4.3 Article

Numerical simulation of ice-ocean variability in the Barents Sea region Towards dynamical downscaling

期刊

OCEAN DYNAMICS
卷 55, 期 3-4, 页码 370-387

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10236-005-0008-3

关键词

Ice-ocean model; Comparison model-data; Barents Sea

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A dynamic-thermodynamic sea ice model has been coupled to a three-dimensional ocean general circulation model for the purpose of conducting ocean climate dynamical downscaling experiments for the Barents Sea region. To assess model performance and suitability for such an application, the coupled model has been used to conduct a hindcast for the period 1990-2002. A comparison with available observations shows that the model successfully tracks seasonal and inter-annual variability in the ocean temperature field and that the simulated horizontal and vertical distribution of temperature are in good agreement with observations. The model results follow the seasonal and inter-annual variability in sea ice cover in the region, with the exception that the model results show too much ice melting in the northern Barents Sea during summer. The spatial distribution of the winter simulated sea ice cover is in close agreement with observations. Modelled temperatures and ice concentrations in the central Barents Sea are biased too high and too low, respectively. The probable cause is too high inflow of Atlantic Water into the Barents. The seasonal and inter-annual fluctuations in temperature and sea ice cover in the central Barents are, however, in excellent agreement with observations. Salt release during the freezing process in the numerical simulation exhibits considerable inter-annual variability and tends to vary in an opposite manner to the net inflow volume flux at the western entrance of the Barents Sea. Overall, the model produces realistic ice-ocean seasonal and inter-annual variability and should prove to be a useful tool for dynamical downscaling applications.

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

4.3
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