Methodology & Results

Methodology Used

Uncertainty Estimates

Results

---

For general background information on the entire AOML Contribution to the assessment of the State of the Oceans, see the State of the Oceans Background & FAQ

For broader information on AOML Meridional Atlantic Heat Transport estimations, see the Heat Transport Background & FAQ

Methodology Used for South Atlantic:

The methodology used to obtain the baroclinic component of the heat transport from the XBT data collected along AX18 has been published by Baringer and Garzoli (2007). it can be summalized as follows: Salinity (S) is estimated for each XBT profile by using two-dimensional fields of S(T,p) relationships at different locations created by Thacker et al., (2004) for the South Atlantic using ARGO profilers and CTD data available in the region. (Please see these figures of S(pressure, longitude) and T(pressure, longitude) in the upper 850m of the ocean.) More information on the Salinity estimation can be found here. Where insufficient CTD and ARGO data are available, the World Ocean Atlas 2001 (WOA01) gridded annual climatology (Stephens et al. 2002) is used to estimate S(T). In order to obtain the heat transport across the section, the total mass transport must be zero (i.e., mass must be conserved). The XBT probes sample the ocean only up to about 850m, hence the data are extended to the bottom using the WOA01 gridded climatology by interpolating the data to the location of each XBT to generate an annual mean climatology for the deep ocean. The bottom is determined to be the depth at the location of the XBT from the Smith and Sandwell (1997) 2-minute database of bathymetry.

Geostrophic velocities are determined using the dynamic method where a level of no motion was chosen at a depth just below the northward flowing Antarctic Intermediate Water at σ₀=27.4 kg m^-3 (σ₀ defined as potential density relative to the surface) and σ₂ = 37.09 kg m^-3 (σ₂ defined as potential density relative to 2000 dbar) to compare with previous results. Ekman transports are determined using NCEP climatological monthly mean reanalysis winds by interpolating the NCEP values to the location of the XBT observation. (Please see this station map with wind field.) Transports are computed in layers and summed for the entire water column. A simple constant velocity for each section is then applied uniformly at the reference level so that the net mass transport across the section was zero. Typically, values of this velocity range from 10^-4 to 10^-6 m s^-1. Additional corrections to the net transports are made when needed to account for barotropic motions and for XBT sections that failed to terminate at the 200 m isobath or shallower on each side of the Atlantic. Results had been published by Garzoli and Baringer 2007.

Back to Top of Page...

Uncertainty Estimates:

Possible uncertainty in the findings can result from the assumptions applied, including: the simple mass balance geostrophic method, the uncertainty in salinity assigned to each temperature observation, the representativeness of Levitus data below 800 m, and the variable latitudes that each XBT section crosses the Atlantic. Sensitivity to these factors and others such as the specific wind climatology used and its inherent uncertainty are discussed in detail at this link...

Details on determining the overall uncertainty can be found in Baringer and Garzoli (2007) Part I and Part IIavailable here. Based upon the tests made with the A10 full water column CTD data, our best estimate of the uncertainty is about 0.36 PW which includes a possible bias of 0.21 PW due to questionable representativeness of the deep density field used. Reducing and understanding these errors is an active and challenging field that requires much further study.

Back to Top of Page...

Ekman fluxes from different wind products

The total Ekman heat flux is define as the difference between the Ekman temperature transport (in the Ekman layer) and the section average temperature times the Ekman mass flux (so that the Ekman transport is mass-balanced).The following figure shown Ekman heat flux between 38^oS and 28^oS using Levitus temperature and NCEP winds.

However several different areal temperature averages were compared (defined as 'cases' below). The temperature field used was either from the Levitus Climatology alone or a combination of the XBT observations (0-850 meters) and Levitus data (below 850 meters). Results are shown in following figure. The different average of total heat transport is less than 0.06 PW. However there are interesting variations over time linked to mesoscale variability in the region, Brazil Current meandering etc that the NCEP winds were used for the heat transport estimates.

Case		Wind Product	Average Temperature
case 112		NCEP monthly climatology	XBT-Levitus temperature field
case 122		NCEP monthly	XBT-Levitus temperature field
case 142		Hellerman annual mean	XBT-Levitus temperature field
case 152		ECMWF monthly climatolog	XBT-Levitus temperature field

a) The Ekman flux is determined from wind stress values. The EKman fluxes differ by less that 0.06 PW.

b) Differences between the Ekman fluxes.

c) The total heat transport using the five different Ekman flux estimates.
The difference average of total heat transport is less than 0.06 PW The geostrophic heat transport is determined from the XBT section (see Baringer and Garzoli, 2007).

All calculation theme produced these results are made by Qi Yao. For more information, contact qi.yao@noaa.gov

Back to Top of Page...

The original AX18 High density XBT line, was done from Cape Town to Buenos Aires, using the Evergreen Container ships. After the cruise conducted in March/April 2007, Evergreen decided to eliminate that transect. After several attempts to reinstall the line, the observations were resumed in October 2007, using first CMA CGM, then Hamburg Sud ships, and different ports.The line is from Santos to Cape Town or Cape Town to Rio. Arrival and departure from Brazil was necessary for the deeper draft requirements.

Data collected along AX18 was used to estimate the oceanic heat transport across nominally 35^oS. The methodology used, as well as the error of the estimates were publish by Baringer and Garzoli (2007) and applied to the South Atlantic by Garzoli and Baringer (2007). A summary of the methodology is described in the previous pages.

Figure 1: Different transects for AX18

In order to compare the estimated obtained from both lines, (Figure 1) the northward heat transports estimated from the AX18 line after March 2007 need to be adjusted to make the estimates equivalently to the heat transports across 35^oS (the previous AX18 location), that is, the difference between the heat gain from the atmosphere and the ocean heat storage rate (Figure 2, green line) should be added to the new estimates.

An estimate of the heat balance in the triangle area was obtained as the difference between the heat gained from the atmosphere and the ocean heat storage rate. The first term is obtained from NCEP air-sea heat fluxes, the heat storage rate was estimated using monthly temperature/salinity climatologies from the World Ocean Atlas 2005.

Figure 2: Heat balance in the triangle formed by the two different AX18 transects.

Results:

Table 1:

Results of the heat transport from line AX18 Case 122 using reference level σ₂ = 37.09 kg m^-3.

Month	Year	Ekman Flux (1015W)	Geostrophic Heat Transport (1015W)	Total Heat Transport (1015W)	Normalized to 35oS
Jul	2002	0.14	0.31	0.44	0.43
Nov	2002	0.18	0.39	0.57	0.55
May	2003	0.17	0.3	0.47	0.47
Nov	2003	0.05	0.41	0.46	0.46
Mar	2004	0.15	0.6	0.75	0.75
Jul	2004	0.16	0.29	0.46	0.46
Sep	2004	0.16	0.51	0.68	0.68
Dec	2004	0.06	0.77	0.82	0.82
Feb	2005	-0.04	0.47	0.43	0.43
May	2005	0.11	0.54	0.64	0.64
Aug	2005	0.22	0.31	0.53	0.53
Nov	2005	0.1	0.49	0.59	0.59
Feb	2006	-0.04	0.59	0.54	0.54
May	2006	0.06	0.34	0.4	0.4
Jul	2006	0.37	0.26	0.63	0.63
Oct	2006	0	0.39	0.39	0.39
Mar	2007	0.11	0.5	0.66	0.66
Oct	2007	-0.06	0.45	0.39	0.53
Nov	2007	-0.06	0.51	0.45	0.36
Mar	2008	-0.14	0.73	0.59	0.49
Feb	2009	-0.23	0.6	0.38	0.3
Jul	2009	-0.02	0.44	0.43	0.52
Oct	2009	0	0.84	0.84	0.84
Jan	2010	-0.08	0.62	0.54	0.31
Jun	2010	0.26	0.29	0.55	0.55
Sep	2010	0.06	0.66	0.72	0.72
Feb	2011	-0.01	0.59	0.58	0.58
Nov	2011	0.01	0.77	0.78	0.78
Feb	2012	0.09	0.59	0.68	0.68
Oct	2012	-0.08	0.57	0.49	0.49
Feb	2013	0.03	0.37	0.4	0.4
May	2013	0.12	0.87	0.98	0.9
Aug	2013	0.26	0.62	0.87	0.87
Oct	2013	-0.1	0.49	0.39	0.39
Jan	2014	0.24	0.45	0.69	0.69
Jun	2014	0.29	0.37	0.66	0.66
Sep	2014	0.19	0.41	0.60	0.60
Dec	2014	0.04	0.41	0.45	0.45
Mar	2015	0.12	0.49	0.61	0.61
May	2015	0.27	0.57	0.84	0.84
Oct	2015	0.18	0.45	0.63	0.63
Feb	2016	0.05	0.47	0.52	0.52
May	2016	0.22	0.22	0.44	0.44
Aug	2016	0.34	0.59	0.93	0.93
Mean		0.08	0.50	0.58	0.57
STD DEV		0.13	0.16	0.15	0.16

(*): _{1 PW = 1 petawatt = 10}15 _Watts

Latest Quarterly Report:

Click on the image below to see full details about the latest Quarterly Report...

Back to Top of Page...