4.7 Article

Sea Surface Temperature Biases under the Stratus Cloud Deck in the Southeast Pacific Ocean in 19 IPCC AR4 Coupled General Circulation Models

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 24, 期 15, 页码 4139-4164

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2011JCLI4172.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [OCE-0453046, AGS-0966844, ATM-0745897, ATM-0745872]
  2. NOAA CPO [GC-10-400]
  3. Office of Naval Research (ONR) [601153N]
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  5. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [0966844] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines systematic biases in sea surface temperature (SST) under the stratus cloud deck in the southeast Pacific Ocean and upper-ocean processes relevant to the SST biases in 19 coupled general circulation models (CGCMs) participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The 20 years of simulations from each model are analyzed. Pronounced warm SST biases in a large portion of the southeast Pacific stratus region are found in all models. Processes that could contribute to the SST biases are examined in detail based on the computation of major terms in the upper-ocean heat budget. Negative biases in net surface heat fluxes are evident in most of the models, suggesting that the cause of the warm SST biases in models is not explained by errors in net surface heat fluxes. Biases in heat transport by Ekman currents largely contribute to the warm SST biases both near the coast and the open ocean. In the coastal area, southwestward Ekman currents and upwelling in most models are much weaker than observed owing to weaker alongshore winds, resulting in insufficient advection of cold water from the coast. In the open ocean, warm advection due to Ekman currents is overestimated in models because of the larger meridional temperature gradient, the smaller zonal temperature gradient, and overly weaker Ekman currents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据