4.6 Review

An exploratory modeling study on bio-physical processes associated with ENSO

期刊

PROGRESS IN OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 28-41

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.03.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program [CATER 2012-3042]
  2. Korea Meteorological Administration [CATER-2012-3042] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variability of marine phytoplankton associated with El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and potential biological feedbacks onto ENSO are investigated by performing coupled ocean/biogeochemical model experiments forced by realistic surface winds from 1951 to 2010. The ocean model used in this study is the MOM4, which is coupled to a biogeochemical model, called TOPAZ (Tracers in the Ocean with Allometric Zooplankton). In general, it is shown that MOM4-TOPAZ mimics the observed main features of phytoplankton variability associated with ENSO. By comparing the actively coupled MOM4-TOPAZ experiment with the ocean model experiments using prescribed chlorophyll concentrations, potential impacts of phytoplankton on ENSO are evaluated. We found that chlorophyll generally increases mean sea surface temperature (SST) and decreases subsurface temperature by altering the penetration of solar radiation. However, as the chlorophyll concentration increases, the equatorial Pacific SST decreases due to the enhanced upwelling of the cooler subsurface water with shoaling of mixed layer and thermocline. The presence of chlorophyll generally intensifies ENSO amplitude by changing the ocean basic state. On the other hand, interactively varying chlorophyll associated with the ENSO tends to reduce ENSO amplitude. Therefore, the two biological effects on SST are competing against each other regarding the SST variance in the equatorial Pacific. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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