Is there any imprint of the wind variability on the Atlantic Water circulation within the Arctic Basin?

The Atlantic Water (AW) layer in the Arctic Basin is isolated from the atmosphere by the overlaying surface layer, yet observations have revealed that the velocities in this layer exhibit significant variations. Here analysis of a global ocean/sea ice model hindcast, complemented by experiments performed with an idealized process model, is used to investigate what controls the variability of AW circulation, with a focus on the role of wind forcing. The AW circulation carries the imprint of wind variations, both remotely over the Nordic and Barents Seas where they force the AW inflow variability, and locally over the Arctic Basin through the forcing of the wind-driven Beaufort Gyre, which modulates and transfers the wind variability to the AW layer. The strong interplay between the circulation within the surface and AW layers suggests that both layers must be considered to understand variability in either.

A kinetic energy budget and internal instabilities in the Fine Resolution Antarctic Model

An energy analysis of the Fine Resolution Antarctic Model (FRAM) reveals the instability processes in the model. The main source of time-mean kinetic energy is the wind stress and the main sink is transfer to mean potential energy. The wind forcing thus helps maintain the density structure. Transient motions result from internal instabilities of the Bow rather than seasonal variations of the forcing. Baroclinic instability is found to be an important mechanism in FRAM. The highest values of available potential energy are found in the western boundary regions as well as in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) region. All subregions with predominantly zonal flow are found to be baroclinically unstable. The observed deficit of eddy kinetic energy in FRAM occurs as a result of the high lateral friction, which decreases the growth rates of the most unstable waves. This high friction is required for the numerical stability of the model and can only be made smaller by using a finer horizontal resolution. A grid spacing of at least 10-15 km would be required to resolve the most unstable waves in the southern part of the domain. Barotropic instability is also found to be important for the total domain balance. The inverse transfer (that is, transfer from eddy to mean kinetic energy) does not occur anywhere, except in very localized tight jets in the ACC. The open boundary condition at the northern edge of the model domain does not represent a significant source or sink of eddy variability. However, a large exchange between internal and external mode energies is found to occur. It is still unclear how these boundary conditions affect the dynamics of adjacent regions.

Emerging trends in the sea state of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas

The sea state of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is controlled by the wind forcing and the amount of ice-free water available to generate surface waves. Clear trends in the annual duration of the open water season and in the extent of the seasonal sea ice minimum suggest that the sea state should be increasing, independent of changes in the wind forcing. Wave model hindcasts from four selected years spanning recent conditions are consistent with this expectation. In particular, larger waves are more common in years with less summer sea ice and/or a longer open water season, and peak wave periods are generally longer. The increase in wave energy may affect both the coastal zones and the remaining summer ice pack, as well as delay the autumn ice-edge advance. However, trends in the amount of wave energy impinging on the ice-edge are inconclusive, and the associated processes, especially in the autumn period of new ice formation, have yet to be well-described by in situ observations. There is an implicit trend and evidence for increasing wave energy along the coast of northern Alaska, and this coastal signal is corroborated by satellite altimeter estimates of wave energy.