• Energy Research
• 2021-2025close

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