SODA3: A New Ocean Climate Reanalysis

By J. Carton, G. Chepurin, Ligang Chen. Journal of Climate, 2018

509 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper describes version 3 of the Simple Ocean Data Assimilation (SODA3) ocean reanalysis with enhancements to model resolution, observation, and forcing datasets, and the addition of active sea ice. SODA3 relies on the ocean component of the NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.5 coupled model with nominal ¼° resolution. A scheme has also been implemented to reduce bias in the surface fluxes. A 37-yr-long ocean reanalysis, SODA3.4.2, created using this new SODA3 system is compared to the previous generation of SODA (SODA2.2.4) as well as to the Hadley Centre EN4.1.1 no-model statistical objective analysis. The comparison is carried out in the tropics, the midlatitudes, and the Arctic and includes examinations of the meridional overturning circulation in the Atlantic. The comparison shows that SODA3.4.2 has reduced systematic errors to a level comparable to those of the no-model statistical objective analysis in the upper ocean. The accuracy of variability has been improved particularly poleward of the tropics, with the greatest improvements seen in the Arctic, accompanying a substantial reduction in surface net heat and freshwater flux bias. These improvements justify increasing use of ocean reanalysis for climate studies including the higher latitudes.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c3af9cc5cc88f7b12cb489c8c9a32ba7e95a6a01

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

In Global and Planetary Change

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

Challenges and Prospects in Ocean Circulation Models (2019, background): “For many quantities, ocean reanalyses have reached a degree of accuracy at which they could be considered in IPCC evaluations (Carton et al., 2018).”