4.7 Article

Freshening in the South China Sea during 2012 revealed by Aquarius and in situ data

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 119, 期 12, 页码 8296-8314

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JC010108

关键词

Aquarius SSS; the South China Sea; freshening; in situ observation; surface salinity budget

资金

  1. National Natural Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2011CB403501]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program'' of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA11010203]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41206011]
  4. Recruitment Program of Global Experts
  5. 100-Talent Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [50601-112]
  6. NASA Ocean Surface Salinity Science Team Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Newly available sea surface salinity (SSS) data from the Aquarius together with in situ hydrographic data are used to explore the spatial and temporal characteristics of SSS in the South China Sea (SCS). Using in situ observations as the reference, an evaluation of daily Aquarius data indicates that there exists a negative bias of 0.45 psu for the version 3.0 data set. The root-mean-square difference for daily Aquarius SSS is about 0.53 psu after correcting the systematic bias, and those for weekly and monthly Aquarius SSSs are 0.45 and 0.29 psu, respectively. Nevertheless, the Aquarius SSS shows a reliable freshening in the SCS in 2012, which is larger than the Aquarius uncertainty. The freshening of up to 0.4 psu in the upper-ocean of the northern SCS was confirmed by in situ observations. This freshening in 2012 was caused by a combined effect of abundant local freshwater flux and limited Kuroshio intrusion. By comparing the Kuroshio intrusion in 2012 with that in 2011, we found the reduction as a relatively important cause for the freshening over the northern SCS. In contrast to the northern SCS, reduced river discharge in 2012 played the leading role to the saltier surface in the region near the Mekong River mouth with respect to 2011.

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

4.7
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