scholarly journals Stability of the boundary separating Antarctic Bottom Water from North Atlantic Deep Water in the western South Atlantic

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (22) ◽  
pp. 4219-4222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart C. Sutherland ◽  
Wallace S. Broecker ◽  
Taro Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Water ◽  
North Atlantic Deep Water ◽  
South Atlantic ◽  
Antarctic Bottom Water

Major Change in Atlantic Deep and Bottom Waters 700,000 yr Ago: Benthonic Foraminiferal Evidence from the South Atlantic

1982 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Peterson ◽  
G. P. Lohmann
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Water ◽  
Sediment Cores ◽  
North Atlantic Deep Water ◽  
South Atlantic ◽  
Antarctic Bottom Water ◽  
The South ◽  
Circumpolar Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Waters

AbstractIn the modern South Atlantic the transition between deep water and bottom water is marked by a clear change in the associated benthonic foraminiferal fauna. Uvigerina and Globocassidulina characterize oxygen-poor Circumpolar Deep Water which has long been isolated from the surface. Planulina and miliolids are found associated with the more newly formed, oxygen-rich North Atlantic Deep Water. Antarctic Bottom Water is characterized by “Epistominella” umbonifera. Analysis of the benthonic foraminiferal faunas in two sediment cores recovered from the Vema and Hunter Channels in the western South Atlantic shows that the level of the transition between deep and bottom waters shallowed sharply about 700,000 yr ago. This rise indicates a sharp, sustained increase in the volume of bottom water flowing through the South Atlantic after this time. Prior to about 700,000 yr ago, the amount of Antarctic Bottom Water entering the western South Atlantic was greatly reduced and Circumpolar Deep Water apparently accounted for the bulk of northward flow. Production of southward-flowing North Atlantic Deep Water seems not to have been affected. The timing of this change in circulation regime suggests a possible causal link to similar changes in records of terrestrial and sea-surface climate.

scholarly journals Antarctic Bottom Water and North Atlantic Deep Water in CMIP6 models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Heuzé
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Water ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Deep Convection ◽  
North Atlantic Deep Water ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Antarctic Bottom Water ◽  
Deep Water Formation ◽  
Water Formation

Abstract. Deep water formation is the driver of the global ocean circulation, yet it was poorly represented in the previous generation of climate models. We here quantify biases in Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) and North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation, properties, transport and global extent in 35 climate models that participated in the latest Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Several CMIP6 models are correctly forming AABW via shelf processes, but in both hemispheres, the large majority of climate models form deep water via open ocean deep convection, too deep, too often, over too large an area. Models that convect the least form the most accurate AABW, but the least accurate NADW. The four CESM2 models with their pipe/overflow parameterisation are among the most accurate models. In the Atlantic, the colder AABW, the stronger the abyssal overturning at 30° S, and the further north the AABW layer extends. The saltier NADW, the stronger the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), and the further south the NADW layer extends. In the Indian and Pacific oceans in contrast, the fresher models are the ones who extend the furthest regardless of the strength of their abyssal overturning, most likely because they also are the models with the weakest fronts in the Antarctic Circumpolar Currents. There are clear improvements since CMIP5: several CMIP6 models correctly represent or parameterise Antarctic shelf processes, fewer models exhibit Southern Ocean deep convection, more models convect at the right location in the Labrador Sea, bottom density biases are reduced, and abyssal overturning is more realistic. But more improvements are required, e.g. by generalising the use of overflow parameterisations or by coupling to interactive ice sheet models, before deep water formation, and hence heat and carbon storage, are represented accurately.

scholarly journals Antarctic Bottom Water and North Atlantic Deep Water in CMIP6 models

Ocean Science ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-90
Author(s):  
Céline Heuzé
Keyword(s):  
Southern Ocean ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Water ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Deep Convection ◽  
North Atlantic Deep Water ◽  
Antarctic Bottom Water ◽  
Water Formation ◽  
Bottom Water Formation

Abstract. Deep and bottom water formation are crucial components of the global ocean circulation, yet they were poorly represented in the previous generation of climate models. We here quantify biases in Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) and North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation, properties, transport, and global extent in 35 climate models that participated in the latest Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Several CMIP6 models are correctly forming AABW via shelf processes, but 28 models in the Southern Ocean and all 35 models in the North Atlantic form deep and bottom water via open-ocean deep convection too deeply, too often, and/or over too large an area. Models that convect the least form the most accurate AABW but the least accurate NADW. The four CESM2 models with their overflow parameterisation are among the most accurate models. In the Atlantic, the colder the AABW, the stronger the abyssal overturning at 30∘ S, and the further north the AABW layer extends. The saltier the NADW, the stronger the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), and the further south the NADW layer extends. In the Indian and Pacific oceans in contrast, the fresher models are the ones which extend the furthest regardless of the strength of their abyssal overturning, most likely because they are also the models with the weakest fronts in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. There are clear improvements since CMIP5: several CMIP6 models correctly represent or parameterise Antarctic shelf processes, fewer models exhibit Southern Ocean deep convection, more models convect at the right location in the Labrador Sea, bottom density biases are reduced, and abyssal overturning is more realistic. However, more improvements are required, e.g. by generalising the use of overflow parameterisations or by coupling to interactive ice sheet models, before deep and bottom water formation, and hence heat and carbon storage, are represented accurately.

scholarly journals Changes in North Atlantic Deep Water strength and bottom water masses during Marine Isotope Stage 3 (45–35kaBP)

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (19-20) ◽  
pp. 2451-2461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Gutjahr ◽  
Babette A.A. Hoogakker ◽  
Martin Frank ◽  
I. Nicholas McCave
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Bottom Water ◽  
North Atlantic Deep Water ◽  
Water Masses ◽  
Marine Isotope Stage ◽  
Marine Isotope Stage 3
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document