Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How well does a 1/4° global circulation model simulate large‐scale oceanic observations?

Stammer, Detlef, Tokmakian, Robin, Semtner, Albert, Wunsch, Carl·1996·Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans

Abstract

Numerical high‐resolution ocean general circulation models have experienced a revolutionary development during the last decade. Today they are run globally in realistic configuration with realistic surface boundary forcing. To fully use the results of those models in understanding various aspects of the ocean general circulation and to combine ocean observations with models (state estimation) in a manner consistent with the data and model dynamics, stringent model‐data comparisons are a necessary first step. In this paper a quantitative model‐data comparison is carried out for the global Parallel Ocean Climate Model (POCM), known also as the Semtner and Chervin model, with nominal lateral resolution of 1/4°. The focus is on various aspects of the simulated large‐scale circulation and their relation to the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea surface height (SSH) observations and World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) hydrography. Comparisons are made for (1) the global mean sea surface circulation and absolute slopes, (2) rms SSH variability and eddy kinetic energy, (3) the simulation of the observed seasonal cycle in SSH, (4) two‐dimensional frequency‐wavenumber spectra of the large‐scale fluctuations, as well as (5) the hydrography for WOCE sections. Recent improvements in external surface forcing fields including daily wind‐stress fields and sea surface heat fluxes lead to a significant improvement in the overall agreement of the simulated and observed large‐scale mean circulation and its variability. However, simulated amplitudes of variability remain low by about a factor of 2 to 4 over a broad spectral range, including the long wavelengths and periods. Both the causes and consequences of this low variability remain obscure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/96jc01754

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Stammer, D., Tokmakian, R., Semtner, A., & Wunsch, C.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
Published
1996-11-15
Volume
101
Issue
C11
Pages
25779-25811
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985937382
Cited by
212
References
1
FWCI
20.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How well does a 1/4° global circulation model simulate large‐scale oceanic observations? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/96jc01754
The paper
Stammer, D., Tokmakian, R., Semtner, A., & Wunsch, C. (1996). How well does a 1/4° global circulation model simulate large‐scale oceanic observations? Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc01754

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.