The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) is an endorsed project in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). OMIP addresses CMIP6 science questions, investigating the origins and consequences of systematic model biases. It does so by providing a framework for evaluating (including assessment of systematic biases), understanding, and improving ocean, sea-ice, tracer, and biogeochemical components of climate and earth system models contributing to CMIP6. Among the WCRP Grand Challenges in climate science (GCs), OMIP primarily contributes to the regional sea level change and near-term (climate/decadal) prediction GCs.OMIP provides (a) an experimental protocol for global ocean/sea-ice models run with a prescribed atmospheric forcing; and (b) a protocol for ocean diagnostics to be saved as part of CMIP6. We focus here on the physical component of OMIP, with a companion paper (Orr et al., 2016) detailing methods for the inert chemistry and interactive biogeochemistry. The physical portion of the OMIP experimental protocol follows the interannual Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). Since 2009, CORE-I (Normal Year Forcing) and CORE-II (Interannual Forcing) have become the standard methods to evaluate global ocean/sea-ice simulations and to examine mechanisms for forced ocean climate variability. The OMIP diagnostic protocol is relevant for any ocean model component of CMIP6, including the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments), historical simulations, FAFMIP (Flux Anomaly Forced MIP), C4MIP (Coupled Carbon Cycle Climate MIP), DAMIP (Detection and Attribution MIP), DCPP (Decadal Climate Prediction Project), ScenarioMIP, HighResMIP (High Resolution MIP), as well as the ocean/sea-ice OMIP simulations.

The Finite Element Sea Ice-Ocean Model (FESOM) is the first global ocean general circulation model based on unstructured-mesh methods that has been developed for the purpose of climate research. The advantage of unstructured-mesh models is their flexible multi-resolution modelling functionality. In this study, an overview of the main features of FESOM will be given; based on sensitivity experiments a number of specific parameter choices will be explained; and directions of future developments will be outlined. It is argued that FESOM is sufficiently mature to explore the benefits of multi-resolution climate modelling and that its applications will provide information useful for the advancement of climate modelling on unstructured meshes.

Version 2 of the unstructured-mesh Finite-Element Sea ice–Ocean circulation Model (FESOM) is presented. It builds upon FESOM1.4 (Wang et al., 2014) but differs by its dynamical core (finite volumes instead of finite elements), and is formulated using the arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) vertical coordinate, which increases model flexibility. The model inherits the framework and sea ice model from the previous version, which minimizes the efforts needed from a user to switch from one version to the other. The ocean states simulated with FESOM1.4 and FESOM2.0 driven by CORE-II forcing are compared on a mesh used for the CORE-II intercomparison project. Additionally, the performance on an eddy-permitting mesh with uniform resolution is discussed. The new version improves the numerical efficiency of FESOM in terms of CPU time by at least 3 times while retaining its fidelity in simulating sea ice and the ocean. From this it is argued that FESOM2.0 provides a major step forward in establishing unstructured-mesh models as valuable tools in climate research.

The Alfred Wegener Institute Climate Model (AWI‐CM) participates for the first time in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), CMIP6. The sea ice‐ocean component, FESOM, runs on an unstructured mesh with horizontal resolutions ranging from 8 to 80 km. FESOM is coupled to the Max Planck Institute atmospheric model ECHAM 6.3 at a horizontal resolution of about 100 km. Using objective performance indices, it is shown that AWI‐CM performs better than the average of CMIP5 models. AWI‐CM shows an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, which is similar to the CMIP5 average, and a transient climate response of 2.1°C which is slightly higher than the CMIP5 average. The negative trend of Arctic sea‐ice extent in September over the past 30 years is 20–30% weaker in our simulations compared to observations. With the strongest emission scenario, the AMOC decreases by 25% until the end of the century which is less than the CMIP5 average of 40%. Patterns and even magnitude of simulated temperature and precipitation changes at the end of this century compared to present‐day climate under the strong emission scenario SSP585 are similar to the multi‐model CMIP5 mean. The simulations show a 11°C warming north of the Barents Sea and around 2°C to 3°C over most parts of the ocean as well as a wetting of the Arctic, subpolar, tropical, and Southern Ocean. Furthermore, in the northern middle latitudes in boreal summer and autumn as well as in the southern middle latitudes, a more zonal atmospheric flow is projected throughout the year.

We present a new framework for global ocean–sea-ice model simulations based on phase 2 of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP-2), making use of the surface dataset based on the Japanese 55-year atmospheric reanalysis for driving ocean–sea-ice models (JRA55-do). We motivate the use of OMIP-2 over the framework for the first phase of OMIP (OMIP-1), previously referred to as the Coordinated Ocean–ice Reference Experiments (COREs), via the evaluation of OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations from 11 state-of-the-science global ocean–sea-ice models. In the present evaluation, multi-model ensemble means and spreads are calculated separately for the OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations and overall performance is assessed considering metrics commonly used by ocean modelers. Both OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 multi-model ensemble ranges capture observations in more than 80 % of the time and region for most metrics, with the multi-model ensemble spread greatly exceeding the difference between the means of the two datasets. Many features, including some climatologically relevant ocean circulation indices, are very similar between OMIP-1 and OMIP-2 simulations, and yet we could also identify key qualitative improvements in transitioning from OMIP-1 to OMIP-2. For example, the sea surface temperatures of the OMIP-2 simulations reproduce the observed global warming during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the warming slowdown in the 2000s and the more recent accelerated warming, which were absent in OMIP-1, noting that the last feature is part of the design of OMIP-2 because OMIP-1 forcing stopped in 2009. A negative bias in the sea-ice concentration in summer of both hemispheres in OMIP-1 is significantly reduced in OMIP-2. The overall reproducibility of both seasonal and interannual variations in sea surface temperature and sea surface height (dynamic sea level) is improved in OMIP-2. These improvements represent a new capability of the OMIP-2 framework for evaluating process-level responses using simulation results. Regarding the sensitivity of individual models to the change in forcing, the models show well-ordered responses for the metrics that are directly forced, while they show less organized responses for those that require complex model adjustments. Many of the remaining common model biases may be attributed either to errors in representing important processes in ocean–sea-ice models, some of which are expected to be reduced by using finer horizontal and/or vertical resolutions, or to shared biases and limitations in the atmospheric forcing. In particular, further efforts are warranted to resolve remaining issues in OMIP-2 such as the warm bias in the upper layer, the mismatch between the observed and simulated variability of heat content and thermosteric sea level before 1990s, and the erroneous representation of deep and bottom water formations and circulations. We suggest that such problems can be resolved through collaboration between those developing models (including parameterizations) and forcing datasets. Overall, the present assessment justifies our recommendation that future model development and analysis studies use the OMIP-2 framework.