3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The models reveal general agreement on PE
and IE, but disagree with KE and APE.
2. The PHC climatology has the larger annual
IE, PE and APE
than the ones
calculated from the model data.
restoring SSS/SST result
agreement to the climatology.
4. Modeled sea-ice conditions affect the forcing of
KE and APE at
interface and further the energetics of the ocean
5. Modeled energy flow distributions reveal locally
active energy conversion and sink regions in the
arctic, but their horizontal and vertical location
and strength varies between the models.
6. The disagreement in 5
is partly due to the
ice conditions after
7. The disagreement
is also due to varying
parameterizations of viscous forces, diffusive
fluxes and vertical coordinates.
An Energy-Diagnostics Intercomparison of Coupled Ice-Ocean Arctic Models
Petteri Uotila and David M. Holland
Center for Atmosphere-Ocean Science,
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
New York University, USA
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, USA
Greg Holloway and Nadja Steiner
Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, BC, Canada
Michael Karcher and Frank Kauker
Alfred-Wegener Institute, Bremerhaven, Germany
Michael Steele and Jinlun Zhang
University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
WHOI, Woods Hole, USA
Supported by: International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks (UAF), the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR/NOAA), Academy of
Finland, and the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation (OPP/NSF).
2 METHODS AND DATA
Figure 1. A common intercomparison
grid for all models is outlined by the
□The Arctic Ocean Model
(AOMIP) is an international collaborative effo