. In the parts on the scientific focus this consists in adding aspects that the authors find important (I do I) but that haven't been mentioned. In other parts (especially on data requirements) it is somewhat unclear what is output from the questionaire and what is the authors opinion. So, while overall the analysis done in this opinion piece is quite helpful for the stated aims of aligning modelling and observational efforts, I feel that there should be a somewhat better separation in writing between the presentation of and the comments and opinions of the authors. This should be fairly easy to correct.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Feb 2026

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Feb 2026

This is a well-written and thoughtful opinion piece. The abstract presents a nice layout of goals. I applaud the authors for this effort, as it is a useful contribution. I have only a couple of suggestions.
It is noted that the focus is primarily on climate modeling. Several caveats are given in the interpretations about the nature of the respondents and how this may influence the findings. Still, I think the piece would benefit from brief thoughts on how to engage stakeholders and how the results may vary by audience. What aspects are expected to change if the focus were shifted to seasonal to subseasonal scales? Models are tools, and it would be interesting to get broad stakeholder engagement and find out what they want from SO models. The responses depend on what the user's goals are, and it was telling that 40% of the respondents said ice sheet/shelf-ocean interaction is the key SO science topic.
The discussion distinguishing in situ vs gridded products is off-putting:
Line 217: ‘less valued’ is a poor word choice. You can’t have gridded products without in situ data and the respondents know this.
Line 244: ‘lesser use’: same thing as line 217. They are using it in gridded format, but they are using it.
Line 246: Maybe I am misunderstanding your inference here because I am struggling to link this to the survey questions, but I disagree with the interpretation. People know that gridded products are derived from in situ data. For example, it seems you are distinguishing between the Roemmich and Gilson mapped Argo product and Argo data, but not between the AVISO-mapped altimetry product and altimeters. I interpret the acknowledgement of the importance of in situ data as meaning they think the gridded products are important, not that they only want to have process study data. Respondents know they can’t have gridded products without in situ data.
Line 217: I would drop ‘The latter’ as all data go into many of the gridded products.
Line 220-227: Maybe this is more of a call for publishing open-source validation packages that incorporate data and help modelers use these data.

More specific comments:
Line 134: is the problem unique to “coarse-resolution” models?
Figure 2: The figure implies carbon uptake is in the pie explicitly, but the caption implies it is counted as ‘other’. Please reconcile this.
Line 181: Please clarify this. Did you mean ‘supporting model parameterization development’?
Line 200: I would change the wording here. These physical processes are fundamental prerequisites to address the ‘big questions’. You can’t address ice-ocean interactions without understanding ocean heat transport.
Line 253: I don’t see how caring about shelf processes (i.e. the main bias) is independent of calling for year-round observations. (Maybe I am getting lost comparing Figure 1 and Figure 3b, but regardless I don’t see desiring year-round obs being independent of any model bias.)
Line 260: This may not be justified as these (e.g. ‘sea ice’ or ‘radiative processes’) weren’t given as choices in the ‘most problematic ocean model bias’. I think sea ice - ocean interactions is a huge source of model uncertainty, but my response wouldn’t reflect my concern based on the questions asked. In fact, I may pick ‘mixing’ because that is related to sea ice - ocean interaction. I would give a caveat here that some of your impressions here may be due to the options given and the wording in the survey. (And this is a bit in conflict with Line 282-283, which seems to say sea ice is important.)
Line 289: Why only early-career?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-213', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Feb 2026

In this opinion piece, Martin et al. summarize the outcome from a questionaire on Southern Ocean modelling biases and needs that was answered by by of group of about 100 modellers, about half of them identifying as oceanographers, the rest modelling some other sub-field of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system.
Aim of the questionnaire was to get an idea of what are considered the most pressing questions in Southern Ocean research by modellers with the purpose to bring that perspective early on into the upcoming IPY and Antarctica InSync programs, and to better align observational and modelling efforts.
With a fairly high turnout of responses to the questionaire and a range of specific modelling sub-communities involved, the opinion piece is certainly helpful for that purpose, although the authors do mention that a few modelling communities are under-represented in the answers.
In their analysis of the answers given, the authors discuss that a large fraction of the questionnaires mentions processes occurring on the shelves, such as the representation of shelf-ice cavities, and open ocean convection as two processes requiring more attention in model development and evaluation. Many of these are connected with improving parameterizations of processes in cavities, scale-aware mixing modelling, or of topographic overflows.
Concerning the scientific focus, the authors note that many of the respondents mentioned the role of the Southern Ocean for heat, freshwater, and carbon budgets, i.e. in some way or another the role of the Southern Ocean in the climate system. They mention that processes shaping the oceanic processes themselves, such as an understanding of the circulation are not mentioned as part of the big questions anymore.
Concerning the observational needs by the community community, the authors note somewhat of a disconnect between the stated use of mostly gridded data sets like the World Ocean Atlas, and a desire for more direct in-situ observations. The authors interpret this as a need for using in-situ data for better process understanding, while gridded products are preferred for model evaluation, despite their larger distance from 'real' observations. This is an interesting point.
It is important to note that the manuscript not only presents the outcome of the questionnaire but in each of the three main points adds some perspective from the authors of the opinion piece themselves. In the parts on the scientific focus this consists in adding aspects that the authors find important (I do I) but that haven't been mentioned. In other parts (especially on data requirements) it is somewhat unclear what is output from the questionaire and what is the authors opinion. So, while overall the analysis done in this opinion piece is quite helpful for the stated aims of aligning modelling and observational efforts, I feel that there should be a somewhat better separation in writing between the presentation of and the comments and opinions of the authors. This should be fairly easy to correct.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Torge Martin, 27 Mar 2026
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-213/egusphere-2026-213-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-213-AC3

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Torge Martin on behalf of the Authors (19 Apr 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Apr 2026) by Mario Hoppema

Dear Dr. Martin and co-authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript and the responses to the three referees. I am satisfied with your response and the opinion manuscript is close to publication. After reading it myself, I listed some final comments which appear below. Please prepare the final version of your manuscript taking into account my comments.

Since Antarctica Insync is mentioned a couple of times and the results seem to be collected for Ant. Insync as one of the main stakeholders, a few sentences about what Ant. Insync represents should be added.

Please note that Ocean Science guidelines say that data is considered a countable noun, that is: “data are …” (plural). Please adapt all through the manuscript.

L48 define IPY here as it is first used in the main body of the paper (it is defined in the abstract, but that is independent)
L48 I suggest: … which is logical, considering the … (comma is needed for readability)
L52 … shorter time scale, though. (comma after scale)

L128 I suggest: … this may, however, reflect the dominant area of expertise of the participants.
L130 high-resolution
L146 I would add: most, i.e., … most Antarctic Bottom Water … (as some AABW may still be formed in the open ocean)

L146-147 Antarctic Bottom Water (capitals)
L149 Antarctic Intermediate Water (capitals)
L159 It has been … (delete And)

L168 (caption Fig 2): What are in your view … (are instead of: is)
L168-172 Caption Fig. 2: First it is mentioned that air-sea exchange is pre-defined. Then examples of free text input are given, and again air-sea exchange is mentioned. One of these two mentionings must be wrong.

L182 computing power
L226 delete though
L242 I suggest: … strengthened. Additionally, educational programs … (as the first and second part of the sentence do not seem to fit together well)

L259 … and should take … (add: should)(for increasing the readability)
L260 I suggest: This would in the end ensure multiple use of the data collected. (move: in the end)
L271 I think “Moreover” is not a correct word for starting a new paragraph.

L272 data, (insert comma)
L288 delete: this
L289-290 … budgets, especially with a focus on ice-ocean interaction, will be instrumental … (insert commas for better readability)

L294 Warm Deep Water
L304 meta-information

L316 I think the use of terms like biogeochemistry in discussions like these should be avoided. Biogeochemistry is the name of the entire field of research. Better to use here is “biogeochemical processes”

With kind regards
Mario Hoppema

Hide

AR by Torge Martin on behalf of the Authors (20 Apr 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Apr 2026) by Mario Hoppema

ED: Publish as is (21 Apr 2026) by Mario Hoppema (Co-editor-in-chief)

AR by Torge Martin on behalf of the Authors (22 Apr 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

05 May 2026

Opinion: status, plans and needs of Southern Ocean modelling

Torge Martin, Carolina O. Dufour, Andrew J. S. Meijers, and Alyce M. Hancock

Ocean Sci., 22, 1429–1437, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-1429-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-1429-2026, 2026

Short summary Editorial statement

Torge Martin, Carolina O. Dufour, Andrew J. S. Meijers, and Alyce M. Hancock

Viewed

Total article views: 1,129 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
747	298	84	1,129	51	88

HTML: 747
PDF: 298
XML: 84
Total: 1,129
BibTeX: 51
EndNote: 88

Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jan 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2026	192	90	18	300
Feb 2026	224	80	24	328
Mar 2026	192	94	24	310
Apr 2026	103	29	12	144
May 2026	36	5	6	47

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jan 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2026	192	90	18	300
Feb 2026	224	80	24	328
Mar 2026	192	94	24	310
Apr 2026	103	29	12	144
May 2026	36	5	6	47

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,129 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,129 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 25 May 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (993 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

In the next 5–8 years major observational programs will be launched to improve our understanding of the Southern Ocean, the changes it is experiencing and its role in global warming. For these to advance current knowledge, intense exchange with the numerical modeling community is essential, we believe. The survey results presented help to identify urgently needed observations for model development and underline the importance to explore new avenues in communication, collaboration and education.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0