the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The accuracy of barotropic and baroclinic tides in global non-assimilative ocean general circulation models
Abstract. We investigate the accuracy of barotropic tides and phase-locked baroclinic (internal) tides in forward (non-data-assimilative) simulations of four different high-resolution global ocean models: the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM), the Modular Ocean Model Version 6 (MOM6), the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model (MITgcm). Consistent with a previous study that employed only HYCOM, we find that the phase-locked internal tides in our HYCOM, MOM6 and MITgcm simulations are large relative to altimeter observations unless an explicit parameterized topographic internal wave drag, which damps barotropic and baroclinic tides, is included. We also find that harmonic analysis of long records of model output results in estimates of phase-locked internal tides that compare more favorably with observed baroclinic surface elevations from along-track satellite-altimetry. Increasing the resolution within the same dynamical core reduces amplitudes of phase-locked internal tides, possibly due to a more efficient energy cascade to higher-frequency internal wave continuum motions. We also document details of the astronomical tidal forcing in the MITgcm runs, which have been widely used by the wideswath altimetry community, that adversely affect the accuracy of modeled barotropic and baroclinic tides. We verify the impacts of the erroneous tidal forcing with results of less expensive shallow-water simulations that also employ the erroneous forcing.
- Preprint
(3748 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Nov 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5064', Brian Dushaw, 13 Oct 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-5064/egusphere-2026-5064-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-5064-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5064', Edward Zaron, 22 Oct 2026
reply
Review of "The accuracy of barotropic and baroclinic tides in global
non-assimilative ocean general circulation models" by Ansong et al.
This paper reports on a comparison of tidal SSH amplitudes in a set of ocean
simulations. Barotropic and baroclinic SSH are separated by a one-dimensional
(along track) spatial filtering so that the amplitudes can be compared with
an accurate global barotropic tide reference model, TPXO8. The amplitudes
are compared graphically and via summary statistics of root-mean-square
amplitude.
Frankly, I found this paper way too long given that the primary findings seem
to be: (1) models with wave drag have more realistic SSH amplitudes (except NEMO),
(2) baroclinic tidal amplitudes decrease as the length of record increases.
Both of these are, in my opinion, replicating well-established findings
from the previous literature and the lead author's previous work.
I think that specialists with expert knowledge of the models will be interested
in these results, but they will be of little interest to the general reader.
For this reason, since the experts will already be well-versed in the detailed
setup of each model, I would suggest an extreme paring down of the content and
explanation in this paper to reduce its length. The lengthly and somewhat
confusing explanations of the different HYCOM versions are probably not needed.
The explanation of the MITgcm tidal forcing error is very good, and should probably
be kept. I would suggest eliminating all repetition and speculation. If this
is done, then I think this paper will probably provide a useful reference for
the "state-of-the-art", as measured by tidal SSH amplitudes, in the early 2020s.
Work cited here by Yadidya et al has already moved on to more detailed comparisons
of RMS errors (not just RMS amplitudes), so the contents of this paper are
quickly becoming less salient.
My suggestion with this paper is to "accept with revision" and ask the authors
to greatly reduce the length of the manuscript.
Detailed comments are below:
L5: Since NEMO is not listed here, does that imply that it contains by default
such a wave drag, or that it contains more spurious numerical viscosity?
L8: "more favorably" --- more favorably than what?
L9: "possibly" --- omit speculation. There are always many possibilities, why did
you choose to mention this one?
L23: inconsistent use of parens for citation dates; compare with L20 and throughout
L35, L38, etc: Why are the citations listed in this order? I suggest chronological.
L50: add "energy lost to" or "energy converted to" before "high mode"
L55: "become too" --> "are"
L92-L93: I don't understand why this would be in question, particularly since you
cited Colosi and Munk who provide an unambiguous analysis of the reason why the
definition of the phase-locked tide depends on the length of record.
L99: Is the "historic" llc4320 different from the one referred to at L94?
L132-L140: Maybe you could re-name these experiments more consistently for
this paper so that they follow some kind of logical pattern?
L147: Does this similation include pre- and post-2011 time periods?
L156-L166: This all seems like technical information, and can be omitted.
We trust you have done it correctly.
L168: "an additional" --> "a pseudo" ? Omit "some additional details of".
L172: Either there were errors or there were not. Why do you say, "possible"?
L191-L198: This seems like technical detail which can be omitted.
L211: "This" --> "The"
L215-L216: I assume the primary validation later will be in terms of tidal
SSH, rather than energy. Are tidal SSH's also determined by the semidiurnal
band rather than M2?
L232-L238: Move discussion of accuracy comparisons to later in the paper.
Also, the discussion of HYCOM here is confusing because it mentions
the ASEnKF optimization. This was not mentioned in the earlier description of
HYCOM which destinguished between HYCOM simulations and HYCOM forecasts.
Find a way to simplify this and present it clearly.
L255: You might want to cite some of the prior work, e.g., Zaron and Egbert 2006,
Stewart et al 2017, Hiron et al 2025, etc.
L260: "likely because" --- Omit speculation. The higher resolution models also
explicitly resolve more topographic roughness and linear scattering to higher
modes. Unless you have tested and compared these mechanisms (nonlinear cascade vs.
linear scattering), I don't you should speculate about this.
Table 1: Font used in the table is too small. I thought the text mentioned
several different HYCOM simulations, but only one is listed here.
L310: It might be useful to state the numerical value of "quite small" for
comparison with differences among models later.
Fig 2: It would be nice to put iso-phase lines on these plots to match the format of
the panels in Fig 1.
Table 1 and Fig 1: There are 6 columns/models in Table 1. There are 7 models
displayed in Fig 1. Why different?
L400-L401: More speculation. And repetition.
L437: omit "unintentional", this is implied by the notion of a "mistake"Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5064-CC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 345 | 218 | 54 | 617 | 61 | 52 |
- HTML: 345
- PDF: 218
- XML: 54
- Total: 617
- BibTeX: 61
- EndNote: 52
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1