4.6 Article

Variability of the meridional overturning in the North Atlantic from the 50-year GECCO state estimation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 1913-1930

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2008JPO3775.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. ONR (NOPP) ECCO [N00014-99-1-1049, N00014-99-1-1050]
  2. NASA [NAG5-11765, NAG5-12870, NNG04GF30G]
  3. Jet Propulsion Laboratory [1205624]
  4. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The German partner of the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (GECCO) provided a dynamically consistent estimate of the time-varying ocean circulation over the 50-yr period 1952-2001. The GECCO synthesis combines most of the data available during the entire estimation period with the ECCO-Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ocean circulation model using its adjoint. This GECCO estimate is analyzed here for the period 1962-2001 with respect to decadal and longer-term changes of the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the North Atlantic. A special focus is on the maximum MOC values at 25 degrees N. Over this period, the dynamically self-consistent synthesis stays within the error bars of H. L. Bryden et al., but reveals a general increase of the MOC strength. The variability on decadal and longer time scales is decomposed into contributions from different processes. Changes in the model's MOC strength are strongly influenced by the southward communication of density anomalies along the western boundary originating from the subpolar North Atlantic, which are related to changes in the Denmark Strait overflow but are only marginally influenced by water mass formation in the Labrador Sea. The influence of density anomalies propagating along the southern edge of the subtropical gyre associated with baroclinically unstable Rossby waves is found to be equally important. Wind-driven processes such as local Ekman transport explain a smaller fraction of the variability on those long time scales.

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

4.6
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