Randomized trial investigates the influence of eddy parameterization on Arctic Atlantic Water transport, suggesting need for improvement.
The Arctic Ocean is undergoing rapid change, yet many CMIP-type climate models struggle to accurately represent its circulation and water masses. A key feature of the system is the topographically controlled boundary currents that transport warm, saline Atlantic Water northward at intermediate depths into the Atlantic Water layer. An important process affecting these boundary currents is the lateral flux of heat and salt driven by mesoscale eddies. Because the deformation radius is relatively small in the Arctic Ocean, numerical simulations require kilometer-scale resolution to fully capture eddy dynamics. Most of the current climate models, however, operate in a non-eddying regime, relying on mesoscale eddy parameterizations – typically combining isopycnal diffusion (Redi) with eddy-induced advection (Gent and McWilliams, GM). As horizontal resolution increases, future models will shift from an eddy-parameterized to eddy-permitting regime, entering a grey zone where eddies are only partially resolved and the role of GM parameterization becomes less straightforward. This study investigates the use of GM parameterization in eddy-permitting models, focusing on its effect on the northward transport of Atlantic Water in the Nordic Seas and Arctic Ocean. We conduct realistic simulations where we vary GM diffusivity strength and test two different GM scalings. These experiments are compared with a high-resolution reference simulation and observational data. Further, we show how the GM parameterization modulates the topographically steered boundary current through a reduction in baroclinicity of the large-scale circulation, how transport across Greenland–Scotland Ridge and Fram Strait is controlled by its strength; and how resolved and parameterized eddy heat fluxes contribute to the redistribution of heat. Our results suggest that mesoscale eddy buoyancy fluxes remain insufficiently resolved at eddy-permitting Arctic resolutions, supporting the continued use of GM-type parameterizations in the grey-zone regime. However, there are some obvious limitations with the tested GM formulations in our experiments that warrants further improvement of the GM scheme in an Arctic context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pemberton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: