Evaluation of ocean model ventilation with CFC-11: comparison of 13 global ocean models |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l''Environnement, Gif sur Yvette, France;2. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA, USA;3. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA;4. Pensylvania State University, Pensylvania, USA;5. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA;6. Institut d''Astronomie et de Geophysique G. Lemaitre, University Catholique de Louvain, Belgium;7. Nansen Enviromental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway;8. Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA;9. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA;10. Institute for Global Change Research, Tokyo, Japan;11. Physics Institute Univeristy of Bern, Switzerland;12. Laboratoire d''Océanographie Dynamique et de Climatologie Paris, France;13. Max Planck Institut fuer Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany;14. Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization, Hobart, Australia;15. Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany;p. Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK;q. Astrophysics et Geophysics Institute, University of Liege, Belgium;1. Laboratoire LEM, Université Lille-3, Maison de la recherche, BP 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d''Ascq cedex, France;2. Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Université Blaise-Pascal, UMR 6620, CNRS, Campus des Cézeaux, BP 80026, 63171 Aubière cedex, France;3. MODAL team, INRIA Lille-Nord de France, France;1. Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, 60 Bigelow Drive, East Boothbay, ME 04543, USA;2. Department of Earth System Science, University of California, 3208 Croul Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, USA;3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, 321 Steinhaus Hall, Irvine, CA 92697, USA;1. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan;2. Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan;3. Precambrian Ecosystem Laboratory, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan;4. Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuda Midori-ku Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture 226-8502, Japan;5. RIKEN, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako-shi, Saitama-ken 351-0198, Japan;6. Department of Earth Science and Astronomy, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan;7. Research Center for the Evolving Earth and Planets, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan |
| |
| Abstract: | We compared the 13 models participating in the Ocean Carbon Model Intercomparison Project (OCMIP) with regards to their skill in matching observed distributions of CFC-11. This analysis characterizes the abilities of these models to ventilate the ocean on timescales relevant for anthropogenic CO2 uptake. We found a large range in the modeled global inventory (±30%), mainly due to differences in ventilation from the high latitudes. In the Southern Ocean, models differ particularly in the longitudinal distribution of the CFC uptake in the intermediate water, whereas the latitudinal distribution is mainly controlled by the subgrid-scale parameterization. Models with isopycnal diffusion and eddy-induced velocity parameterization produce more realistic intermediate water ventilation. Deep and bottom water ventilation also varies substantially between the models. Models coupled to a sea-ice model systematically provide more realistic AABW formation source region; however these same models also largely overestimate AABW ventilation if no specific parameterization of brine rejection during sea-ice formation is included. In the North Pacific Ocean, all models exhibit a systematic large underestimation of the CFC uptake in the thermocline of the subtropical gyre, while no systematic difference toward the observations is found in the subpolar gyre. In the North Atlantic Ocean, the CFC uptake is globally underestimated in subsurface. In the deep ocean, all but the adjoint model, failed to produce the two recently ventilated branches observed in the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). Furthermore, simulated transport in the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC) is too sluggish in all but the isopycnal model, where it is too rapid. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
