MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131275240 · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021

The interpretation of temperature and salinity variables in numerical ocean model output and the calculation of heat fluxes and heat content

2021· article· en· W3131275240 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor J. McDougall, Paul M. Barker, Ryan M. Holmes, Rich Pawlowicz, Stephen M. Griffies, Paul J. Durack

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNational Cancer InstituteAustralian Research CouncilOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of EnergyAustralian GovernmentNational Computational Infrastructure
KeywordsIsobaric processTemperature salinity diagramsSalinityThermodynamicsEnthalpyPotential temperatureCoupled model intercomparison projectHeat fluxSeawaterHeat capacityOcean heat contentClimatologySea surface temperatureEnvironmental scienceSensible heatAtmospheric sciencesClimate modelHeat transferGeologyClimate changePhysicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The international Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater 2010 (TEOS-10) defined the enthalpy and entropy of seawater, thus enabling the global ocean heat content to be calculated as the volume integral of the product of in situ density, ρ, and potential enthalpy, h0 (with reference sea pressure of 0 dbar). In terms of Conservative Temperature, Θ, ocean heat content is the volume integral of ρcp0Θ, where cp0 is a constant “isobaric heat capacity”. However, many ocean models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) as well as all models that contributed to earlier phases, such as CMIP5, CMIP3, CMIP2, and CMIP1, used EOS-80 (Equation of State – 1980) rather than the updated TEOS-10, so the question arises of how the salinity and temperature variables in these models should be physically interpreted, with a particular focus on comparison to TEOS-10-compliant observations. In this article we address how heat content, surface heat fluxes, and the meridional heat transport are best calculated using output from these models and how these quantities should be compared with those calculated from corresponding observations. We conclude that even though a model uses the EOS-80, which expects potential temperature as its input temperature, the most appropriate interpretation of the model's temperature variable is actually Conservative Temperature. This perhaps unexpected interpretation is needed to ensure that the air–sea heat flux that leaves and arrives in atmosphere and sea ice models is the same as that which arrives in and leaves the ocean model. We also show that the salinity variable carried by present TEOS-10-based models is Preformed Salinity, while the salinity variable of EOS-80-based models is also proportional to Preformed Salinity. These interpretations of the salinity and temperature variables in ocean models are an update on the comprehensive Griffies et al. (2016) paper that discusses the interpretation of many aspects of coupled Earth system models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207