Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37866379›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2023

From theory to RAPID AMOC observations: a personal voyage of discovery.

Jochem Marotzke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Should AMOC observations continue: how and why?Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Review
  3. Atlantic overturning: new observations and challenges.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jochem MarotzkeMax-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Bundesstrasse 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9857-9900

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

I review the history of ideas that have led to the establishment of the RAPID monitoring system for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) at 26.5° N. This history is closely connected to important events in my personal career. Starting from early and largely unsuccessful attempts at formulating a dynamically consistent force balance for the AMOC, I made theoretical progress by separately predicting the density at the eastern and western boundaries and by invoking exact geostrophic balance throughout, including the western boundary current. A remarkable confluence of individuals and ideas then enabled the establishment of the RAPID array, at its core based on monitoring boundary densities and on geostrophy. The RAPID results, such as the surprisingly large sub-seasonal variability, have encouraged AMOC monitoring approaches at other latitudes. I finish by pointing at two theoretical concepts-first, acknowledging the difference between convective mixing and sinking and, second, considering the advective rather than wave propagation of density perturbations in the deep western boundary current-that, together with continued observations and newly available global coupled simulations at very high resolution, should substantially improve our understanding of the causes of AMOC variability. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Atlantic overturning: new observations and challenges'.

Indexed as

AMOC theoryAtlantic Meridional Overturning Circulationcirculation monitoring

Identifiers

PMID37866379
PMCPMC10590665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.