2013
DOI: 10.1007/s10236-013-0605-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study of seasonal variability and heat budget of the East Australian Current using two eddy-resolving ocean circulation models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A suggestion of seasonality is shown in the boxplots for the VARY‐LOCAL and VARY‐ALL experiments at FE and AB (Figures g and i). At FE, this is likely the documented summertime peak in upstream EAC transport (Ridgway & Godfrey, ; Wang et al, ). It is notable that remote forcing appears to play little role in the seasonality of the upstream EAC (VARY‐OBC, Figure a).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A suggestion of seasonality is shown in the boxplots for the VARY‐LOCAL and VARY‐ALL experiments at FE and AB (Figures g and i). At FE, this is likely the documented summertime peak in upstream EAC transport (Ridgway & Godfrey, ; Wang et al, ). It is notable that remote forcing appears to play little role in the seasonality of the upstream EAC (VARY‐OBC, Figure a).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…[] showed that OFES is in good agreement with observations around Australia. More recently, a study on heat budget along the EAC found that annual mean transports at 28°S obtained from OFES agree with those computed from observations [ Wang et al ., ]. OFES outputs are therefore ideal to investigate circulation along the coast of southeastern Australia.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to separation, the upstream EAC has a range of observed and modeled transports from past studies; observed estimates include 27.4 Sv (Ridgway & Godfrey, 1994) and 25.8 Sv (derived from CARS; Ridgway et al, 2002). Modeling estimates of EAC transport range between 20.4 and 30 Sv (Oliver & Holbrook, 2014;Wang et al, 2013;Ypma et al, 2016). In our study, the modeled CTRL upstream EAC transport to 1,945 m across 1548E-1568E at 288S is 24.3 Sv (Figure 3), and therefore within both modeled and observed estimates of EAC transport, and also consistent with the 22.1 6 7.5 Sv directly observed transport at 278S (Sloyan et al 2016).…”
Section: Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%