4.7 Article

A Comparative Analysis of Upper-Ocean Heat Content Variability from an Ensemble of Operational Ocean Reanalyses

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 25, 期 20, 页码 6905-6929

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00542.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA Climate Observation Division of Climate Program Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ocean heat content (HC) is one of the key indicators of climate variability and also provides ocean memory critical for seasonal and decadal predictions. The availability of multiple operational ocean analyses (ORAs) now routinely produced around the world is an opportunity for estimation of uncertainties in HC analysis and development of ensemble-based operational HC climate indices. In this context, the spread across the ORAs is used to quantify uncertainties in HC analysis and the ensemble mean of ORAs to identify, and to monitor, climate signals. Toward this goal, this study analyzed 10 ORAs, two objective analyses based on in situ data only, and eight model analyses based on ocean data assimilation systems. The mean, annual cycle, interannual variability, and long-term trend of HC in the upper 300 m (HC300) from 1980 to 2009 are compared. The spread across HC300 analyses generally decreased with time and reached a minimum in the early 2000s when the Argo data became available. There was a good correspondence between the increase of data counts and reduction of the spread. The agreement of HC300 anomalies among different ORAs, measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SIN), is generally high in the tropical Pacific, tropical Indian Ocean, North Pacific, and North Atlantic but low in the tropical Atlantic and extratropical southern oceans where observations are very sparse. A set of climate indices was derived as HC300 anomalies averaged over the areas where the covariability between SST and HC300 represents the major climate modes such as ENS, Indian Ocean dipole, Atlantic Nino, Pacific decadal oscillation, and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.

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