• Energy Research
• US close
• AU close

AbstractWe expand on a recent determination of the first global energy spectrum of the ocean's surface geostrophic circulation (Storer et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33031-3) using a coarse‐graining (CG) method. We compare spectra from CG to those from spherical harmonics by treating land in a manner consistent with the boundary conditions. While the two methods yield qualitatively consistent domain‐averaged results, spherical harmonics spectra are too noisy at gyre‐scales (>1,000 km). More importantly, spherical harmonics are inherently global and cannot provide local information connecting scales with currents geographically. CG shows that the extra‐tropics mesoscales (100–500 km) have a root‐mean‐square (rms) velocity of ∼15 cm/s, which increases to ∼30–40 cm/s locally in the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio and to ∼16–28 cm/s in the ACC. There is notable hemispheric asymmetry in mesoscale energy‐per‐area, which is higher in the north due to continental boundaries. We estimate that ≈25%–50% of total geostrophic energy is at scales smaller than 100 km, and is un(der)‐resolved by pre‐SWOT satellite products. Spectra of the time‐mean circulation show that most of its energy (up to 70%) resides in stationary eddies with characteristic scales smaller than (<500 km). This highlights the preponderance of “standing” small‐scale structures in the global ocean due to the temporally coherent forcing by boundaries. By coarse‐graining in space and time, we compute the first spatio‐temporal global spectrum of geostrophic circulation from AVISO and NEMO. These spectra show that every length‐scale evolves over a wide range of time‐scales with a consistent peak at ≈200 km and ≈2–3 weeks.

AbstractMesoscale eddies contain the bulk of the ocean’s kinetic energy (KE), but fundamental questions remain on the cross-scale KE transfers linking eddy generation and dissipation. The role of submesoscale flows represents the key point of discussion, with contrasting views of submesoscales as either a source or a sink of mesoscale KE. Here, the first observational assessment of the annual cycle of the KE transfer between mesoscale and submesoscale motions is performed in the upper layers of a typical open-ocean region. Although these diagnostics have marginal statistical significance and should be regarded cautiously, they are physically plausible and can provide a valuable benchmark for model evaluation. The cross-scale KE transfer exhibits two distinct stages, whereby submesoscales energize mesoscales in winter and drain mesoscales in spring. Despite this seasonal reversal, an inverse KE cascade operates throughout the year across much of the mesoscale range. Our results are not incompatible with recent modeling investigations that place the headwaters of the inverse KE cascade at the submesoscale, and that rationalize the seasonality of mesoscale KE as an inverse cascade-mediated response to the generation of submesoscales in winter. However, our findings may challenge those investigations by suggesting that, in spring, a downscale KE transfer could dampen the inverse KE cascade. An exploratory appraisal of the dynamics governing mesoscale–submesoscale KE exchanges suggests that the upscale KE transfer in winter is underpinned by mixed layer baroclinic instabilities, and that the downscale KE transfer in spring is associated with frontogenesis. Current submesoscale-permitting ocean models may substantially understate this downscale KE transfer, due to the models’ muted representation of frontogenesis.

Key Points Editors‐in‐chief of AGU journals stress urgent need for greening economy Cross‐sector solutions‐based science must supplement basic research AGU is adding solutions‐based community science journal to portfolio

AbstractSea levels of different atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) respond to climate change forcing in different ways, representing a crucial uncertainty in climate change research. We isolate the role of the ocean dynamics in setting the spatial pattern of dynamic sea-level (ζ) change by forcing several AOGCMs with prescribed identical heat, momentum (wind) and freshwater flux perturbations. This method produces a ζ projection spread comparable in magnitude to the spread that results from greenhouse gas forcing, indicating that the differences in ocean model formulation are the cause, rather than diversity in surface flux change. The heat flux change drives most of the global pattern of ζ change, while the momentum and water flux changes cause locally confined features. North Atlantic heat uptake causes large temperature and salinity driven density changes, altering local ocean transport and ζ. The spread between AOGCMs here is caused largely by differences in their regional transport adjustment, which redistributes heat that was already in the ocean prior to perturbation. The geographic details of the ζ change in the North Atlantic are diverse across models, but the underlying dynamic change is similar. In contrast, the heat absorbed by the Southern Ocean does not strongly alter the vertically coherent circulation. The Arctic ζ change is dissimilar across models, owing to differences in passive heat uptake and circulation change. Only the Arctic is strongly affected by nonlinear interactions between the three air-sea flux changes, and these are model specific.