in situ or Altimetry ? Arctic – Subarctic Ocean Fluxes focus topics: Combining satellite altimetry and in situ observations to monitor transports of volume, heat, and salt in the Faroe Current Bogi Hansen, Karin M. H. Larsen, Svein Østerhus in situ or Altimetry ? AGU, 2003 Greenland Iceland Shet- land Faroes focus topics: 1. Representativeness of ocean observations Arctic – Subarctic Ocean Fluxes Nordic Seas 0.9 Sv Monitoring section 3.8 Sv 48% Faroe Current 2.7 Sv 0.6 Sv North Atlantic Østerhus et al. (2019) image:AGU 2003
Atlantic water on the monitoring section Average temperature from 78 CTD cruises Atlantic 35.0 psu 4°C Arctic ADCPs: 1997-2018
In situ observations Iceland
Weekly averaged volume transport 1997-2013 based on in-situ observations Satellite altimetry Sea level difference across the flow
Comparison ADCP - Altimetry > 70% volume transport Correlation combined ADCP-Altimetry: 0.86 Correlation ADCP-Altimetry: 28-day averages 0.28 0.61 0.78 0.73 Atlantic water 0.16× +0.43× +0.17× +0.24× 0.17 0.64 0.34 Correlation ADCP-ADCP: 28-day averages ADCP obs.: 2706 days ≈ 94 values 28-day averages
Altimetry variations represent surface velocity from Aviso+ MDT NO NO NO NO from ADCP & CTD ∆H(t) L U0 (cm/s): 11.7 21.3 17.1 10 9 After calibration with ADCP & CTD observations, Altimetry SLA-values give surface velocities But, what about sub-surface velocities ????????
Vertical integral of ADCP velocity Volume transport down to fixed depths can also be determined from altimetry, solely DA Atlantic water 0.99 0.91 0.99 0.97 Correlation q(t) versus U(0,t)
Temperature from up to 95 CTD cruises Standard CTD station Average 4°C isotherm Atlantic water How much of the variance in the lower boundary of Atlantic layer can be explained by Altimetry ± Standard deviation Arctic water Bottom temperature 17% 34% 42% 60% 48% 30% 25% 16% explained by Altimetry 50% explained by Bottom temp.
TEmperature Longterm Logging by BOttom Grounded Instrumentation Acoustic modem Battery capacity > 5 years Temperature sensor
Transport time series of Faroe Current
We still need in situ observations to monitor the Faroe Current But, satellite altimetry reduces the need considerably, once calibrated by in situ observations AGU, 2003 Greenland Iceland Shet- land Faroes Faroe Current 2.7 Sv Funding agencies: The Danish Energy Agency as part of the Arctic Climate Support Programme. & EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727852 (Blue-Action). image:AGU 2003