JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. C7, 3226, doi:10.

1029/2002JC001473, 2003

A numerical study of dense water outflows and halocline anticyclones

in an arctic baroclinic slope current
Shenn-Yu Chao
Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, Maryland, USA

Ping-Tung Shaw
Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Received 13 May 2002; revised 13 December 2002; accepted 18 April 2003; published 15 July 2003.

[1] We examine the relation between the dense water migration from the shelf to the deep
ocean and offshore generation of halocline anticyclones in a physical setting appropriate
for an Arctic baroclinic current system, using a nonhydrostatic numerical ocean model.
The model basin contains an outer shelf connected to the deep sea by a continental slope.
The ocean is cyclical in the alongshore direction. Sea surface is frictional to account for
the ice-exerted friction. A series of inflows and outflows is imposed on the shoreward side
of the shelf to facilitate the release of dense waters into the basin. The distribution of
inflow-outflow is sinusoidal in the alongshore direction. Inflow carries dense water
into the basin while the outflow withdraws ambient shelf water from the shelf. The
multiple sources produce an array of dense plumes entering the shelf. Seaward migration
of dense plumes is examined with and without an offshore baroclinic current bounded
to the left by the shelf. The baroclinic current, if present, is supported by slanted
isopycnals rising toward the shelf break. Without the baroclinic current, downslope
sinking plumes veer to the right and produce an undercurrent trapped by the continental
slope. With the baroclinic current, convection along slanted isopycnals can divert dense
plumes away from boundary trapping and produce intense subsurface anticyclones
offshore. Initial meanders embedded in the baroclinic current can trigger instabilities and
also produce subsurface anticyclones offshore. However, disturbances induced by sinking
plumes and instabilities of offshore origin generally do not interact constructively to
intensify subsurface anticyclones offshore. INDEX TERMS: 4255 Oceanography: General:
Numerical modeling; 4520 Oceanography: Physical: Eddies and mesoscale processes; KEYWORDS: dense
water outflow, eddy shedding
Citation: Chao, S.-Y., and P.-T. Shaw, A numerical study of dense water outflows and halocline anticyclones in an arctic baroclinic
slope current, J. Geophys. Res., 108(C7), 3226, doi:10.1029/2002JC001473, 2003.

1. Introduction topographic features such as submarine canyons or sharp

changes in coastline orientation may trigger active shelf-
[2] Over the Arctic shelf, the production and offshore
basin exchange. Off the Chukchi shelf, for example, the
migration of cold, saline waters (formed by brine rejected
dense outflow into the Arctic Ocean was observed to be
from growing ice) are essential to the maintenance of the
quite active through Barrow Canyon [Weingartner et al.,
halocline [Aagaard et al., 1981; Weingartner et al., 1998].
1998].
Brine ejection events in the latent heat polynyas over the
[3] The density of shelf waters regulates the maximum
shelf produce the dense water which in turn ventilates the
sinking depth. Weingartner et al. [1998] identified three
cold halocline layer of the Arctic Ocean [Aagaard et al.,
modes of waters in the outer Chukchi shelf available for
1981; Cavalieri and Martin, 1994; Roach et al., 1995]. The
offshore migration. The dominant mode had moderate
dense water migration from the shelf to the deep ocean can
salinity (
32.5) and low temperature (<1.4
C) character-
be widespread along the shelf break. This seems to be the
istic of Chukchi Sea winter water [Coachman et al., 1975].
prevalent mode of export from the Mackenzie shelf in the
The intermediate mode water is denser, having higher
northeastern Beaufort Sea, as the frontal structure seemed to
salinities (33
33.6). The hypersaline mode had salinities
vary little along the shelf break [Melling, 1993]. Over other
>34.0. The relative contribution from each mode varies
shelves, the offshore migration of dense waters is often
from year to year. If none of these modes mix as they
localized in a few preferred locations. Conceivably, distinct
migrate off the shelf, the dominant mode will ventilate the
upper halocline while the saltiest portion of the hypersaline
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union. mode water will sink to the bottom layer of Canada Basin.
0148-0227/03/2002JC001473 Offshore migration without mixing is of course an ideal-

19 - 1

19 - 2 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING
ization. In reality, the dense shelf water does mix as it sinks
and in consequence, should ventilate the deep ocean over a
range of depths above the maximum allowable sinking
depth.
[4] Departing from the shelf break, sinking plumes are
subject to trapping by the continental slope. This is evident
from results of previous numerical investigations [Chapman
and Gawarkiewicz, 1995; Jiang and Garwood, 1996 and
1998; Kikuchi et al., 1999; Gawarkiewicz, 2000] and
rotating tank experiments [Etling et al., 2000; Lane-Serff
and Baines, 2000]. These studies excluded the presence of a
baroclinic current offshore. In the otherwise quiescent
coastal ocean, sinking plumes tend to follow isobaths and
intrude in the propagation direction of topographic Rossby
waves. Eddies are occasionally shed by the sinking plumes,
but these eddies appear to stay close to the continental slope
rather than move farther out into the deep basin. In other
words, the boundary trapping appears to be a strong
dynamical constraint against seaward dispersal. If this
trapping mechanism is unbreakable, the Arctic halocline
cannot be ventilated efficiently. The apparent gap between
models and observationalists’ perception of halocline ven-
tilation motivates us to revisit the outflow problem by
including more realistic flow conditions offshore. At issue
is the anticyclonic Beaufort Sea gyre, which skirts around
the shelf break. Isopycnals associated with this baroclinic
current are slanted, rising toward the shelf break.
[5] Dynamically, there are reasons to suspect that the
presence of a baroclinic current offshore could provide
mechanisms leading to the separation of sinking plumes
from the continental slope. First, the baroclinic current
flows against the subsurface density current induced by
sinking plumes over the continental slope. This kinematic
mechanism cannot dominate because the baroclinic current
such as the Beaufort Sea gyre is expected to be weak below
200 m depth, where isopycnal slopes begin to level [Wein-
gartner et al., 1998]. A second mechanism is due to the
slanted isopycnal surfaces associated with the baroclinic
current. The consequent convection more or less following
slanted isopycnal surfaces may divert sinking plumes away
from boundary trapping. Finally, sinking plumes may add
potential energy to the baroclinic current and trigger bar-
oclinic instability, which in turn may provoke seaward
dispersal.
[6] Another motivating question is whether the dense
water outflow causes the ubiquity of subsurface anticy-
clones in the Beaufort Sea. These eddies have been known
to populate the halocline for some time [Newton et al.,
1974; Manley and Hunkins, 1985; D’Asaro, 1988a; Muench
et al., 2000] and their possible origin from the Chukchi
shelf outflow had been speculated [D’Asaro, 1988b]. Never-
theless, numerical modeling efforts have not been able to
establish such a link to date. In our most recent attempt
[Chao and Shaw, 2002], we have simulated the effect of
surface cooling on a meandering jet along a flat-bottomed
coastal ocean. Surface friction exerted by sea ice was also
included. Under that physical setting, convection becomes
intense in surface areas occupied by cyclonic vorticity,
funneling a large volume of dense water downward. The
intense convection in turn enhances surface cyclonic vor-
ticity. Interestingly, the positive feedback mechanism
between convection and surface anticyclonic vorticity was
21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
also noted recently by Yoshikawa et al. [2001] in their
investigations of a similar subject. Subsequent convection at
depths follows slanted isopycnal surfaces and produces
intense subsurface anticyclones on the offshore side of the
baroclinic current. The work established a possible link
between slanted convection and offshore generation of
subsurface anticyclones. In reality, the lateral injection of
dense waters from the outer shelf rather than surface cooling
triggers slanted convection. It remains to be demonstrated
that lateral injection of dense water can indeed lead to the
offshore production of subsurface anticyclones.
[7] This paper continues to investigate the possible links
among offshore migration of dense shelf water, seaward
dispersal of sinking plumes, and generation of offshore
subsurface anticyclones. The ocean in this model contains
a piece of the outer shelf connected to the deep basin by a
continental slope. The mesoscale basin is capped by a
frictional surface to account for friction exerted by sea
ice. Surface friction dampens the surface current which
would otherwise become unrealistically strong with contin-
uous forcing by offshore migration of dense shelf water.
Localized topographic features such as submarine canyons
and sharp bends of the coastline are excluded for the
purpose of identifying mechanisms in the simplest possible
physical setting. A series of barotropic inflows and out-
flows, sinusoidal in profile, is imposed on the shoreward
side of the outer shelf to initiate sinking plumes. The inflow
carries dense water into the outer shelf while the outflow
withdraws ambient shelf water out of the basin. Subsequent
dispersal of sinking plumes is examined with and without a
baroclinic current beyond the shelf break. A nonhydrostatic
ocean model is used to better cope with downslope accel-
eration of sinking plumes. The baroclinic current offshore
can be initially stable if it is uniform alongshore, or mildly
unstable if it contains meanders. The instability of offshore
origin further complicates the seaward dispersal of sinking
plumes.
2. Model Formulation
[8] The oceanographic setting of this model is similar to
that of Chao and Shaw [2002] except for the addition of the
shelf and slope topography. Further, surface cooling is
replaced by dense outflow from the shelf to trigger slanted
convection. The formulation of the nonhydrostatic model
essentially follows procedures as outlined by Williams
[1969] except for several major improvements suggested
by Marshall et al. [1997]. Under the Boussinesq approxi-
mation, the three-dimensional momentum, continuity, and
density equations are


Dv 1 @ @v
þ 2 k0 v ¼  rp  rgk  A4 r4H v þ n ;
Dt r0 @z @z


Dr @ @r
¼ K4 r4H r þ k ;
Dt @z @z
r  v ¼ 0;
where v is the three-dimensional velocity vector (u,v,w), k0
is a unit vector pointing upward from the North Pole, k is
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 3

boundary, allowing the ambient shelf water to be withdrawn

Figure 1. Model setting, dimensions, and a subsurface
eddy generation scenario.
from the shelf. The seaward boundary is open; the normal
gradient of all variables is zero. The model domain is
cyclical in the alongshore direction. Since all horizontal
mixing terms are biharmonic, each lateral boundary condi-
tion on the coastal and offshore boundaries must be paired
with a higher order boundary condition to make the problem
well posed. Let Ba = 0 be a boundary condition in which B
is the boundary operator and a a dependent variable. The
standard choice is taken with rH2Ba = 0 as the additional
constraint. Vertically, the ocean bottom is no-slip and
impermeable. The sea surface is capped by a rigid lid on
which the boundary constraint is a mixture of free-slip and
no-slip conditions,

@ ðu; vÞ e
ð1  eÞ þ ðu; vÞ ¼ 0;
the local upward unit vector, and r is the perturbation @z
z
density about a reference seawater density (r0 = 1025 kg m3).
The subscript H changes the gradient operator from where
z is the vertical grid spacing and e is chosen to be
three-dimensional to horizontal. Horizontal mixing coeffi- 0.5, accounting for the partial friction exerted by sea ice.
cients are biharmonic with A4 = 5.6  108 m4 s1 and K4 = The choice for the value of e is meant to suppress
5.6  107 m4 s1. Biharmonic mixing is used instead of unrealistically strong surface currents induced by the
Laplacian mixing to suppress small-scale mixing and in the continuous offshore migration of dense shelf waters, which
process enhances eddy growth [Holland, 1978]. The latitude enhances surface currents markedly if e = 0 but marginally
is fixed at 70
N, so that the Earth’s b-effect is neglected. The if e = 1.
vertical mixing coefficients depend on the Richardson [10] A baroclinic current can be prescribed offshore. The
number according to the formulation of Pacanowski and initial current can be uniform alongshore or contain mean-
Philander [1981]. The purpose is to enhance vertical mixing ders. Major experiments are initialized with a baroclinic
in convectively unstable regions. The model is not sensitive current without meanders. Initial meanders are occasionally
to this particular vertical mixing scheme, in the sense that used mainly to trigger the instability of offshore origin. The
sizeable constant mixing coefficients in the vertical would instability originated offshore turns out to be irrelevant if
produce qualitatively similar solutions. one wishes to link the dense outflow to the offshore
[9] Figure 1 illustrates the model ocean, with x axis production of halocline anticyclones. With or without
pointing alongshore, y pointing offshore, and z pointing meanders, the geostrophic jet can be initialized as follows.
vertically upward. The horizontal dimension is 140 km in Let d = 150 m be a depth scale of the jet, Ly = 40 km be the
the alongshore direction, 120 km in the cross-shelf direc- e-folding half-width of the jet, yc = 60 km be the mean
tion, and 500 m in the vertical. The outer shelf is chosen to distance between the jet axis and shoreward boundary, and
be 100 m deep. One could choose a shallower outer shelf if
r = 2 kg m3 be the density anomaly supporting the
the major interest is the Chukchi Sea or east Siberian Sea. geostrophic jet. The reduced gravity can be defined as g0 = g
This type of fine adjustment is quantitative and will not
r/r0 to characterize the jet. The alongshore current is
change the conclusions we intend to establish herein. "
#


Deeper reaches of the ocean are also truncated at 500 m g0 d 2px 2 2
because major developments are in the halocline. An u ¼ pffiffiffi exp  y  yc  a sin =Ly
fLy p l
alongshore series of sinusoidal barotropic inflows and out- 

flows is imposed on the shoreward boundary of the shelf. H
 tanhð z=d Þ þ tanh ;
The alongshore profile of inflow-outflow is sinusoidal. d
Dense water enters the shelf with the inflow, and an equal
amount of lighter ambient shelf water is withdrawn by the where a and l are meander amplitude and wavelength,
outflow. While the volume flux is conserved, a net density respectively. The shore-normal velocity for the meaner jet is
flux enters the outer shelf. The density of inflow (rin) is
constant, chosen to have a density equivalent to or greater pffiffiffi "

 #

than the halocline density. To a large extent, the inflow 2a0 gd p 2px 2 2 2px
v¼ exp  y  yc  a sin =Ly cos
density dictates the magnitude of coastal ocean response. f lLy l l
The inflows and outflows (U0) play a secondary role. If the  z

H
inflow does not carry dense water onto the shelf, the  tanh þ tanh :
d d
circulation is mainly from sources to nearby sinks and will
not expand beyond the shelf break. With the density input, a
larger speed hastens the release of dense plumes onto the If there is no meander (a = 0), v becomes zero. The initial
outer shelf and therefore hastens the coastal ocean response. perturbation density field consists of two components,
On the other hand, a slower speed would retard the response
over and beyond the shelf break. The normal gradient of r ¼ ra ð zÞ þ rc ð x; y; zÞ:
density is zero on the outflow portion of the shoreward
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19 - 4 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING

hydrostatic pressure (nonhydrostatic pressure) is solved by

forming a three-dimensional Poisson equation to enforce
zero velocity divergence as required by the continuity
equation. The three-dimensional Poisson equation is solved
by the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) method
[e.g., Pozrikidis, 1997]. Integration in time is done by an
Adams-Bashforth scheme; a Euler time step is applied
occasionally to smooth the integration. The Arakawa-C
grid system is used, and spatial derivatives are center-
differenced to second-order accuracy. Vertical discretization
follows a z-coordinate formulation.

3. Numerical Results
[13] Table 1 lists a few selected experiments to be
discussed below. These experiments are arranged and
discussed in pairs for the purpose of isolating mechanisms.
Experiments 1 and 2 examine the ocean response to
sinusoidal inflow-outflow with and without a baroclinic
Figure 2. Vertical sections of initial geostrophic current current offshore, respectively. The baroclinic current is
(thick lines in cm s1) and perturbation density (thin lines in initially uniform in the alongshore direction. The amplitude
kg m3) in the absence of meanders. The flow is directed of inflow-outflow (U0) is chosen to be 20 cm s1, a
into the paper. In experiments without the baroclinic moderate speed for the observed dense outflow from
current, the density profile far offshore is used to initialize Chukchi shelf [Weingartner et al., 1998]. The width of
stratification everywhere. each source or sink (W) is 35 km on the shoreward side of
the outer shelf. The perturbation density for the inflow (rin)
is 1 kg m3. Referring to Figure 2, the eventual sinking
The first component (ra) provides background stratification depth (Dmax) is about 250 m or the lower halocline if the
below the depth of zm = 100 m characterized by a density dense inflow does not mix during the offshore migration.
difference of
r0 = 1.5 kg m3 and a depth scale of Z0 = Thus the inflow water in experiments 1 and 2 corresponds
250 m. Mathematically, ra (z) is given by 
r0 +
r0 to the intermediate mode water over the Chukchi shelf
tanh[(z  zm)/Z0] below 100 m depth and by 
r0 above available for halocline ventilation [Weingartner et al.,
it. The second component (rc) is in geostrophic balance with 1998]. Experiments 3 and 4 use narrower (23.3 km) inflow
alongshore current, given by and outflow to examine the model’s sensitivity to inflow


  z density (rin) with a baroclinic current offshore. The bar-
2px oclinic current is again uniform alongshore. The inflow
rc ¼ 0:5
rerfc  y  yc  a sin =Ly = cosh2 ;
l d perturbation density is 1 kg m3 in experiment 3 and
where erfc is the error function. When initialized as such, 0 kg m3 in experiment 4. Referring to Figure 2, the
the meanders disappear if a = 0. Further, the baroclinic maximum sinking depth (Dmax) for rin = 0 kg m3 in
current can also be removed if yc ! 1. In this limit the experiment 4 is 500 m or well below halocline, cor-
initial coastal ocean is motionless but contains vertical responding to the hypersaline mode water over the Chuk-
stratification identical to that far offshore. chi shelf available for offshore migration [Weingartner et
[11] Figure 2 shows a vertical section of flow and density al., 1998].
fields for the initial baroclinic current if the meander [14] It was often suggested that the instability of a
amplitude is zero. The maximum current speed exceeds baroclinic current might lead to generation of subsurface
25 cm s1 at the sea surface and the jet axis is 40 km off the anticyclones offshore [Manley and Hunkins, 1985]. Exper-
shelf break. The overall density distribution resembles the
observed transect off the Chukchi shelf [see Weingartner et
al., 1998, Figure 10]. Seaward of the front, the overall Table 1. List of Numerical Experiments, Amplitude of Inflow-
vertical stratification is about 3.5 kg m3, comparable to Outflow (U0), Width of Inflow or Outflow (W), Inflow Perturba-
that of the Beaufort Sea halocline. In the subsurface depths tion Density (rin), Presence or Absence of Offshore Current, Initial
(below 200 m) of interest to subsurface anticyclone gener- Meander Wavelength (l), and Maximum Sinking Depth for the
ation, the initial jet speed is much below 5 cm s1. As a Inflow (Dmax)
reference, the first baroclinic Rossby radius is about 21.5 U0, W, rin, kg Initial Offshore l, Dmax,
km seaward of the baroclinic current. Experiment cm s1 km m3 Current km m
[12] The horizontal and vertical resolutions are 2 km and 1 20 35 1 yes none 250
25 m, respectively. The time step of integration is 60 s. The 2 20 35 1 no none 250
formulation of the nonhydrostatic model essentially follows 3 20 23.3 1 yes none 250
4 20 23.3 0 yes none 500
the procedure outlined by Marshall et al. [1997]. The 5 0 none none yes 70 none
depth-averaged velocity and hydrostatic pressure in the 6 20 35 1 yes 70 250
three-dimensional momentum equation are calculated as 7 0 none none yes 46.6 none
in traditional hydrostatic models, while the deviation from 8 20 23.3 0 yes 46.6 500
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 5

Figure 3. Flow and negative vorticity fields at (a, c) 212.5 m depth and (b, d) 62.5 m depth driven by
wavenumber-2 sinusoidal inflow-outflow from the shelf ( y = 0 km) for 15 days. Left-hand panels
(Figures 3a and 3b) are from experiment 2 in which the coastal ocean is initially motionless. Right-hand
panels (Figures 3c and 3d) are from experiment 1, which initially contains a baroclinic current offshore.
The baroclinic current is initially uniform in the alongshore direction. The inflow-outflow profile is given
at the bottom of Figures 3b and 3d. Contours of negative vorticity begin from 0.05 f and decrease at
intervals of 0.05 f.

iment 5 illustrates the outcome of this offshore generation
scenario by switching off the inflow-outflow over the
shelf. The instability is triggered by initial meanders within
the offshore current having a wavelength (l) of 70 km.
Experiment 6 explores the relation between responses in-
duced by sinking plumes and baroclinic instability of
offshore origin. Dense water is produced over the shelf by
the inflow-outflow identical to that in experiment 1, while
instability offshore is produced by initial meanders within
the offshore current as in experiment 5. In terms of the
offshore production of subsurface anticyclones, the effects
of sinking plumes and instability originated offshore gener-
ally do not interact constructively. Experiments 7 and
8 essentially repeat experiments 5 and 6, respectively,
except with a shorter wavelength of offshore meanders, a
narrower width of the inflow-outflow and denser inflow.
The lack of constructive interaction between responses
induced by sinking plumes and by instability of offshore
origin persists in these two experiments.
3.1. Effects of Offshore Currents on Sinking Plumes
[15] Figure 3, from experiments 1 and 2, contrasts model
responses after 15 days of dense outflow in cases with a
baroclinic current offshore (Figure 3 (right)) and without a
baroclinic current (Figure 3 (left)). The width of each source
or sink (35 km) is somewhat larger than the first baroclinic
Rossby radius (21.5 km) far offshore. Flow fields and
negative vorticity contours are shown at 212.5 m depth
(Figures 3a and 3c) and 62.5 m depth (Figures 3b and 3d).
The inflow-outflow profile is indicated at the bottom of
bottom panels as a reference. The ability of an offshore
baroclinic current to remove sinking plumes trapped over
the continental slope is striking. Sinking plumes from the
shelf manifest a subsurface undercurrent trapped on the
continental slope in the case without a boundary current
(Figure 3a). The trapping by the continental slope is
expected in light of previous investigations of similar
subjects using hydrostatic models [Jiang and Garwood,
1996, 1998; Gawarkiewicz, 2000]. In the presence of a
boundary current, the undercurrent leaks offshore and forms
two subsurface anticyclones at 212.5 m depth (Figure 3c).
The drift to the left (negative x-direction) during offshore
migration is a result of advection by the baroclinic current.
The intensity of subsurface anticyclones in Figure 3c is
about 0.42 f at day 15. Anticyclonic vorticity at 62.5 m
(Figure 3d) is much weaker. This subsurface maximum is
caused partly by surface friction exerted by sea ice and
partly by the descent of sinking plumes. Although the
coastal ocean is initially at rest in experiment 2, sinking
plumes subsequently induce a meandering surface current

19 - 6 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING
Figure 4. Flow and negative vorticity fields at 212.5 m
depth from experiment 1 at (a) day 10, (b) day 15, and (c)
day 20. The inflow-outflow profile is given at the bottom.
Contours of negative vorticity start from 0.05 f and
decrease at intervals of 0.05 f. Maximum vorticity for
anticyclones are given in each panel in units of f.
pointing essentially to the negative x-direction (Figure 3b).
The surface current is supported by rising isopycnals near
the shelf break induced by convection; this point will be
further illustrated later.
[16] Focusing on experiment 1 with a baroclinic current
offshore, Figure 4 shows how subsurface anticyclones at
212.5 m depth break away from boundary trapping. The
flow over the continental slope begins to extend seaward at
two isolated locations before day 10 (Figure 4a), forming
two anticyclonic meanders. These meanders continue to
grow at day 15 (Figure 4b), pinching off into isolated
subsurface anticyclones at day 20 (Figure 4c). The negative
21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
vorticity of subsurface anticyclones increases from 0.26 f
at day 10 to 0.42 f at day 15 and levels off to 0.43 f at
day 20. The anticyclones gain strength during the detach-
ment. Conceivably, the slanted convection involves poten-
tial energy release which works against dissipation. Further
seaward migrations thereafter depend on the ambient flow
condition and will not be illustrated.
[17] In reality, the boundary current over the continental
slope varies seasonally. The efficiency of subsurface anticy-
clone generation depends on the strength of the boundary
current. We have conducted a few numerical experiments to
explore the model sensitivity to the initial current strength.
Results are quite predictable and therefore will only be
commented on briefly without illustrations. If the initial
boundary current is much weaker than the chosen initial
current as illustrated in Figure 2, the associated initial iso-
pycnals will not rise as sharply toward the shelf break. In
consequence, a much weaker boundary current will not be
able to divert subsurface anticyclones away from boundary
trapping. Conversely, if the initial boundary current becomes
unrealistically strong, the breakaway subsurface anticyclones
are often torn apart as thin filaments due to the strong
advection by the surface current. Leaving extremely strong
and extremely weak boundary currents aside, a modest
increase in the boundary current strength generally enhances
shedding of halocline anticyclones slightly.
[18] Figure 5, from experiment 1, shows flow fields and
isopycnals at day 10 (Figure 5 (left)) and day 20 (Figure 5
(right)). The horizontal slice is at 212.5 m depth in upper
panels (Figures 5a and 5c) and 62.5 m depth in lower panels
(Figures 5b and 5d). Sinking plumes induce large meanders
embedded in the baroclinic current which is initially uni-
form in the alongshore direction. At 62.5 m depth, the
isopycnal with largest meanders roughly indicates the axis
of the meandering jet. The perturbation density for this axial
isopycnal is 2 kg m3 at day 10 (Figure 5b) and 2.5 kg m3
at day 20 (Figure 5d). When averaged alongshore, the axis
of the surface jet is at y = 60 km initially (Figure 2),
meanders about y = 40 km at day 10 (Figure 5b) and moves
seaward to y = 75 km at day 20 (Figure 5d). Sinking plumes
apparently induce the shoreward movement of surface jet
axis and surface isopycnals before day 10. The shoreward
intrusion of surface buoyant waters is accompanied by
subsurface seaward intrusion of dense water into the hal-
ocline (Figure 5a). Sinking plumes also induce an under-
current adjacent to the continental slope, meandering at day
10 (Figure 5a) and shedding halocline anticyclones at day
20 (Figure 5c).
[19] From day 10 to day 20, the surface meander jet
moves seaward but surface isopycnals do not (Figures 5b
and 5d). The driving force is apparently in the halocline.
Halocline anticyclones move seaward and carry the surface
jet aloft with them. Conceivably, subsurface motions can
influence currents aloft through vertical mixing and by
changing surface pressure distributions. Meanders of sur-
face isopycnals generally lag somewhat behind those of
subsurface isopycnals if one follows the main (negative x-)
direction of the mean jet. The phase lag is a telling feature
of baroclinic instability at work [Phillips, 1954].
[20] Figure 6, also from experiment 1, shows two cross-
shelf sections of density and shore-normal flow fields
approximately half a meander wavelength apart. The
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 7

Figure 5. Flow fields and isopycnals from experiment 1 at (a, b,) day 10 and (c, d) day 20. Top panels
(Figures 5a and 5c) are at 212.5 m depth, while bottom panels (Figures 5b and 5d) are at 62.5 m depth.
The inflow-outflow profile is given at the bottom of Figures 5b and 5d. Contour values refer to
perturbation density in units of kg m3. Contour intervals for isopycnals are 0.1 kg m3 at 212.5 m depth
and 0.5 kg m3 at 62.5 m depth.

cross-section at x = 80 km (Figure 6a at day 10 and Figure 6b
at day 20) is between two halocline anticyclones at day 20.
Corresponding sections (Figures 6c and 6d) at x = 114 km
slices through the center of a halocline anticyclone at day
20. If one looks for dominant circulation patterns over and
beyond the shelf break, snapshots of cross-sections contain
transient alongshore variability because of moving mean-
ders and eddies. Nevertheless, several persistent features are
noteworthy. The first is the frontal circulation over the shelf
and slope. Sinking plumes induce a shelf break front sloping
in the same sense as that supporting the baroclinic current
offshore. Consequently, the offshore baroclinic current
gains additional strength from sinking plumes. Downslope
currents along the continental slope are often accompanied
by shelfward upwelling from halocline depths rather than
landward intrusion of surface waters. Meanders and eddies
occasionally disrupt the persistent frontal circulation. For
example, the would-be shelfward upwelling from halocline
depths in Figure 6a is offset by subsurface meanders (see
Figure 5a). Landward intrusion of surface waters in Figure
6c is part of surface meanders at day 10 (see Figure 5b).
Note also the depressed isopycnals over the continental
slope below 200 m depth. The depression usually occurs
below the penetration depth of sinking plumes and, by
virtue of geostrophy, below the core of the undercurrent.
The signature of the halocline anticyclone is also un-
mistakable in Figure 6d. Around y = 85 km, isopycnals
are lifted above about 150 m depth and deepened below it.
The volume of reduced stratification harbors the halocline
anticyclone.
[21] In experiment 1, the choice of inflow density (rin =
1 kg m3) is crucial to maximize offshore production of
halocline anticyclones. The maximum sinking depth is in
the lower halocline. A much higher inflow density would
have the adverse effect of diminishing halocline anticy-
clones offshore. We will use experiments with narrower
inflow and outflow to illustrate the model’s sensitivity to the
inflow density below.
3.2. Narrower Inflow and Outflow
[22] Experiments 3 and 4 use narrower inflow and out-
flow, each having a width of 23.3 km, which is comparable
to the first baroclinic Rossby radius far offshore (21.5 km).
The inflow perturbation density (rin) is 1 kg m3 in
experiment 3 and 0 kg m3 in experiment 4, corresponding
respectively to the intermediate mode and hypersaline mode
waters available for offshore migration over the Chukchi
shelf. The maximum sinking depth of dense plumes is in the
lower halocline (250 m) in experiment 3 and well below
halocline (500 m) in experiment 4. Both experiments
include an offshore baroclinic current which is initially
uniform alongshore. We will not illustrate cases without a
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19 - 8 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING

Figure 6. Two cross-shelf sections of isopycnals and cross-shelf flow from experiment 1. Left-hand
panels at (a) day 10 and (b) day 20 are at x = 80 km, which slices through between two subsurface
anticyclones at day 20. Right-hand panels at (c) day 10 and (d) day 20 are at x = 114 km, which cuts
through the center of a halocline anticyclone at day 20. Contour values for perturbation density are in
units of kg m3.

baroclinic current herein because they do not generate
halocline anticyclones offshore.
[23] Figure 7 shows flow fields and negative vorticity
contours after 20 days of forcing at 212.5 m depth (Figures
7a and 7c) and 62.5 m depth (Figures 7b and 7d). To lowest
order, the offshore baroclinic current still reduces boundary
trapping as before. The undercurrent leaks offshore to
manifest anticyclones with the aid of the baroclinic current
(Figures 7a and 7b). Halocline anticyclones from experi-
ment 3 (Figure 7a) are much stronger because the dense
outflow is destined for the lower halocline. In contrast, they
become shallower and more than 3 times weaker in exper-
iment 4 (Figure 7c) because the dense outflow sinks too
deeply. With rin = 0 kg m3, the maximum sinking depth
(500 m) would be well below the halocline. In this extreme
the sinking plumes penetrate through the halocline. The
slanted convection along isopycnal surfaces of the offshore
baroclinic current still occurs as a way to divert dense
plumes away from boundary trapping, but becomes much
weaker. In consequence, the halocline anticyclones offshore
become much weaker. The process leading to the inefficient
production of halocline anticyclones by ultra-dense plumes
will be examined in Figure 8 and the associated discussion.
[24] A comparison between Figure 7a (from experiment 3)
and Figure 4c (from experiment 1) illustrates the model’s
dependence on the inflow-outflow width alone because both
experiments employ the same inflow density destined for the
lower halocline. By doing so, the dependence of the strength
of halocline anticyclones on inflow-outflow width is mainly
controlled by two competing factors. The first factor is
numerical damping brought about by biharmonic mixing
used in the model. The consequent damping rate of subsur-
face anticyclones is inversely proportional to the fourth
power of eddy size, weakening smaller anticyclones induced
by narrower inflow-outflow width at a faster rate. On the
other hand, smaller anticyclones in experiment 3 must
expand to a scale comparable to the Rossby radius and in
the process gain strength through potential energy release.
Similar mechanism is absent in experiment 1 because the
inflow-outflow width is considerably larger than the Rossby
radius. When weighing two competing factors together, the
strength of halocline anticyclones could either increase or
decrease as a function of the inflow-outflow width in the
present model. Not surprisingly, the resulting strength of
subsurface anticyclones is not too sensitive to the inflow-
outflow width because two competing factors tend to offset
each other.
[25] Figure 8, from experiment 4, shows flow and density
fields at day 15 (Figure 8 (left)) and day 20 (Figure 8 (right)).
At 212.5 m depth (Figure 8 (top panels)), the ultra-dense
plumes induce meanders in isopycnals as in the case of
wavenumber-2 forcing (Figure 5). The meander wavelength
is understandably shorter with the wavenumber-3 forcing.
Seaward intruding meander crests carry dense waters off-
shore and trap anticyclones in between (Figure 8a). Because
the density of sinking plumes is too high, seaward intruding
meander crests at depths become expansive and widen in
time, narrowing the troughs further (Figure 8c). Anticyclonic
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 9

Figure 7. Flow and negative vorticity fields at (a, c) 212.5 m depth and (b, d) 62.5 m depth driven by
wavenumber-3 sinusoidal inflow-outflow from the shelf for 20 days. Left-hand panels (Figures 7a and
7b) are from experiment 3 with modest inflow density (rin = 1 kg m3). Right-hand panels (Figures 7c
and 7d) are from experiment 4 with ultra-dense sinking plumes (rin = 0 kg m3). The baroclinic current is
initially uniform in the alongshore direction. The inflow-outflow profile is given at the bottom of Figures
7b and 7d. Contours of negative vorticity begin from 0.05 f and decrease at intervals of 0.05 f. The
maximum vorticity for subsurface anticyclones is given in Figures 7a and 7c.

vortices at 212.5 m depth weaken in time as a result of
reduced trough areas. The halocline anticyclones become
increasingly confined to upper depths in the process. It can
be concluded that ultra-dense plumes do not favor the
generation of halocline anticyclones. The signature of bar-
oclinic instability is also evident in Figure 8. Upper level
isopycnal meanders lag those at depths if one follows the
main direction of the mean jet.
[26] The model becomes sensitive to the maximum depth
of the ocean if the shelf water becomes exceedingly dense.
If the maximum sinking depth of the dense shelf water
exceeds 500 m, then the maximum bottom depth should be
placed at or below the maximum sinking depth to allow for
deeper descent of sinking plumes. However, this issue is
quantitative and will not change our major conclusion that
deep sinking plumes generally weaken the production of
halocline anticyclones.
3.3. Instability of Offshore Origin
[27] Excluding dense plumes from the shelf, meanders
initially embedded in the baroclinic current can also trigger
instabilities. Figure 9, from experiments 5 and 7, shows
initial surface flow and density fields for (Figure 9a) wave-
number-2 and (Figure 9b) wavenumber-3 meanders, respec-
tively. These meanders are sufficiently small in amplitude
and therefore induce mildly unstable meanders and eddies
in time. Surface and subsurface meanders are vertically
aligned initially. The inflow-outflow profiles shown at the
bottom of each panel are not used in this subsection, but
will be used in the next subsection when we examine the
interaction between sinking plumes and instability of off-
shore origin.
[28] Figure 10 shows meanders and eddies induced by the
instability of offshore origin. The instability evolves more
rapidly with wavenumber-3 meander forcing (Figure 10
(right)) than with wavenumber-2 forcing (Figure 10 (left)).
For this reason, flow and density fields at 212.5 m depth
(Figure 10 (top panels)) and 62.5 m depth (Figure 10
(bottom panels)) are displayed at day 15 for the wave-
number-2 case and at day 10 for the wavenumber-3 case.
Regardless of the meander wavelength, consequences are
similar. The instability leads to a series of subsurface anti-
cyclones on the offshore side of the jet and subsurface
cyclones on the shoreward side. Offshore anticyclones are
enclosed by the isopycnal with a perturbation density of
1.3 kg m3 at 212.5 m depth (Figures 10a and 10c). The
diameter of each subsurface eddy is about one half of the
initial meander wavelength. The subsurface anticyclones
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19 - 10 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING

Figure 8. Flow fields and isopycnals from experiment 4 at (a, b) day 15 and (c, d) day 20. Top panels
(Figures 8a and 8c) are at 212.5 m depth, while bottom panels (Figures 8b and 8d) are at 62.5 m depth.
The inflow-outflow profile is given at the bottom of Figures 8b and 8d. Contour values refer to
perturbation density in units of kg m3.

offshore are generally weak and shallow. With wavenum-
ber-2 meander forcing, the maximum vorticity of offshore
anticyclones (Figure 10a) is about 0.14 f at 212.5 m depth
and 0.23 f at 62.5 m depth. Corresponding vorticity with
wavenumber-3 forcing (Figure 10c) is about 0.14 f at
212.5 m depth and 0.33 f at 62.5 m depth. These anti-
cyclones migrate offshore in time. They are more energetic
with wavenumber-3 forcing and consequently reach the
offshore boundary before day 20. With wavenumber-2
meanders, these anticyclones reach the offshore boundary

Figure 9. Initial surface currents and surface perturbation density (in kg m3) with (a) wavenumber-2
meanders and (b) wavenumber-3 meanders. Inflow-outflow profiles given at the bottom of each panel
may or may not be used. See text.
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 11

Figure 10. Flow fields and perturbation density contours (in kg m3) forced by (a, b) wavenumber-2
meanders at day 15 from experiment 5 and (c, d) wavenumber-3 meanders at day 10 from experiment 7.
Both experiments exclude density forcing from the shelf. Top panels (Figures 10a and 10c) are at 212.5 m
depth and bottom panels (Figures 10b and 10d) are at 62.5 m.

at about day 20. The signature of baroclinic instability is
also unmistakable in Figure 10, as surface meanders gener-
ally lag behind those at depths if one follows the main
direction of the mean jet.
[29] This type of meander-induced instability, arising
from differential advection, is well known in atmospheric
literature. Since advection of meanders is faster near the jet
axis, meanders on both sides of the jet tilt backward in time
relative to the axial meander. The backward tilt of meanders
and eddies induces a transfer of eddy momentum fluxes up
the mean gradient or toward the jet axis, enhancing the jet
speed. The so-called negative viscosity phenomenon [Starr,
1968] need not be related to baroclinic instability as defined
in the classical sense of the term, but often becomes more
pronounced in the baroclinic regime because it involves
potential energy release.
[30] The development of an undercurrent off the shelf
break is also noteworthy. Whether the meander forcing is
wavenumber-2 or wavenumber-3, a meandering under-
current against the initial baroclinic current develops on
the shoreward side of the surface jet (Figures 10a and 10c).
The undercurrent is part of the baroclinic response to
shoreward intrusions of surface buoyant waters with the
meander (Figures 10b and 10d). A similar development was
examined earlier in a flat-bottomed coastal ocean [Chao and
Shaw, 2002]; details will not be repeated here. We also note
that sinking plumes from the shelf induce a similar under-
current off the shelf break (Figures 5a and 5c). Possible
interactions between responses induced by sinking plumes
and by offshore meander forcing are examined below.
3.4. Sinking Plumes and Offshore Meander Forcing
[31] Many types of interactions occur when both shelf
input and offshore meander forcing occur simultaneously.
Our objective is not to consider all possibilities but rather to
focus on the destructive and constructive processes leading
to the production of halocline anticyclones. The inflow and
outflow are stationary, but the offshore meanders move with
the jet in time. The phase relationship between the two
dictates much of the interaction. To search for the most
productive interaction, we have shifted the alongshore
profile of inflow-outflow a quarter of the wavelength at a
time and monitored the strength of offshore anticyclones as
a function of the shift. The most constructive interaction
occurs if the inflow-outflow profile is 180
out of phase
with the initial meanders offshore, as we illustrated in
Figure 9.
[32] Figure 11 shows subsurface (Figures 11a and 11c)
and near-surface features (Figures 11b and 11d) as a result
of this interaction. Left-hand panels (Figures 11a and 11b)
are wavenumber-2 solutions at day 15 while right-hand
panels (Figures 11c and 11d) are wavenumber-3 solutions at
day 10. Offshore anticyclones persist as in cases without
sinking plumes from the shelf (Figure 10). At 212.5 m
depth, these anticyclones are delineated by isopycnals with
a perturbation density of 1.3 kg m3. Their diameter is
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19 - 12 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING

Figure 11. Flow fields and perturbation density contours (in kg m3) forced by (a, b) wavenumber-2
meanders at day 15 from experiment 6 and (c, d) wavenumber-3 meanders at day 10 from experiment 8.
Both experiments also include shelf inputs of dense plumes. The inflow-outflow profiles are shown at the
bottom of Figures 11b and 11d. Top panels (Figures 11a and 11c) are at 212.5 m depth, and bottom panels
(Figures 11b and 11d) are at 62.5 m.

about half of the meander wavelength as before. They are also
shallow and weak as in cases without density forcing from the
shelf (Figure 10). To quantify further, the maximum vorticity
for the offshore anticyclones is about 0.17 f at 212.5 m
depth (Figure 11a) and 0.22 f at 62.5 m (Figure 11b) with
wavenumber-2 forcing. In the wavenumber-3 setting, the
corresponding vorticity is about 0.13 f at 212.5 m depth
(Figure 11c) and 0.34 f at 62.5 m (Figure 11d). Compared to
cases without the shelf input (Figure 10), sinking plumes
contribute little and sometimes negatively to the growth of
offshore anticyclones.
[33] Figure 11 is actually the best case scenario in terms of
positive interactions between the two mechanisms. In other
cases the shifted inflow-outflow profile along the shelf leads
to even more negative interaction. Offshore anticyclones are
often annihilated by the negative interaction, especially if the
inflow-outflow profile and offshore meanders are initially in
phase. The conclusion is not surprising because instabilities
of shelf and offshore origins do not produce exactly com-
patible disturbances that can interact constructively.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
[34] This paper seeks to establish a possible link between
dense water outflow from the shelf and offshore production
of halocline anticyclones in an Arctic Ocean setting. These
subsurface eddies appear to be important to halocline
ventilation, for they deliver shelf water parcels into the
basin interior. The conceptual difficulty in establishing
the linkage lies in the trapping mechanism introduced by
the continental slope. Sinking plumes from the shelf tend to
be trapped by the continental slope, dispersing alongshore
following the propagation direction of topographic Rossby
waves. The trapping mechanism is a strong dynamical
constraint against seaward dispersal and must be overcome
to open up the possibility for offshore migration of hal-
ocline anticyclones. Fixing the inquiry at this level, we
have conducted a series of simple numerical experiments to
point out a promising mechanism which could lead to
seaward leakage of dense outflow and generation of
halocline anticyclones offshore. A series of inflow and
outflow is imposed on the shoreward side of the shelf to
facilitate release of dense plumes into the basin. The dense
plumes produce a subsurface density current trapped by the
continental slope as expected. A key catalyst to activate
seaward leakage is an offshore baroclinic current bounded
to the left by the shelf break. Isopycnals rise toward the
shelf break to support the baroclinic current. In conse-
quence, convection along slanted isopycnals diverts sinking
plumes away from boundary trapping and, in our simple
 21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING 19 - 13

Figure 12. Cartoons showing different three-dimensional responses to forcing by sinusoidal inflow-
outflow (a) without and (b) with an initial baroclinic current offshore. In Figure 12a, tilted isopycnals
(dotted lines) induced by sinking plumes (short arrows) support a surface current (open arrows) bounded
to the left at the edge of the shelf and an undercurrent (solid curved arrows). In Figure 12b, solid curves
and solid arrows indicate near-surface isopycnals and currents, respectively. Corresponding features
below 200 m are dashed. Sinking plumes destabilize the baroclinic current offshore, producing large-
amplitude meanders intruding seaward at subsurface depths and halocline anticyclones in between. An
undercurrent is also generated adjacent to the continental slope.

model setting, produces intense halocline anticyclones
offshore.
[35] Figure 12 illustrates the three-dimensional relation-
ship between density and flow fields induced by sinking
plumes. The left panel (Figure 12a) illustrates the ocean
response induced by the sinusoidal inflow-outflow without a
baroclinic current offshore. Sinking plumes raise isopycnals
over the shelf break but depress them below the sinking
depth. The perturbed density field supports a surface current
bounded to the left by the outer shelf, and an undercurrent
over the slope above the sinking depth. In this case, trapping
of sinking plumes by the continental slope is a strong
dynamical constraint against seaward dispersal. The right
panel (Figure 12b) illustrates the corresponding response
with a baroclinic current offshore. Solid curves and solid
arrows indicate near-surface isopycnals and currents, respec-
tively. Corresponding features below 200 m are dashed. In
this case, sinking plumes destabilize the baroclinic current
offshore, producing large-amplitude meanders intruding
seaward at subsurface depths. Trapped between subsurface
meander crests are subsurface anticyclones. Near-surface
meanders lag somewhat behind subsurface meanders if we
follow the main direction of the mean current. Since waters
are heavier shoreward of a meander and lighter seaward of it,
the phase lag in upper depths ensures that the upper and
lower halves of a halocline anticyclone are characterized by
positive and negative density anomalies, respectively. The
result shows that sinking plumes add potential energy to the
baroclinic current and trigger baroclinic instability, as sug-
gested in our earlier study [Chao and Shaw, 2002]. This
process enhances seaward dense water dispersal and the
generation of subsurface anticyclones, suggesting a promis-
ing mechanism to ventilate the halocline.
[36] Although the use of inflow and outflow serves the
purpose of releasing dense water onto the outer shelf, the
landward return flow imposed on the shoreward boundary
presents a departure from the physical setting of the
Chukchi shelf. We argue for now that our model responses
are primarily driven by the inflow rather than the outflow
because only the former provides the potential energy input
needed to drive the system. While this argument is intui-
tively acceptable, it is still desirable to demonstrate gener-
ation of halocline anticyclones by a source without a
compensatory return flow. We will demonstrate that this is
indeed possible in a paper which incorporates the effect of a
submarine canyon [Shaw and Chao, 2003].
[37] The lateral injection of dense plumes provokes
baroclinic instability, and the instability in turn provides
pathways for the seaward dispersal of dense plumes and
offshore generation of anticyclones. For this mechanism to
be effective, sinking plumes must be primarily responsible
for baroclinic waves offshore. In the presence of active
baroclinic waves originated offshore, sinking plumes still
leak offshore but become ineffective in generating or
reinforcing subsurface anticyclones offshore.
[38] Other experiments using sinusoidal inflow-outflow
have been performed. The response over and beyond the
shelf break is found to be negligible if the inflow water has
the density of the ambient shelf water. Consequently, the
ocean response is driven by lateral injection of dense waters
rather than the mechanical energy input from the inflow-
outflow. If the density of the inflow water is increased
slightly, sinking plumes reach greater depths, enhancing
subsurface meander growth and anticyclone generation.
However, ultra-dense plumes, such as the hypersaline mode
water over the Chukchi shelf [Weingartner et al., 1998], will
penetrate through the halocline rather than being diverted
seaward by the slanted isopycnal surfaces and therefore are
unable to generate intense halocline anticyclones offshore.
These experiments would suggest that the intermediate
mode water over the Chukchi shelf is the most effective
in producing halocline anticyclones offshore. This tentative

19 - 14 CHAO AND SHAW: ARCTIC DENSE SHELF WATER OUTFLOW AND EDDY SHEDDING
conclusion awaits future confirmation with more realistic
sources of dense shelf water and topographic features. The
compatibility between inflow width and the baroclinic
Rossby radius is also crucial to maximize offshore produc-
tion of halocline anticyclones. This is conceivable because
the Rossby radius is the scale of choice for patchiness. If
sources are much wider than the first baroclinic Rossby
radius, the ability to generate subsurface anticyclones is
reduced. Very narrow sources and sinks are not sufficiently
separated, and the array of dense plumes entering the shelf
tends to coalesce during the offshore migration, becoming
more or less continuous in the alongshore direction. Since
patchiness is reduced, eddy shedding becomes less likely. In
this extreme case, the oceanic response over and beyond
shelf break resembles those driven by a line source.
[39] The possible model dependence on the bottom slope
presents another complicating factor, since Arctic slopes
have large variations in the depth gradient. In general, a
steeper slope enhances boundary trapping of density
currents and therefore hinders seaward dispersal of dense
water. In a rotating tank setting, for example, Lentz and
Helfrich [2002] have demonstrated faster propagation of
density currents along the boundary if the bottom slope
increases, indicative of enhanced trapping by a steeper
slope. In the present physical setting, however, the strong
stratification greatly reduces the effect of bottom slope to
trap the dense outflow. In consequence, shedding of hal-
ocline anticyclones is not visibly retarded if the bottom
slope is steepened by a factor of 2 or so.
[40] While the present findings are encouraging, more
efforts are needed along this line of investigation. Foremost
of all, it is important to examine the relation between a single
source of dense shelf water and possible generation of
halocline anticyclones offshore. Distinct topographic and
coastline features must also be examined, because the pres-
ence of a baroclinic current may not be the only way to divert
dense plumes away from boundary trapping. Take the Chuk-
chi shelf as an example. The geometry of the active outflow
region is quite complex, including shoals, canyons, sharp
coastline bends, and seaward isobath protrusions. These local
features are also potentially capable of diverting dense
plumes away from boundary trapping. Our modeling efforts
to account for these additional mechanisms are still ongoing.
[41] Acknowledgments. This study was partly supported by the
Arctic Sciences Section, Office of Polar Programs of the National Science
Foundation under grants OPP-9709952 and OPP-9614107. A discussion
with T. Weingartner helped initiate this study.
References
Aagaard, K., L. K. Coachman, and E. C. Carmack, On the halocline of the
Arctic Ocean, Deep Sea Res., 28, 529 – 545, 1981.
Cavalieri, D. J., and S. Martin, The contribution of Alaskan, Siberian, and
Canadian coastal polynyas to the cold halocline layer of the Arctic Ocean,
J. Geophys. Res., 99, 18,343 – 18,362, 1994.
Chao, S.-Y., and P.-T. Shaw, A numerical investigation of slanted convec-
tion and subsurface anticyclone generation in an Arctic baroclinic current
system, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 3019, doi:10.1029/2001JC000786, 2002.
Chapman, D. C., and G. Gawarkiewicz, Offshore transport of dense shelf
water in the presence of a submarine-canyon, J. Geophys. Res., 100,
13,373 – 13,387, 1995.
21562202c, 2003, C7, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001473 by Readcube-Labtiva, Wiley Online Library on [03/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Coachman, L. K., K. Aagaard, and R. B. Tripp, Bering Strait: The Regional
Physical Oceanography, 172 pp., Univ. of Wash. Press, Seattle, Washing-
ton, 1975.
D’Asaro, E. A., Observations of small eddies in the Beaufort Sea, J. Geo-
phys. Res., 93, 6669 – 6684, 1988a.
D’Asaro, E. A., Generation of submesoscale vortices: A new mechanism,
J. Geophys. Res., 93, 6685 – 6693, 1988b.
Etling, D., F. Gelhardt, U. Schrader, F. Brennecke, G. Kuhn, G. C. d’Hieres,
and H. Didelle, Experiments with density currents on a sloping bottom in
a rotating fluid, Dyn. Atmos. Oceans, 31, 139 – 164, 2000.
Gawarkiewicz, G., Effects of ambient stratification and shelf break topog-
raphy on offshore transport of dense water on continental shelves,
J. Geophys. Res., 105, 3307 – 3324, 2000.
Holland, W. R., The role of mesoscale eddies in the general circulation
model of the ocean: Numerical experiments using a wind-driven quasi-
geostrophic model, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 8, 363 – 392, 1978.
Jiang, L., and R. W. Garwood Jr., Three-dimensional simulations of over-
flow on continental slopes, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 26, 1214 – 1233, 1996.
Jiang, L., and R. W. Garwood Jr., Effects of topographic steering and
ambient stratification on overflows on continental slopes: A model study,
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5459 – 5476, 1998.
Kikuchi, T., M. Wakatsuchi, and M. Ikeda, A numerical investigation of the
transport process of dense shelf water from a continental shelf to a slope,
J. Geophys. Res., 104, 1197 – 1210, 1999.
Lane-Serff, G. F., and P. G. Baines, Eddy formation by overflows in strat-
ified water, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30, 327 – 337, 2000.
Lentz, S. J., and K. R. Helfrich, Buoyant gravity currents along a sloping
bottom in a rotating fluid, J. Fluid Mech., 464, 251 – 278, 2002.
Manley, T. O., and K. Hunkins, Mesoscale eddies of the Arctic Ocean,
J. Geophys. Res., 90, 4911 – 4930, 1985.
Marshall, J., A. Adcroft, C. Hill, L. Perelmam, and C. Heisey, A finite-
volume, incompressible Navier-Stokes model for studies of the ocean on
parallel computers, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 5753 – 5766, 1997.
Melling, H., The formation of a haline shelf front in wintertime in an ice-
covered arctic sea, Cont. Shelf Res., 13, 1123 – 1147, 1993.
Muench, R. D., J. T. Gunn, T. E. Whitledge, P. Schlosser, and W. Smethie,
An Arctic Ocean cold eddy, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23,997 – 24,006,
2000.
Newton, J. L., K. Aagaard, and L. K. Coachman, Baroclinic eddies in arctic
ocean, Deep Sea Res., 21, 707 – 719, 1974.
Pacanowski, R. C., and S. G. H. Philander, Parameterization of vertical
mixing in numerical models of tropical oceans, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 11,
1443 – 1451, 1981.
Phillips, N. A., Energy transformations and meridional circulations asso-
ciated with simple baroclinic waves in a two-level, quasi-geostrophic
model, Tellus, 6, 273 – 286, 1954.
Pozrikidis, C., Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Fluid
Dynamics, 675 pp., Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997.
Roach, A. T., K. Aagaard, C. H. Pease, S. A. Salo, T. Weingartner,
V. Parlov, and M. Kulakov, Direct measurements of transports and water
properties through the Bering Strait, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 18,443 –
18,457, 1995.
Shaw, P.-T., and S.-Y. Chao, Effects of a baroclinic current on a sinking
dense water plume from a submarine canyon and heton shedding, Deep
Sea Res., Part I, 50, 357 – 371, 2003.
Starr, V. P., The Physics of Negative Viscosity Phenomena, 256 pp.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
Weingartner, T. J., D. J. Cavalieri, K. Aagaard, and Y. Sasaki, Circulation,
dense water formation, and outflow on the northeast Chukchi shelf,
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 7647 – 7662, 1998.
Williams, G. P., Numerical integration of the three-dimensional Navier-
Stokes equations for incompressible flow, J. Fluid Mech., 37, 727 –
750, 1969.
Yoshikawa, Y., K. Akitomo, and T. Awaji, Formation process of intermedi-
ate water in baroclinic current under cooling, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
1033 – 1051, 2001.

S.-Y. Chao, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD 21613-0775, USA. (chao@hpl.
umces.edu)
P.-T. Shaw, Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8208, USA.
(pt_shaw@ncsu.edu)