Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLiang, Xinfeng  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorYu, Lisan  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-30T17:53:38Z
dc.date.available2016-11-15T09:14:05Z
dc.date.issued2016-05-15
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Climate 29 (2016): 3647-3660en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/8066
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2016. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Climate 29 (2016): 3647-3660, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0626.1.en_US
dc.description.abstractAn assessment is made of the mean and variability of the net air–sea heat flux, Qnet, from four products (ECCO, OAFlux–CERES, ERA-Interim, and NCEP1) over the global ice-free ocean from January 2001 to December 2010. For the 10-yr “hiatus” period, all products agree on an overall net heat gain over the global ice-free ocean, but the magnitude varies from 1.7 to 9.5 W m−2. The differences among products are particularly large in the Southern Ocean, where they cannot even agree on whether the region gains or loses heat on the annual mean basis. Decadal trends of Qnet differ significantly between products. ECCO and OAFlux–CERES show almost no trend, whereas ERA-Interim suggests a downward trend and NCEP1 shows an upward trend. Therefore, numerical simulations utilizing different surface flux forcing products will likely produce diverged trends of the ocean heat content during this period. The downward trend in ERA-Interim started from 2006, driven by a peculiar pattern change in the tropical regions. ECCO, which used ERA-Interim as initial surface forcings and is constrained by ocean dynamics and ocean observations, corrected the pattern. Among the four products, ECCO and OAFlux–CERES show great similarities in the examined spatial and temporal patterns. Given that the two estimates were obtained using different approaches and based on largely independent observations, these similarities are encouraging and instructive. It is more likely that the global net air–sea heat flux does not change much during the so-called hiatus period.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis paper is funded in part by the NOAA Climate Observation Division, Climate Program Office, under Grant NA09OAR4320129 and by the NOAA MAPP Climate Reanalysis Task Force Team under Grant NA13OAR4310106. The study was initiated when X. Liang was a postdoc at MIT, where he was supported in part by the NSF through Grant OCE-0961713, by NOAA through Grant NA10OAR4310135, and by the NASA Physical Oceanography Program through ECCO.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Meteorological Societyen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0626.1
dc.subjectPhysical Meteorology and Climatologyen_US
dc.subjectHeat budgets/fluxesen_US
dc.subjectSurface fluxesen_US
dc.subjectModels and modelingen_US
dc.subjectReanalysis dataen_US
dc.subjectVariabilityen_US
dc.subjectClimate variabilityen_US
dc.subjectInterannual variabilityen_US
dc.subjectSeasonal variabilityen_US
dc.titleVariations of the global net air–sea heat flux during the “hiatus” period (2001–10)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.embargo2016-11-15en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0626.1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record