1. First look: Arctic Ocean in multi-decadal analyses
Jim Carton (University of Maryland)
(Collaborators: Sirpa Hakkinen, Sumant Nigam, James Reagan)
Question: what will the AR5 models be using for initial conditions and ‘verification’?

2. Some of the Analyses
Analysis
Time Span
Surface fluxes
Model,
res.
Analysis procedure
Moment.
Heat
Fresh water
CERFACS
Davey (2005)
ERA-40
Reanal
ERA 40 Reanal
corrected
in tropics
ORCA2 vers. OPA
2ox2o-1/2o
31 lev
Sequential
ECMWF
Balmaseda et al. (2007)
HOPE 2ox2o-1/2o
21 lev
GFDL
Zhang et al. (2007; 2008a,b)
Coupled
MOM4
1ox1o-1/3o
50 lev
INGV
Bellucci, et al. (2007)
ERA 40
OPA
SODA
Carton and Giese (2008)
bulk heat flux
GPCP
rain
POP2.1
1/4ox1/4o
40 lev
UK-FOAM
Bell. (2000), Bell et al. (2004)
GloSea 1ox1o-1/3o 20 lev
MOM4 .25
UK-OI
Ingleby and Huddleston (2007)
1ox1o
Objective Analysis
None have sea ice. Data sets are pretty similar (SODA’s is somewhat more up to date).

3. Beaufort Gyre M1
Leptev M

4. Station M (0-5oE, 63o-69oN) Salinity (0-500m)

5. NW LAPTEV SEA T/S PROPERTIES {SODA}
Too fresh
Too deep, missing AW
‘00-’07

6. Temperature at 300m
T/S section along 78N
{not yet remapped}

7. Mean Currents
15cm/s

8. Atlantic Water pulses northwest of the Laptev Sea E, 80-85N {based on Swift’s (2005) annual version of EWG}

9. Atlantic Water pulses NW Laptev Sea 90-120E, 80-85N
Too Deep, Too Weak

10. Pacific Layer in the Beaufort Gyre
Aasen (2009)

11. Beaufort Gyre (210o-233oE,72o-78oN)
Missing interannual variability, warm core

12. Seasonal Cycle of SST

13. A survey of AW Changes Cold 1974-89 Swift et al. (2005)
We always chose the bounding temperatures
of the Atlantic layer for a given box to be warmer
than 0C (based on all-year mean temp profiles). Finally, within the depth
range selected for the Atlantic layer in that box, we
determined whether the preponderance of the anomalies
within the Atlantic layer for a given year were large (>±1.5 s
from the mean), intermediate (within ±0.5–1.5 s), or small
(<±0.5 s).
Cold
Swift et al. (2005)

14. Depth-averaged (100-500m) temperature anomaly for the cold period 1974-1989
At all reasonable?
Very little Arctic data seems to be getting in to this analysis.

15. Some Issues
We need some more communication with the model development group
Surface fluxes and seasonal cycle of SST.
Water mass problems, e.g. AW
We need more hydrographic data
We aren’t doing well enough for the details of the assimilation method to matter
Will AR5 models be better?