US JGOFS-SMP
Adobe Systems
OCEAN ANTHROPOGENIC CARBON
INVENTORY ESTIMATES (Pg C)
 
Princeton
 
Ocean
 
NCAR
 
CSM
 
OBM
 
Low
Mixing
 
High
Mixing
 
Observational
 
Estimates
 
Indian
 
22
 
27
 
19
 
25
 
  20
1
 ± 3    
 
Atlantic
 
40
 
38
 
30
 
38
 
 37
2
 ± 5?   
 
Pacific
 
47
 
53
 
47
 
62
 
  45
3
± 5    
 
Total
 
108
 
118
 
96
 
125
 
 102
 ± ?     
 
1
Sabine et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 13, No. 1, 179-198, 1999
 
2
Lee et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles, In Preparation, 2002
 
3
Sabine et al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles, In Press, 2002
 
 
 
I didn’t really have a chance to get into this too much today, but an important aspect of our work is to use these results to evaluate the ocean carbon cycle GCM models. In general we have found that the models do a reasonable job of reproducing the large scale distributions, but there are a number of regional differences that likely are related to transport issues. For example, here we compare  the data based results with three different versions of the Princeton model. Each of the different versions have different transport and mixing schemes. Jorge will likely talk more about this, but my point here is simply to point out that the carbon data from the global survey can provide a strong constraint for diagnosing the transport in the carbon cycle models.