Why do models underestimate the rate of ocean deoxygenation?
Well... @altagliabue and I used a suite of models and observations to try and answer this question.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
@livunioceansci @Env_Sci
Well... @altagliabue and I used a suite of models and observations to try and answer this question.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
@livunioceansci @Env_Sci
Turns out that changes in ventilation in models are weaker than in the real ocean.
(We used CFCs and SF6 measurements to estimate ideal age)
(We used CFCs and SF6 measurements to estimate ideal age)
But along the Eastern Boundary Upwelling Zones, which host low-O2 zones, biogeochemical O2 demand is important.
This suggests that differences in biogeochemical model architecture may underly the divergent trends in low-O2 zones.
That's a problem if we want to be more confident in model projections for these important regions in the coming decades.
That's a problem if we want to be more confident in model projections for these important regions in the coming decades.
For example, take the the Canary and Benguela upwelling systems off West Africa.
In the Canary, a decrease in primary production and a shift to smaller phytoplankton lead to oxygenation. In the Benguela, the opposite occurred.
In the Canary, a decrease in primary production and a shift to smaller phytoplankton lead to oxygenation. In the Benguela, the opposite occurred.
Overall:
1. Large-scale deoxygenation is principally physical
2. Except in the eastern boundary upwelling systems
3. Models underestimate real trends largely due to physical inconsistencies (coarse resolution)
1. Large-scale deoxygenation is principally physical
2. Except in the eastern boundary upwelling systems
3. Models underestimate real trends largely due to physical inconsistencies (coarse resolution)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
