Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Timescales of AMOC decline in response to fresh water forcing

  • Published:
Climate Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is predicted to weaken over the coming century due to warming from greenhouse gases and increased input of fresh water into the North Atlantic, however there is considerable uncertainty as to the amount and rate of AMOC weakening. Understanding what controls the rate and timescale of AMOC weakening may help to reduce this uncertainty and hence reduce the uncertainty surrounding associated impacts. As a first step towards this we consider the timescales associated with weakening in response to idealized freshening scenarios. Here we explore timescales of AMOC weakening in response to a freshening of the North Atlantic in a suite of experiments with an eddy-permitting global climate model (GCM). When the rate of fresh water added to the North Atlantic is small (0.1 Sv; 1 Sv \(=1\times 10^6\) m\(^3\)/s), the timescale of AMOC weakening depends mainly on the rate of fresh water input itself and can be longer than a century. When the rate of fresh water added is large (\(\ge\) 0.3 Sv) however, the timescale is a few decades and is insensitive to the actual rate of fresh water input. This insensitivity is because with a greater rate of fresh water input the advective feedbacks become more important at exporting fresh anomalies, so the rate of freshening is similar. We find advective feedbacks from: an export of fresh anomalies by the mean flow; less volume import through the Bering Strait; a weakening AMOC transporting less subtropical water northwards; and anomalous subtropical circulations which amplify export of the fresh anomalies. This latter circulation change is driven itself by the presence of fresh anomalies exported from the subpolar gyre through geostrophy. This feedback has not been identified in previous model studies and when the rate of freshening is strong it is found to dominate the total export of fresh anomalies, and hence the timescale of AMOC decline. Although results may be model dependent, qualitatively similar mechanisms are also found in a single experiment with a different GCM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakker P, Schmittner A, Lenaerts JTM, Abe-Ouchi A, Bi D, van den Broeke MR, Chan WL, Hu A, Beadling RL, Marsland SJ, Mernild SH, Saenko OA, Swingedouw D, Sullivan A, Yin J (2016) Fate of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: strong decline under continued warming and Greenland melting. Geophys Res Lett 43:12,252–12,260. doi:10.1002/2016gl070457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boning CW, Behrens E, Biastoch A, Getzlaff K, Bamber JL (2016) Emerging impact of Greenland meltwater on deepwater formation in the North Atlantic Ocean. Nat Geosci 9(7):523–527. doi:10.1038/ngeo2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimatoribus A, Drijfhout S, Dijkstra H (2014) Meridional overturning circulation: stability and ocean feedbacks in a box model. Clim Dyn 42(1–2):311–328. doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1576-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement AC, Peterson LC (2008) Mechanisms of abrupt climate change of the last glacial period. Rev Geophys 46(4):RG4002. doi:10.1029/2006rg000204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Toom M, Dijkstra HA, Weijer W, Hecht MW, Maltrud ME, van Sebille E (2014) Response of a strongly Eddying global ocean to North Atlantic freshwater perturbations. J Phys Oceanogr 44(2):464–481. doi:10.1175/jpo-d-12-0155.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries P, Weber SL (2005) The Atlantic freshwater budget as a diagnostic for the existence of a stable shut down of the Meridional Overturning Circulation. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2004GL021450

    Google Scholar 

  • Driesschaert E, Fichefet T, Goosse H, Huybrechts P, Janssens I, Mouchet A, Munhoven G, Brovkin V, Weber SL (2007) Modeling the influence of Greenland ice sheet melting on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the next millennia. Geophys Res Lett 34(10):L10707. doi:10.1029/2007gl029516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gent PR, McWilliams JC (1990) Isopycnal mixing in ocean circulation models. J Phys Oceanogr 20(1):150–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill AE (1982) Atmosphere-ocean dynamics. International Geophysics Series, Academic, San Fransisco. doi:10.1002/qj.49711046322

  • Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dyn 16:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory JM, Saenko OA, Weaver AJ (2003) The role of the Atlantic freshwater balance in the hysteresis of the meridional overturning circulation. Clim Dyn 21(7–8):707–717. doi:10.1007/s00382-003-0359-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins E, Smith RS, Allison LC, Gregory JM, Woollings TJ, Pohlmann H, de Cuevas B (2011) Bistability of the Atlantic overturning circulation in a global climate model and links to ocean freshwater transport. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2011GL047208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann M, Rahmstorf S (2009) On the stability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(49):20584–20589. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909146106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu A, Meehl GA, Han W, Yin J (2011) Effect of the potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet on the Meridional Overturning Circulation and global climate in the future. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr 58(17–18):1914–1926. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang RX, Schmitt RW (1993) The GoldsbroughStommel circulation of the World Oceans. J Phys Oceanogr 23(6):1277–1284. doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1993)023%3C1277:tgcotw%3E2.0.co;2

  • Jackson LC (2013) Shutdown and recovery of the AMOC in a coupled global climate model: the role of the advective feedback. Geophys Res Lett 40(6):1182–1188. doi:10.1002/grl.50289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson LC, Smith RS, Wood RA (2016) Ocean and atmosphere feedbacks affecting AMOC hysteresis in a GCM. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3336-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Liu Z, Brady EC (2013) Why is the AMOC monostable in coupled general circulation models? J Clim 27(6):2427–2443. doi:10.1175/jcli-d-13-00264.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Xie SP, Liu Z, Zhu J (2017) Overlooked possibility of a collapsed Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation in warming climate. Sci Adv 3(1):e1601666. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madec G (2008) NEMO ocean engine. Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Manabe BS, Stouffer RJ (1999) Are two modes of thermohaline circulation stable? Tellus A 51(3):400–411. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0870.1999.t01-3-00005.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marotzke J, Willebrand J (1991) Multiple equilibria of the global thermohaline circulation. J Phys Oceanogr 21(9):1372–1385. doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1991)021%3C1372:meotgt%3E2.0.co;2

  • McCarthy GD, Smeed DA, Johns WE, Frajka-Williams E, Moat BI, Rayner D, Baringer MO, Meinen CS, Collins J, Bryden HL (2015) Measuring the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 26N. Progress Oceanogr 130:91–111. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2014.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManus JF, Francois R, Gherardi JM, Keigwin LD, Brown-Leger S (2004) Collapse and rapid resumption of Atlantic meridional circulation linked to deglacial climate changes. Nature 428(6985):834–837. doi:10.1038/nature02494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mecking JV, Drijfhout SS, Jackson LC, Graham T (2016) Stable AMOC off state in an eddy-permitting coupled climate model. Clim Dyn 47(7–8):2455. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-2975-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megann A, Storkey D, Aksenov Y, Alderson S, Calvert D, Graham T, Hyder P, Siddorn J, Sinha B (2014) GO5.0: the joint NERCMet Office NEMO global ocean model for use in coupled and forced applications. Geosci Model Dev 7(3):1069–1092. doi:10.5194/gmd-7-1069-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmstorf S (1996) On the freshwater forcing and transport of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation. Clim Dyn 12:799–811. doi:10.1007/s003820050144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmstorf S (2002) Ocean circulation and climate during the past 120,000 years. Nature 419(6903):207–214. doi:10.1038/nature01090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmstorf S, Crucifix M, Ganopolski A, Goosse H, Kamenkovich I, Knutti R, Lohmann G, Marsh R, Mysak LA, Wang Z et al (2005) Thermohaline circulation hysteresis: a model intercomparison. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2005GL023655

    Google Scholar 

  • Reintges A, Martin T, Latif M, Keenlyside N (2016) Uncertainty in twenty-first century projections of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3180-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts CD, Garry FK, Jackson LC (2013) A multimodel study of sea surface temperature and subsurface density fingerprints of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. J Clim 26(22):9155–9174. doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00762.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts CD, Jackson L, McNeall D (2014) Is the 2004–2012 reduction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation significant? Geophys Res Lett 41(9):3204–3210. doi:10.1002/2014gl059473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roullet G, Madec G (2000) Salt conservation, free surface, and varying levels: A new formulation for ocean general circulation models. J Geophys Res 105(C10):23927–23942. doi:10.1029/2000jc900089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sgubin G, Swingedouw D, Drijfhout S, Hagemann S, Robertson E (2015) Multimodel analysis on the response of the AMOC under an increase of radiative forcing and its symmetrical reversal. Clim Dyn 45:1429–1450. doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2391-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RS, Gregory JM (2009) A study of the sensitivity of ocean overturning circulation and climate to freshwater input in different regions of the North Atlantic. Geophys Res Lett 36(15):L15701. doi:10.1029/2009gl038607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence P, Saenko OA, Sijp W, England MH (2012) North Atlantic climate response to Lake Agassiz drainage at coarse and ocean Eddy-permitting resolutions. J Clim 26(8):2651–2667. doi:10.1175/jcli-d-11-00683.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer RJ, Yin J, Gregory JM, Dixon KW, Spelman MJ, Hurlin W, Weaver AJ, Eby M, Flato GM, Hasumi H, Hu A, Jungclaus JH, Kamenkovich IV, Levermann A, Montoya M, Murakami S, Nawrath S, Oka A, Peltier WR, Robitaille DY, Sokolov A, Vettoretti G, Weber SL (2006) Investigating the causes of the response of the thermohaline circulation to past and future climate changes. J Clim. doi:10.1175/JCLI3689.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Straneo F (2006) On the connection between dense water formation, overturning, and poleward heat transport in a convective basin. J Phys Oceanogr 36(9):1822–1840. doi:10.1175/jpo2932.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swingedouw D, Braconnot P, Delecluse P, Guilyardi E, Marti O (2007) Quantifying the AMOC feedbacks during a 2CO\(_2\) stabilization experiment with land-ice melting. Clim Dyn 29(5):521–534. doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0250-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swingedouw D, Rodehacke C, Behrens E, Menary M, Olsen S, Gao Y, Mikolajewicz U, Mignot J, Biastoch A (2013) Decadal fingerprints of freshwater discharge around Greenland in a multi-model ensemble. Clim Dyn 41(3–4):695–720. doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1479-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swingedouw D, Rodehacke C, Olsen S, Menary M, Gao Y, Mikolajewicz U, Mignot J (2015) On the reduced sensitivity of the Atlantic overturning to Greenland ice sheet melting in projections: a multi-model assessment. Clim Dyn 44(11–12):3261–3279. doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2270-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe RB, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Wood RA, Mitchell JFB (2001) Mechanisms determining the Atlantic thermohaline circulation response to Greenhouse gas forcing in a non-flux-adjusted coupled climate model. J Clim 14:3102–3116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdes P (2011) Built for stability. Nat Geosci 4(7):414–416. doi:10.1038/ngeo1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallis GK (2006) Atmospheric and oceanic fluid dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vellinga M, Wu P (2004) Low latitude freshwater influence on centennial variability of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation. J Clim 17(23):4498–4511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijer W, Maltrud ME, Hecht MW, Dijkstra HA, Kliphuis MA (2012) Response of the Atlantic Ocean circulation to Greenland Ice Sheet melting in a strongly-eddying ocean model. Geophys Res Lett 39(9):L09606. doi:10.1029/2012gl051611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams KD, Harris CM, Bodas-Salcedo A, Camp J, Comer RE, Copsey D, Fereday D, Graham T, Hill R, Hinton T, Hyder P, Ineson S, Masato G, Milton SF, Roberts MJ, Rowell DP, Sanchez C, Shelly A, Sinha B, Walters DN, West A, Woollings T, Xavier PK (2015) The met office global coupled model 2.0 (gc2) configuration. Geosci Model Dev Discuss 8(1):521–565. doi:10.5194/gmdd-8-521-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura C. Jackson.

Appendix: Salinity budget derivation

Appendix: Salinity budget derivation

1.1 Model salinity budget

The salinity (S) evolution is controlled by the equation

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{dS}{dt} = -\nabla (S \mathbf {u}) + S(E-P) \delta (z- \eta ) + \mathcal {D} \end{aligned}$$

where \(\mathbf {u}=(U,V,W)\) is the three dimensional velocity, E and P are the evaporation and precipitation respectively, and \(\delta (z- \eta )\) is the Dirac function that is one at the surface (\(z=\eta\)) and zero elsewhere (Madec 2008). \(\mathcal {D}\) contains diffusive and sea ice terms. Integrating over a volume of the Atlantic contained by land boundaries in the x direction, by latitudes \(L_1\) and \(L_2\) in the y direction and from the ocean floor (\(z=-H\)) to the surface \(z=\eta\)) we get

$$\begin{aligned} \int _{vol} \frac{dS}{dt} dxdydz =&\int _{L_1} VS dxdz - \int _{L_2} VS dxdz -\int _{surf} WS dxdy\\&+ \int _{surf} S(E-P) dxdy +\int _{vol} \mathcal {D} dxdydz. \end{aligned}$$

Since the model uses a linear free surface approximation (Roullet and Madec 2000; Madec 2008) the surface for the integrals are assumed to be at \(z=0\) and hence the volume integrated over remains constant. This gives the approximation used by the model as

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt}\int _{vol_0} S dxdydz =&\int _{L_1} VS dxdz - \int _{L_2} VS dxdz - \int _{z=0} WS dxdy \nonumber \\&+ \int _{z=0} S(E-P) dxdy +\int _{vol_0} \mathcal {D} dxdydz \end{aligned}$$
(7)

This gives the salinity budget in terms of the convergence due to lateral and vertical transports (with the vertical flux due to convergence in the free surface layer), surface fresh water fluxes (which change the salinity through implied changes in volume) and diffusive and ice terms. It is worth noting that the linear free surface has an impact on salt conservation: if the budget over the entire globe is considered, then all terms on the right hand side are zero apart from the third one. Although \(\int _{z=0} W dxdy=0\) when considering a global integral, there can be a contribution from \(\int _{z=0} WS dxdy\) although this is assumed to be small since W and S at the surface are generally not correlated.

Equation 7 can then be written as

$$\begin{aligned} \nu \frac{d\tilde{S}}{dt} = F_{adv} + F_{surf} + F_{D} \end{aligned}$$
(8)

where \(\nu\) is the volume of the region, \(\tilde{S}\) is the volume average salinity and \(F_{adv}\) (first 3 terms on the right hand side of Eq. 7), \(F_{surf}\) and \(F_{D}\) are the advective fluxes, surface fluxes and diffusive terms respectively.

Now if we write \(V=\overline{V} + v\) where \(\overline{V} = \int V dx dz / A\) is the section mean velocity and \(A= \int dx dz\) is the section area, then we can write

$$\begin{aligned} \int VS dx dz = \overline{V} ~\overline{S}A + \int v S dx dz \end{aligned}$$

where \(\overline{S} = \int S dx dz / A\) is the section mean salinity. Similarly we can write

$$\begin{aligned} \int WS dx dy = \overline{W}^s ~\overline{S}^sA^s + \int w S dx dy \end{aligned}$$

where \(\overline{W}^{s} = \int W dx dy / A^s\) is the area mean of the surface vertical velocity, \(A^s= \int dx dy\) and \(\overline{S}^s = \int S dx dz / A^s\).

Then

$$\begin{aligned} F_{adv}= F_{thr} + F_{S} +F_{N} + F_{ws} \end{aligned}$$
(9)

where

$$\begin{aligned} F_{thr} = -\overline{W}^s ~\overline{S}^sA^s +\overline{V_1} ~\overline{S_1}A_1 -\overline{V_2} ~\overline{S_2}A_2 \end{aligned}$$

is the advection due to the volume transport through the region having different salinities at the surface, northern and southern boundaries. We will refer to this as the throughflow component of the salinity transport.

$$\begin{aligned} F_{S}=\int v_1 S_1 dx dz, \end{aligned}$$

and

$$\begin{aligned} F_{N}=-\int v_2 S_2 dx dz \end{aligned}$$

are the exchanges of salt across the southern and northern boundaries respectively that are not part of the throughflow transport. The final term

$$\begin{aligned} F_{ws}= -\int w S dx dy \end{aligned}$$

is the covariance of vertical velocities and salinities. This term is small, but non-zero in the control, however remains constant throughout the hosing experiments. Hence the contribution to the salinity budget in Eq. 2 is negligable and the term is not included.

1.2 Advection decomposition

The advective terms in \(F_S\) can be decomposed further in order to elucidate mechanisms. Note that although \(F_N\) can be decomposed in the same way, we do not do this because \(F_N\) is found to be small. One way of doing the decomposition is geometrically into zonal mean components and zonally varying anomalies. We write \(v=v_{o}+v_{g}\) and \(S=S_{o}+S_{g}\) where \(a_{o} = \int a dx/\int dx\) so by definition \(\int a_{g} dx=0\). Then

$$\begin{aligned} \int vS dx dz = \int v_{o}S_{o} dx dz + \int v_{g}S_{g} dx dz \end{aligned}$$
(10)

with the terms on the right often referred to as overturning (\(F_{o}\)) and gyre (\(F_{g}\)) components respectively.

Alternatively \(F_S\) can be decomposed to identify whether advection changes because of circulation or salinity changes. Here we decompose \(v = v_c + v'\) and \(S=S_c + S'\) where \(v_c\) and \(S_c\) are time mean components from the control experiment. Then

$$\begin{aligned} \int vS dx dz = \int v_cS_c dx dz +\int v_cS' dx dz +\int v'S_c dx dz +\int v'S' dx dz. \end{aligned}$$

This is evaluated for both the hosing experiment and the control, and anomalies are taken with respect to time means of the control. Denoting the anomalous term with respect to the control using \(\Delta \int vS dx dz\) we then have

$$\begin{aligned} \Delta \int vS dx dz = \Delta \int v_cS' dx dz + \Delta \int v'S_c dx dz + \Delta \int v'S' dx dz. \end{aligned}$$
(11)

The first term is the anomalous advection solely due to changing salinities (assuming that the circulation remains the same as in the control), \(F_{v_cS'}\); the second term is the anomalous advection solely due to changing circulation (assuming that the salinity remains the same as in the control), \(F_{v'S_c}\); the third term contains the anomalous advection due to co-varying salinity and circulation, \(F_{v'S'}\). Note that the time mean of the latter term in the control can be non-zero if salinity and velocity co-vary due to internal variability.

1.3 Numerical calculation

To get an accurate calculation of Eq. 8, terms for the surface, diffusive and ice fluxes are calculated at every timestep in the model code and output as annual means. The tendency term is calculated as the salinity difference between monthly mean salinity fields at the beginning and end of each year. This is not an exact representation of the tendency, which should be calculated with instantaneous salinity fields, however errors are found to be small. The advective term \(F_{adv}\) is calculated from the VS diagnostic where V and S are multiplied together (on the V grid) at every timestep within the model code. Unfortunately an error in the WS diagnostic meant that this had to be calculated from monthly mean W and S fields, however we believe that this has introduced little error. No terms were calculated as residuals. The sea ice terms were found to be negligible and the sum of the remaining terms were found to largely match the tendency terms.

To calculate the decompositions of \(F_{adv}\) in Eq. 9, the monthly mean V and S fields were used. This means that \(F_{adv}\) also includes an additional term of \(F_{eddy}=\left\langle {VS}\right\rangle - \left\langle {V} \right\rangle \left\langle {S} \right\rangle\) where \(\langle\) \(\rangle\) indicates a monthly mean. Although this term is found to be important in other regions (Mecking et al. 2016), it is small across these boundaries so this term is neglected.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jackson, L.C., Wood, R.A. Timescales of AMOC decline in response to fresh water forcing. Clim Dyn 51, 1333–1350 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3957-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3957-6

Keywords

Navigation