MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3091121939 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-754

Do deep convection control the long-term variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?

2020· article· en· W3091121939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daria Kuznetcova, Anna Mamadzhanian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpwellingThermohaline circulationOceanographyNorth Atlantic Deep WaterClimatologySouthern HemisphereNorthern HemisphereWater massConvectionOcean currentGeologyZonal and meridionalGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) contribute to long-term climate variability of Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic Ocean carries 25% of global heat transferred tropics to polar latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Srokosz, 2012). In the subpolar seas of the North Atlantic water goes down in few localized areas to deep convection, where all Atlantic deep water masses are formed. This process pumps a huge amount of CO2 to the deep ocean, which have strong consequence for global climate (Buckley and Marshall, 2016; Kuhlbrodt, 2007). The water comes back to the surface mainly in upwelling regions of the Southern Ocean (Toggweiler and Samuels 1998, Delworth and Zeng, 2008), as well as in the tropics due to vertical mixing. In this study we try to link the long-term variability of the AMOC to it’s main driving mechanisms: the deep ocean convection in the Greenland, the Labrador and the Irminger seas, and to wind driven upwelling in the Southern Ocean. As a reference for the AMOC intensity on the decadal and longer time scales, we use AMOC indexes from several studies (Caesar, 2018; Chen and Tung, 2018), which extend the time series back to the 1950s. The intensity of deep convection (IC) over the same time period is computed using convection index (Bashmacnikov et al., 2019). Wind-driving upwelling in the Southern Ocean is computed through evaluation of the divergence of Ekman fluxes (ED), using the wind velocity from atmospheric reanalysis (ERA 40 1957-1979 and ERA-Interim 1980-2016). To estimate contribution of each of the forcing factors to the temporal variability of the AMOC, were used cross-correlation and regression analyses with varying time lags. The biggest cross-correlation coefficient was found with the IC in the Greenland Sea, the negative lags indicate that it is the AMOC, which affects the variability of convection intensity. The second largest cross-correlation coefficient was found with the IC in the Labrador Sea (0.7) with the lag of 13 years. The maximum cross-correlation with the IC in the Irminger Sea was 0.6 on a narrow interval of the time lags. The ED in Southern ocean demonstrate a significant correlation with the AMOC, with the correlation coefficient of 0.5 at the time lag of 15 years. The contributions of each of the control mechanisms to temporal variability of the AMOC were investigated by the regression analysis for the time lags at which the maximum cross-correlations of each of the parameters are obtained. As a result the maximum regression coefficient was obtained for the IC in the Irminger Sea (0.65), the second one for the ED (0.35) using the time lags of 9 and 25 years, respectively. The regression coefficient for the IC in the Labrador Sea did not exceed 0.2 for all tested time lags. The physical mechanism, connecting the variability of the AMOC intensity to these two control mechanisms is a subject of our further research. The work was supported by a grant from the Russian science Foundation (project No. 17-17-01151)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOceanographic and Atmospheric Processes→French-language works237,207→