4.6 Review

A new collective view of oceanography of the Arctic and North Atlantic basins

期刊

PROGRESS IN OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 1-21

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.12.012

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We review some historical aspects of the major observational programs in the North Atlantic and adjacent regions that contributed to establishing and maintaining the global ocean climate monitoring network. The paper also presents the oceanic perspectives of climate change and touches the important issues of ocean climate variability on time scales from years to decades. Some elements of the improved understanding of the causes and mechanisms of variability in the subpolar North Atlantic and adjacent seas are discussed in detail. The sophistication of current oceanographic analysis, especially in connection with the most recent technological breakthroughs - notably the launch of the global array of profiling Argo floats - allows us to approach new challenges in ocean research. We demonstrate how the ocean-climate changes in the subpolar basins and polar seas correlate with variations in the major climate indices such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and discuss possible connections between the unprecedented changes in the Arctic and Greenland ice-melt rates observed over the past decade and variability of hydrographic conditions in the Labrador Sea. Furthermore, a synthesis of shipboard and Argo measurements in the Labrador Sea reveals the effects of the regional climate trends such as freshening of the upper layer - possible causes of which are also discussed - on the winter convection in the Labrador Sea including its strength, duration and spatial extent. These changes could have a profound impact on the regional and planetary climates. A section with the highlights of all papers comprising the Special Issue concludes the Preface. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据