2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2018.02.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of the new equation of state of seawater (TEOS-10) on the estimates of water mass mixture and meridional transport in the Atlantic Ocean

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For all calculations, we used the Gibbs‐SeaWater Oceanographic Toolbox containing the thermodynamic equation of seawater 2010 (TEOS‐10) subroutines (T. J. McDougall & Barker, 2011). We computed absolute salinity (S A ) and conservative temperature (Θ) from the CTD pressure, temperature and salinity to obtain better estimations of the transport in the South Atlantic Ocean, as the differences of total AMOC transport can reach to 6% when compared with estimates derived from the previous definition of the thermodynamic equation of seawater (Almeida et al., 2018). However, to obtain the neutral density ( γ n ) field we also determined potential temperature ( θ ) and practical salinity ( S p ) because currently γ n is not available as a function of Θ and S A in TEOS‐10 (T. J. McDougall & Barker, 2011; see Figure for differences between Θ and θ and between S A and S p along the section).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For all calculations, we used the Gibbs‐SeaWater Oceanographic Toolbox containing the thermodynamic equation of seawater 2010 (TEOS‐10) subroutines (T. J. McDougall & Barker, 2011). We computed absolute salinity (S A ) and conservative temperature (Θ) from the CTD pressure, temperature and salinity to obtain better estimations of the transport in the South Atlantic Ocean, as the differences of total AMOC transport can reach to 6% when compared with estimates derived from the previous definition of the thermodynamic equation of seawater (Almeida et al., 2018). However, to obtain the neutral density ( γ n ) field we also determined potential temperature ( θ ) and practical salinity ( S p ) because currently γ n is not available as a function of Θ and S A in TEOS‐10 (T. J. McDougall & Barker, 2011; see Figure for differences between Θ and θ and between S A and S p along the section).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The parameter weights were determined according to Tomczak and Large (1989) and remained similar for the two sets of indices derived from the older and recent seawater state equations (Table 1 and Dotto et al, 2016). Finally, sensitivity tests were performed using the Monte Carlo method to randomly varying the source water types index values to support the robustness of the results (e.g., Almeida et al, 2018, Kerr et al, 2018b. The results were considered reliable due to the low residual of mass conservation found for all OMP runs (< 5%).…”
Section: Water Masses Fractions Of Mixturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This results from the spatial variability of silicate concentration that is taken account of when calculating absolute salinity in TEOS‐10. The impact of the changed equation of state on transport evaluated at a number of sections is evaluated by Almeida et al ()…”
Section: Transport Moorings Arraysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This results from the spatial variability of silicate concentration that is taken account of when calculating absolute salinity in TEOS-10. The impact of the changed equation of state on transport evaluated at a number of sections is evaluated by Almeida et al (2018) The errors that can arise in the calculation of dynamic height have been considered by Johns et al (2005), McCarthy, Gleeson, andWalsh (2015), and Williams et al (2015) There are two principal sources of error: instrument calibration and that which arises from the distribution of instruments.…”
Section: Dynamic Height Mooringsmentioning
confidence: 99%