An assessment of the Arctic Ocean in a suite of interannual CORE-II simulations. Part III: Hydrography and fluxes
|Author(s)||Ilicak Mehmet1, Drange Helge2, 3, Wang Qiang4, Gerdes Rudiger4, Aksenov Yevgeny5, Bailey David6, Bentsen Mats1, Biastoch Arne7, Bozec Alexandra8, Boening Claus7, Cassou Christophe9, Chassignet Eric8, Coward Andrew C.5, Curry Beth10, Danabasoglu Gokhan6, Danilov Sergey4, Fernandez Elodie9, Fogli Pier Giuseppe11, Fujii Yosuke12, Griffies Stephen M.13, Iovino Doroteaciro11, Jahn Alexandra6, 19, Jung Thomas4, Large William G.6, Lee Craig10, Lique Camille14, Lu Jianhua8, Masina Simona11, 18, Nurser A. J. George5, Roth Christina7, Salas Y Melia David15, Samuels Bonita L.13, Spence Paul16, 17, Tsujino Hiroyuki12, Valcke Sophie9, Voldoire Aurore15, Wang Xuezhu4, Yeager Steve G.6|
|Affiliation(s)||1 : Bjerknes Ctr Climate Res, Uni Res Climate, Bergen, Norway.
2 : Univ Bergen, Inst Geophys, Bergen, Norway.
3 : Bjerknes Ctr Climate Res, Bergen, Norway.
4 : Helmholtz Ctr Polar & Marine Res AWI, Alfred Wegener Inst, Bremerhaven, Germany.
5 : NOC, Southampton SO14 3ZH, Hants, England.
6 : NCAR, Boulder, CO USA.
7 : GEOMAR Helmholtz Ctr Ocean Res, Kiel, Germany.
8 : Florida State Univ, COAPS, Tallahassee, FL 32306 USA.
9 : CNRS, Ctr Europeen Rech & Format Avancee Calcul Sci, Unite Rech Associee 1875, Toulouse, France.
10 : Univ Washington, Appl Phys Lab, Seattle, WA 98105 USA.
11 : Ctr Euromediterraneo Cambiamenti Climatici CMCC, Bologna, Italy.
12 : Japan Meteorol Agcy, MRI, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
13 : NOAA, GFDL, Princeton, NJ USA.
14 : Univ Oxford, Dept Earth Sci, Oxford OX1 3PR, England.
15 : CNRM, Toulouse, France.
16 : Univ New S Wales, ARC Ctr Excellence Climate Syst Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
17 : Univ New S Wales, Climate Change Res Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
18 : INGV, Bologna, Italy.
19 : Univ Colorado, Inst Arctic & Alpine Res, Dept Atmopher & Ocean Sci, Boulder, CO 80309 USA.
20 : IFREMER, Lab Phys Oceans, Brest, France.
|Source||Ocean Modelling (1463-5003) (Elsevier Sci Ltd), 2016-04 , Vol. 100 , P. 141-161|
|WOS© Times Cited||34|
|Keyword(s)||Arctic Ocean, Atlantic Water, St. Anna Trough, Density currents, CORE-II atmospheric forcing|
|Abstract||In this paper we compare the simulated Arctic Ocean in 15 global ocean–sea ice models in the framework of the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments, phase II (CORE-II). Most of these models are the ocean and sea-ice components of the coupled climate models used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) experiments. We mainly focus on the hydrography of the Arctic interior, the state of Atlantic Water layer and heat and volume transports at the gateways of the Davis Strait, the Bering Strait, the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea Opening. We found that there is a large spread in temperature in the Arctic Ocean between the models, and generally large differences compared to the observed temperature at intermediate depths. Warm bias models have a strong temperature anomaly of inflow of the Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait. Another process that is not represented accurately in the CORE-II models is the formation of cold and dense water, originating on the eastern shelves. In the cold bias models, excessive cold water forms in the Barents Sea and spreads into the Arctic Ocean through the St. Anna Through. There is a large spread in the simulated mean heat and volume transports through the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea Opening. The models agree more on the decadal variability, to a large degree dictated by the common atmospheric forcing. We conclude that the CORE-II model study helps us to understand the crucial biases in the Arctic Ocean. The current coarse resolution state-of-the-art ocean models need to be improved in accurate representation of the Atlantic Water inflow into the Arctic and density currents coming from the shelves.|