/[MITgcm]/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_forward.tex

Diff of /MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_forward.tex

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Revision Graph Revision Graph | View Patch Patch

-revision 1.20 by mlosch,
Sat Jul  5 10:39:16 2008 UTC
+revision 1.21 by mlosch,
Mon Jul 28 07:38:27 2008 UTC
 Line 366 
 concentrations (not shown).
  \end{figure}
  The generally weaker ice drift velocities in the B-LSR-ns solution,
  when compared to the C-LSR-ns solution, in particular through the
- narrow passages in the Canadian Archipelago, lead to a larger build-up
+ narrow passages in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, lead to a larger build-up
  of ice north of Greenland and the Archipelago by 2\,m effective
  thickness and more in the B-grid solution (\reffig{icethick}b). But
  the ice volume in not larger everywhere: further west, there are
 Line 382 
 solution.
  Imposing a free-slip boundary condition in C-LSR-fs leads to much
  smaller differences to C-LSR-ns in the central Arctic than the
  transition from the B-grid to the C-grid (\reffig{icethick}c), except
- in the Canadian Archipelago. There it reduces the effective ice
+ in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. There it reduces the effective ice
  thickness by 2\,m and more where the ice is thick and the straits are
  narrow.  Dipoles of ice thickness differences can also be observed
  around islands, because the free-slip solution allows more flow around
 Line 391 
 affected only slightly by the different
  %
  The C-EVP-ns solution has much thicker ice in the central Arctic Ocean
  than the C-LSR-ns solution (\reffig{icethick}d, note the color scale).
- Within the Canadian Archipelago, more drift leads to faster ice export
+ Within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, more drift leads to faster ice export
  and reduced effective ice thickness. With a shorter time step of
  $\Delta{t}_\mathrm{evp}=10\text{\,s}$ the EVP solution converges to
  the LSOR solution (not shown). Only in the narrow straits in the
 Line 443 
 leads to generally thicker ice (\reffig{
    \caption{Arctic ice volume averaged over Jan--Mar 2000, in
      $\text{km$^{3}$}$. Mean ice transport and standard deviation for the
      period Jan 1992 -- Dec 1999 through the Fram Strait (FS), the
-     total northern inflow into the Canadian Archipelago (NI), and the
+     total northern inflow into the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (NI), and the
      export through Lancaster Sound (LS), in $\text{km$^{3}$\,y$^{-1}$}$.
    \label{tab:icevolume}}
  \end{table}
 Line 455 
 different experiments has consequences f
  the Arctic. Although by far the most exported ice drifts through the
  Fram Strait (approximately $2300\pm610\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$), a
  considerable amount (order $160\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$) ice is
- exported through the Canadian Archipelago \citep[and references
+ exported through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago \citep[and references
  therein]{serreze06}. Note, that ice transport estimates are associated
  with large uncertainties; also note that tuning an Arctic sea
  ice-ocean model to reproduce observations is not our goal, but we use
 Line 463 
 the published numbers as an orientation.
  \reffig{archipelago} shows an excerpt of a time series of daily
  averaged ice transports, smoothed with a monthly running mean, through
- various straits in the Canadian Archipelago and the Fram Strait for
+ various straits in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the Fram Strait for
  the different model solutions; \reftab{icevolume} summarizes the
  time series.
  \begin{figure}
 Line 471 
 time series.
  %\centerline{{\includegraphics*[width=0.6\linewidth]{\fpath/ice_export}}}
  %\centerline{{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{\fpath/ice_export}}}
  \centerline{{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{\fpath/ice_export1996}}}
- \caption{Transport through Canadian Archipelago for different solver
+ \caption{Transport through Canadian Arctic Archipelago for different solver
    flavors. The letters refer to the labels of the sections in
    \reffig{arctic_topog}; positive values are flux out of the Arctic;
    legend abbreviations are explained in \reftab{experiments}. The mean
 Line 484 
 model solutions (annual averages range f
  $2300\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$, except for \mbox{C-LSR-ns~WTD} with
  $2760\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$ and the EVP solution with the long
  time step of 150\,s with nearly $3000\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$),
- while the export through the Candian Archipelago is smaller than
+ while the export through the Candian Arctic Archipelago is smaller than
  generally thought. For example, the ice transport through Lancaster
  Sound is lower (annual averages are $43$ to
  $256\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$) than in \citet{dey81} who estimates an
 Line 499 
 configuration, both B- and C-grid LSOR s
  ice transport, while the C-EVP solutions allow up to
  $600\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$ in summer (not shown); \citet{tang04}
  report $300$ to $350\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$.  As as consequence,
- the import into the Candian Archipelago is larger in all EVP solutions
+ the import into the Candian Arctic Archipelago is larger in all EVP solutions
  %(range: $539$ to $773\text{\,km$^3$\,y$^{-1}$}$)
  than in the LSOR solutions.
  %get the order of magnitude right (range: $132$ to
 Line 523 
 considerably smaller (the difference for
  but similar to that for the LSOR solver). Albeit smaller, the
  differences between free and no-slip solutions in ice drift can lead
  to equally large differences in ice volume, especially in the Canadian
- Archipelago over the integration time. At first, this observation
+ Arctic Archipelago over the integration time. At first, this observation
  seems counterintuitive, as we expect that the solution
  \emph{technique} should not affect the \emph{solution} to a higher
  degree than actually modifying the equations. A more detailed study on

 Legend:



Removed from v.1.20
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.21
 Legend:



Removed from v.1.20
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.1.21
-Removed from v.1.20
+Added in v.1.21

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22