the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring the role of different data types and timescales for the quality of marine biogeochemical model calibration
Julia Getzlaff
Angela Landolfi
Volkmar Sauerland
Markus Schartau
Andreas Oschlies
Abstract. Global biogeochemical ocean models help to investigate the present and potential future state of the ocean biogeochemistry, its productivity and cascading effects on higher trophic levels such as fish. They are often subjectively tuned against data sets of inorganic tracers and surface chlorophyll and only very rarely against organic components such as particulate organic carbon or zooplankton. The resulting uncertainty in biogeochemical model parameters (and parameterisations) associated with these components can explain some of the large spread of global model solutions with regard to the cycling of organic matter and its impacts on biogeochemical tracer distributions, such as oxygen minimum zones (OMZs). A second source of uncertainty arises from differences in the model spin-up length, as, so far, there seems to be no agreement on the required simulation time that should elapse before a global model is assessed against observations.
We investigated these two sources of uncertainty by optimising a global biogeochemical ocean model against the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of six different combinations of data sets and different spin-up times. Besides nutrients and oxygen, the observational data sets also included phyto- and zooplankton, as well as dissolved and particulate organic phosphorus. We further analysed the optimised model performance with regard to global biogeochemical fluxes, oxygen inventory and OMZ volume.
The optimisations resulted in optimal model solutions that yield similar values of the RMSE of tracers mainly located in surface layers, showing a range of between 14 % of the average RMSE after 10 years and 24 % after 3000 years of simulation. Global biogeochemical fluxes, global oxygen bias and OMZ volume showed a much stronger divergence among the models and over time than RMSE, indicating that even models that are similar with regard to local surface tracer concentrations can perform very differently when assessed against the global diagnostics for oxygen. Considering organic tracers in the optimisation had a strong impact on the particle flux exponent ("Martin b") and may reduce much of the uncertainty in this parameter and the resulting deep particle flux. Independent of the optimisation setup, the OMZ volume showed a particularly sensitive response with strong trends over time even after 3000 years of simulation time (despite the constant physical forcing), a high sensitivity to simulation time, as well as the highest sensitivity to model parameters arising from the tuning strategy setup (variation of almost 80 % of the ensemble mean).
In conclusion, calibration against observations of organic tracers can help to improve global biogeochemical models even after short spin-up times; here, especially observations of deep particle flux could provide a powerful constraint. However, a large uncertainty remains with regard to global OMZ volume and its evolution over time, which can show a very dynamic behaviour during the model spin-up, that renders temporal extrapolation to a final 'equilibrium' state difficult, if non impossible. Given that the real ocean shows variations on many timescales, the assumption of observations representing a steady-state ocean may require some reconsideration.
- Preprint
(1463 KB) -
Supplement
(6433 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Iris Kriest et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on Kriest et al.,', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2023-9', Jörg Schwinger, 28 Feb 2023
The authors present results from an extensive parameter optimization study for a global scale ocean biogeochemistry model. They evaluate the impact of different optimisation set-ups, in terms of observation based data used, parameters to be optimized, and model spin-up length. Particularly, they focus on the benefit that assimilation of organic tracer information (phyto- and zooplankton, POP and DOP) might have for the optimization of ocean biogeochemical models. The authors generally find that the inclusion of organic tracer data has a strong impact on the representation of particle sinking in the model and improves model fidelity with respect to global oxygen biases and the represenation of oxygen minimum zones. Different spin-up times are shown to have a considerable influence on global oxygen and OMZ volume biase, even for optimized parameter sets that perform similarly with respect to surface nutrient and oxygen data.
Parameter otimization of global biogeochemical models is understudied due to its complexity and technical challenges, and this study is a very welcome addition to the field. The results are useful (beyond the technical aspects of optimization) for a wide community of ocean biogechemical and Earth system modellers since they tell us about model sensitivity in general. The paper is well written and the method is sound. I didn't find any problem with this manuscript, except a few rather minor points where the manuscript would benefit from clarifications. These points along with technical corrections are listed below.
General:1) It is a bit confusing that the term J_RSME (equation 1) is used to denote the misfit (cost) function used in the optimization procedure, but also for the a-posteori (after optimization) quantification of model misfit. Although both misfit functions take the same form (eq. 1), they are different in which data and regions are considered. This is not explained in the methods section, rather there are only some hints scattered in the text. For example, the reader can guess what is shown in Fig. 1 based on the fact that the J_RMSE values are the same as in table 2, where there is a note in the caption. To make this more transparent, I would suggest to describe this two-fold use of the misfit function in the methods section. I also would prefer to use a (slighly) different notation for the cost function and the a-posteori misfit function (e.g. \hat{J} for the cost function).
2) The representativeness of the data products used for optimisation is discussed several places in the manuscript, but it would be helpful to gather a short description of this aspect in the methods section. The WOA climatologies for nutrients and oxygen should provide to first order a like-to-like comparison with the coarse model and the climatological ocean circulation. The same is probably true for the chlorophyl data? The discussions that are found later in the manuscript point towards the fact that the Martiny data is too sparse to be representative of the simulated model counterpart. It would then also be useful to frame the later discussions more consistently as a problem of representativeness, for example lines 262-266: Is this really a problem of the coarse resolution, or more the problem that the available data are not representative of a climatological average over a 1x1 degree gridcell? The same comment applies for lines 286-287, and also for lines 321-328 (where representativeness is finally mentioned).
Also, is it really plausible that the lack of correlation (for large scale global patterns) can be explained by errors in the (data assimilated) ocean circulation? Doesn't this potentially also point towards a too low model complexity, i.e. only one phytoplankton and zooplankton type?
More specific comments:
-line 2: "...state of the ocean biogeochemistry..." I would find it justified to delete the word biogeochemistry here. The models tell us something about the ocean in general.
-line 15-16: "mainly located in surface layers" is a bit unclear, please consider rewording.
-line 32: Consider adding "combined with data assimilation techniques" or similar after "Global biogeochemical ocean models"
-line 49: "Far less than half of the studies...". Unclear which studies this refers to. Please consider rewording to clarify this.
-line 82: "one of the simulated compartments." It is unclear to me what "compartments" refers to (inorganic/organic? tracers/fluxes? nitrogen/phosphourous?)
-line 83: "basic optimisation procedure". Is "basic" a good word here? Maybe better "reference"?
-line 79-90: It is confusing that it reads "three further experiments" and "these five optimisations". The fact that the "basic" optimisation is actualy two different optimisations (one with range of b more constrained) is difficult to understand. Please consider explaining this better.
-line 101: consider changing "a circulation" to "a circulation field"
-line 170: instead of saying "the DOP parameters", the two parameters could be spelled out for clarity.
-line 169-174: I don't understand the logic behind this experiment: If the objective is "to analyse whether the neglect of iron
limitation in MOPS yields a bias in parameter estimates" then why is the number of paramters to be optimized changed at the same time? This way it is not clear whether changes in the optimized model performance are due to the change in data coverage or due to different set of parameters to be optimized? Could the authors please comment on this?-Table 1: instead of using italic font for fixed parameters, why not write "fixed at 0" and "fixed at 0.1848" for the two cases where this is relevant? Would be easier in my oppinion.
-line 204: "introduced" sounds odd to me. Maybe just "used"?
-line 231: Why "a likely larger number"? L is given in the table, or does this refer to something else? Please clarify.
-line 252-253: "...in contrast to a reduction of JRMSE by about 25% for the consideration of DOP measurements." I don't understand this. In Fig 1a I don't see a very significant difference between S6-all and S6-DOP?
-Figure 4, caption: For panel b (grazing), I can't see any short or long horizontal bar?-Figure 7, caption: "Numbers on top of the panels..." I can't see any numbers on top of panels?
-Figure 9, caption: I don't think "sources of variability" is a good wording, please consider rewording. Also, "which is different for the individual model setups": It is actually only the L4-SO setup that is different, right? So maybe "which is different for L4-SO compared to the other setups"
Technical/typos:-line 28: non -> not
-line 273: expose -> show (?)
-line 278: organics -> organic tracer data
-line 370: agrees with -> falls within
-line 373: too low -> below all other estimates
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-9-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on Kriest et al.,', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2023-9', Jörg Schwinger, 28 Feb 2023
The authors present results from an extensive parameter optimization study for a global scale ocean biogeochemistry model. They evaluate the impact of different optimisation set-ups, in terms of observation based data used, parameters to be optimized, and model spin-up length. Particularly, they focus on the benefit that assimilation of organic tracer information (phyto- and zooplankton, POP and DOP) might have for the optimization of ocean biogeochemical models. The authors generally find that the inclusion of organic tracer data has a strong impact on the representation of particle sinking in the model and improves model fidelity with respect to global oxygen biases and the represenation of oxygen minimum zones. Different spin-up times are shown to have a considerable influence on global oxygen and OMZ volume biase, even for optimized parameter sets that perform similarly with respect to surface nutrient and oxygen data.
Parameter otimization of global biogeochemical models is understudied due to its complexity and technical challenges, and this study is a very welcome addition to the field. The results are useful (beyond the technical aspects of optimization) for a wide community of ocean biogechemical and Earth system modellers since they tell us about model sensitivity in general. The paper is well written and the method is sound. I didn't find any problem with this manuscript, except a few rather minor points where the manuscript would benefit from clarifications. These points along with technical corrections are listed below.
General:1) It is a bit confusing that the term J_RSME (equation 1) is used to denote the misfit (cost) function used in the optimization procedure, but also for the a-posteori (after optimization) quantification of model misfit. Although both misfit functions take the same form (eq. 1), they are different in which data and regions are considered. This is not explained in the methods section, rather there are only some hints scattered in the text. For example, the reader can guess what is shown in Fig. 1 based on the fact that the J_RMSE values are the same as in table 2, where there is a note in the caption. To make this more transparent, I would suggest to describe this two-fold use of the misfit function in the methods section. I also would prefer to use a (slighly) different notation for the cost function and the a-posteori misfit function (e.g. \hat{J} for the cost function).
2) The representativeness of the data products used for optimisation is discussed several places in the manuscript, but it would be helpful to gather a short description of this aspect in the methods section. The WOA climatologies for nutrients and oxygen should provide to first order a like-to-like comparison with the coarse model and the climatological ocean circulation. The same is probably true for the chlorophyl data? The discussions that are found later in the manuscript point towards the fact that the Martiny data is too sparse to be representative of the simulated model counterpart. It would then also be useful to frame the later discussions more consistently as a problem of representativeness, for example lines 262-266: Is this really a problem of the coarse resolution, or more the problem that the available data are not representative of a climatological average over a 1x1 degree gridcell? The same comment applies for lines 286-287, and also for lines 321-328 (where representativeness is finally mentioned).
Also, is it really plausible that the lack of correlation (for large scale global patterns) can be explained by errors in the (data assimilated) ocean circulation? Doesn't this potentially also point towards a too low model complexity, i.e. only one phytoplankton and zooplankton type?
More specific comments:
-line 2: "...state of the ocean biogeochemistry..." I would find it justified to delete the word biogeochemistry here. The models tell us something about the ocean in general.
-line 15-16: "mainly located in surface layers" is a bit unclear, please consider rewording.
-line 32: Consider adding "combined with data assimilation techniques" or similar after "Global biogeochemical ocean models"
-line 49: "Far less than half of the studies...". Unclear which studies this refers to. Please consider rewording to clarify this.
-line 82: "one of the simulated compartments." It is unclear to me what "compartments" refers to (inorganic/organic? tracers/fluxes? nitrogen/phosphourous?)
-line 83: "basic optimisation procedure". Is "basic" a good word here? Maybe better "reference"?
-line 79-90: It is confusing that it reads "three further experiments" and "these five optimisations". The fact that the "basic" optimisation is actualy two different optimisations (one with range of b more constrained) is difficult to understand. Please consider explaining this better.
-line 101: consider changing "a circulation" to "a circulation field"
-line 170: instead of saying "the DOP parameters", the two parameters could be spelled out for clarity.
-line 169-174: I don't understand the logic behind this experiment: If the objective is "to analyse whether the neglect of iron
limitation in MOPS yields a bias in parameter estimates" then why is the number of paramters to be optimized changed at the same time? This way it is not clear whether changes in the optimized model performance are due to the change in data coverage or due to different set of parameters to be optimized? Could the authors please comment on this?-Table 1: instead of using italic font for fixed parameters, why not write "fixed at 0" and "fixed at 0.1848" for the two cases where this is relevant? Would be easier in my oppinion.
-line 204: "introduced" sounds odd to me. Maybe just "used"?
-line 231: Why "a likely larger number"? L is given in the table, or does this refer to something else? Please clarify.
-line 252-253: "...in contrast to a reduction of JRMSE by about 25% for the consideration of DOP measurements." I don't understand this. In Fig 1a I don't see a very significant difference between S6-all and S6-DOP?
-Figure 4, caption: For panel b (grazing), I can't see any short or long horizontal bar?-Figure 7, caption: "Numbers on top of the panels..." I can't see any numbers on top of panels?
-Figure 9, caption: I don't think "sources of variability" is a good wording, please consider rewording. Also, "which is different for the individual model setups": It is actually only the L4-SO setup that is different, right? So maybe "which is different for L4-SO compared to the other setups"
Technical/typos:-line 28: non -> not
-line 273: expose -> show (?)
-line 278: organics -> organic tracer data
-line 370: agrees with -> falls within
-line 373: too low -> below all other estimates
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-9-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-9/bg-2023-9-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Kriest, 29 Mar 2023
Iris Kriest et al.
Supplement
Iris Kriest et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
301 | 91 | 15 | 407 | 39 | 12 | 5 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 91
- XML: 15
- Total: 407
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1