Advertisement

Wind-driven North Pacific Tropical Gyre using high-resolution simulation outputs

  • Kunio Kutsuwada
  • Akira Kakiuchi
  • Yoshikazu Sasai
  • Hideharu Sasaki
  • Kazuyuki Uehara
  • Rina Tajima
Original Article
  • 96 Downloads

Abstract

Outputs from ocean general circulation models driven by different wind data sets, i.e., from satellite measurements (QSCAT) and numerical reanalysis (NCEP/NCAR), are used to examine the dependence of oceanic internal structures in simulated fields on the surface wind input. Comparison between the two simulated fields reveals large differences in the subsurface layers corresponding to the thermocline depth near 100 m along 10°N in the western tropical North Pacific Ocean. These differences, characterized by a 50-m shallower thermocline in this region when simulated using NCEP winds than when simulated using QSCAT, produce discrepancies in the surface current fields of the tropical gyre. Simulated fields are compared to observational ones, including gridded Argo products, sea surface heights from satellite altimetry, and hydrographic measurements along 137°E. Results show that fields simulated using the QSCAT winds are consistent with observed ones in our study area, while those simulated using the NCEP winds exhibit significant differences from the observed fields. A reliable wind product is key to simulating realistic fields at the ocean surface and in the subsurface. Further, the results obtained using a reliable wind product suggest that the Sverdrup relation is applicable to the tropical North Pacific.

Keywords

Tropical gyre Wind-driven field OGCM NCEP QSCAT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Drs. Masahisa Kubota and Yukio Masumoto for helpful discussions and advice on this study. We thank Dr. Toshiya Nakano for providing the hydrographic data along 137°E of JMA. We also wish to acknowledge the use of the FERRET program, NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, for the analysis and graphic plots used in this paper. Further, we thank the anonymous reviewers whose useful comments helped to improve our original manuscript. The OFES simulations were conducted using the Earth Simulator with the support of JAMSTEC. The scatterometer dataset (QuikSCAT/SeaWinds) used in J-OFURO2 was kindly provided by the NASA Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Center (PO.DAAC) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Parts of this study were financially supported by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Institute of Oceanic Research and Development, Tokai University, Japan.

References

  1. Akima H (1970) A New method of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures. J Assoc Comput Mach 17:580–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki K, Kutsuwada K (2008) Verification of the wind-driven transport in the North Pacific subtropical gyre using gridded wind-stress products. J Oceanogr 64:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentamy A, Queffeulou P, Quilfen Y, Katsaros K (1999) Ocean surface wind fields estimated from satellite active and passive microwave instruments. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 37:2469–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dee DP et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giglio D, Roemmich D, Gille S (2012) Wind-driven variability of the subtropical North Pacific Ocean. J Phys Oceanogr 42:2089–2100.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-029.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Godfrey JS, Golding TJ (1981) The Sverdrup relation in the Indian Ocean, and the effect of Pacific–Indian Ocean throughflow on Indian Ocean circulation and on the East Australian Current. J Phys Oceanogr 11:771–779.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1981)011,0771:TSRITI.2.0.CO;2
  7. Gray AR, Riser SC (2014) A global analysis of Sverdrup balance using absolute geostrophic velocities from Argo. J Phys Oceanogr 44:1213–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-0206.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hautala SL, Roemmich DH, Schmitz WJ Jr (1994) Is the North Pacific in Sverdrup balance along 24°N? J Geophys Res 99:16041–16052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hosoda S, Ohira T, Nakamura T (2008) A monthly mean dataset of global oceanic temperature and salinity derived from Argo float observations. JAMSTEC Rep Res Dev 8:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Josey SA, Kent EC, Taylor PK (2002) Wind stress forcing of the ocean in the SOC climatology: comparisons with the NCEP–NCAR, ECMWF, UWM/COADS, and Hellerman and Rosenstein datasets. J Phys Oceanogr 32:1993–2019.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032,1993:WSFOTO.2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Josey SA, Yu L, Gulev S, Jin X, Tilinina N, Barnier B, Brodeau L (2014) Unexpected impacts of the Tropical Pacific array on reanalysis surface meteorology and heat fluxes. Geophys Res Lett 41:6213–6220.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalnay EM et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77:437–471Google Scholar
  13. Kameda S, Kutsuwada K (2016) Construction of long-term data set of sea surface wind speed/stress vectors by continuous satellite observations. Int J Remote Sens 37:2032–2046.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2015.1137991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kameda S, Kutsuwada K (2017) Validation of gridded data set of global surface wind/wind-stress vector field. J Oceanogr 73:585–601.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-017-0419-z
  15. Kessler WS, Johnson GC, Moore DW (2003) Sverdrup and nonlinear dynamics of the Pacific equatorial currents. J Phys Oceanogr 33:994–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2003)033,0994:SANDOT.2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobayashi S, Ota Y, Harada Y, Ebita A, Moriya M, Onoda H, Onogi K, Kamahori H, Kobayashi C, Endo H, Miyaoka K, Takahashi K (2015) The JRA-55 reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 93:5–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kubota M, Tomita H (2007) The present state of the J-OFURO air-sea interaction data product. Flux News 4:13–15Google Scholar
  18. Kubota M, Iwasaka N, Kizu S, Konda M, Kutsuwada K (2002) Japanese Ocean Flux Data Sets with Use of Remote Sensing Observation (J-OFURO). J Oceanogr 58:213–225Google Scholar
  19. Kutsuwada K (1998) Impact of wind/wind-stress field in the North Pacific constructed by ADEOS/NSCAT data. J Oceanogr 54:443–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kutsuwada K, Morimoto N, Koyama M (2006) Validation study of gridded product of surface wind/wind-stress derived by satellite scatterometer data in the western North Pacific using Kuroshio Extension Observatory Buoy. Proc Pan Ocean Remote Sens Conf 2006:2006Google Scholar
  21. Landsteiner MC, McPhaden MJ, Picaut J (1990) On the sensitivity of Sverdrup transport estimates to the specification of wind stress forcing in the tropical Pacific. J Geophys Res 95:1681–1691.  https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC02p01681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Large WG, Yeager S (2004) Diurnal to decadal global forcing for ocean and sea-ice models: the data sets and flux climatologies. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-460 + STR. Climate & Global Dynamics (National Center for Atmospheric Research), BoulderGoogle Scholar
  23. Large WG, Yeager S (2008) The global climatology of an interannually varying air-sea flux data set. Clim Dyn 33:341–364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0441-3
  24. Leetmaa A, Niiler P, Stommel H (1977) Does the Sverdrup relation account for the mid-Atlantic circulation? J Mar Res 35:1–10Google Scholar
  25. Masumoto S (2010) Sharing the results of a high-resolution ocean general circulation model under a multi-discipline framework—a review of OFES activities. Ocean Dyn 60:633–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Masumoto Y, Sasaki H, Kagimoto K, Komori N, Ishida A, Miyama T, Motoi T, Mitsudera H, Takahashi K, Sakuma H, Yamagata T (2004) A fifty-year eddy-resolving simulation of the world ocean—preliminary outcomes of OFES (OGCM for the Earth Simulator). J Earth Simulator 1:35–56Google Scholar
  27. Masuzawa J, Nagasaka K (1975) The 137°E oceanographic section. J Mar Res 33(suppl):109–116Google Scholar
  28. Meyers G (1980) Do Sverdrup transports account for the Pacific North Equatorial Countercurrent? J Geophys Res 85(2):1073–1075Google Scholar
  29. Munk WH (1950) On the wind-driven ocean circulation. J Meteorol 7:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakano T, Kitamura T, Sugimoto S, Suga T, Kamachi M (2005) Long-term variations of North Pacific Tropical Water along the 137°E repeat hydrographic section. J Oceanogr 71:229–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-015-0279-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pacanowski PC, Griffies SM (2000) MOM 3.0 manual. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  32. Pickard GL, Emery WJ (1990) Descriptive physical oceanography, an introduction, 5th edn. Pergamon, Oxford, p 320Google Scholar
  33. Ricciardulli L, Wentz FJ (2015) A scatterometer geophysical model function for climate-quality winds: QuikSCAT Ku-2011. J Atmos Ocean Technol 32:1829–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosatti A, Miyakoda K (1988) A generation circulation model for upper ocean simulation. J Phys Oceanogr 18:1601–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sasai Y, Sasaoka K, Sasaki H, Ishida A (2007) Seasonal and intra-seasonal variability of chlorophyll-a in the North Pacific: model and satellite data. J Earth Simulator 8:3–11Google Scholar
  36. Sasaki H, Nonaka M (2006) Far-reaching Hawaiian Lee Countercurrent driven by wind-stress curl induced by warm SST band along the current. Geophys Res Lett 33:L13602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sasaki H, Sasai Y, Nonaka M, Masumoto Y, Kawahara S (2006) An eddy-resolving simulation of quasi-global ocean driven by satellite-observed wind field—preliminary outcomes from physical and biological fields. J Earth Simulator 6:35–49Google Scholar
  38. Sasaki H, Nonaka M, Masumoto Y, Sasai Y, Uehara H, Sakuma H (2008) Chapter 10: An eddy-resolving hindcast simulation of the quasi-global ocean from 1950 to 2003 on the Earth Simulator. In: Hamilton K, Ohfuchi W (eds) High resolution numerical modelling of the atmosphere and ocean. Springer, New York, pp 157–186Google Scholar
  39. Schmitz WJ, Thompson JD, Luyten JR (1992) The Sverdrup circulation for the Atlantic along 24°N. J Geophys Res 97:7251–7256.  https://doi.org/10.1029/92JC00417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stommel H (1948) The westward intensification of wind driven ocean currents. Am Geophys Union 29:202–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sverdrup H (1947) Wind-driven currents in a baroclinic ocean; with application to the equatorial currents of the eastern Pacific. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 33(11):318–326.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.33.11.318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas MD, De Boer AM, Johnson HL, Stevens DP (2014) Spatial and temporal scales of Sverdrup balance. J Phys Oceanogr 44:2644–2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomita H, Kubota M (2006) An analysis of the accuracy of Japanese Ocean Flux data sets with Use of Remote sensing Observations (J-OFURO) satellite-derived latent heat flux using moored buoy data. J Geophys Res 111:C07007.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC003013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomita H, Hihara T, Kako S, Kubota M, Kutsuwada K (2018) An introduction to J-OFURO3, a third-generation Japanese Ocean Flux Data Set Using Remote-Sensing Observations. J Oceanogr (submitted) Google Scholar
  45. Woodruff SD, Slutz RJ, Jenne RL, Steurer PM (1987) A comprehensive ocean-atmosphere data set. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 68:1239–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wunsch C (2011) The decadal mean ocean circulation and Sverdrup balance. J Mar Res 69:417–434.  https://doi.org/10.1357/002224011798765303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wunsch C, Roemmich D (1985) Is the North Atlantic in Sverdrup balance? J Phys Oceanogr 15:1876–1880.  https://doi.org/10.1175/15200485(1985)015,1876:ITNAIS.2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuan D, Zhang Z, Chu PC, Dewar WK (2014) Geostrophic circulation in the tropical North Pacific Ocean based on Argo profiles. J Phys Oceanogr 44:558–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Oceanographic Society of Japan and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine Science and TechnologyTokai UniversityShizuokaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Marine ScienceTokai UniversityShizuokaJapan
  3. 3.Research and Development Center for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)YokohamaJapan
  4. 4.Application LaboratoryJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)YokohamaJapan
  5. 5.Mitsubishi Space Software Co., LtdTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations