|
Astrid Pacini Research Scientist apacini@apl.washington.edu Phone 206-221-5116 |
Education
B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Yale, 2016
B.S Geology & Geophysics, 2016, 2016
PhD Physical Oceanography, MIT-WHOI, 2021
|
Publications |
2000-present and while at APL-UW |
Reduced transport of overflow water in the West Greenland Boundary Current system: The role of upstream entrainment Sun, Y., and 9 others including A. Pacini, "Reduced transport of overflow water in the West Greenland Boundary Current system: The role of upstream entrainment," J. Phys. Oceanogr., 55, 2119-2139, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-25-0024.1, 2025. |
More Info |
1 Nov 2025 |
|||||||
|
A mooring array has been maintained across the West Greenland shelf and slope since 2014 as part of the Overturning in the Subpolar North Atlantic Program (OSNAP). Here, we use the first 8 years of data to investigate the interannual variability of the two overflow water components of the deep western boundary current (DWBC): the Denmark Strait Overflow Water (DSOW) and the Northeast Atlantic Deep Water (NEADW). While the velocity structure has remained similar throughout the record, both water masses have freshened considerably, especially the NEADW salinity core. Using revised density criteria to define these two components, their transports decreased signifi-cantly between 2014 and 2022: from 6.2 to 3.8 Sv (1 Sv ; 106 m3 s-1) (0.33 Sv yr-1) for the DSOW and from 5.4 to 4.1 Sv (0.19 Sv yr-1) for the NEADW. Since the overflows across the Denmark Strait and the Faroe Bank Channel have remained steady over this period, this points to decreased entrainment downstream of the sills as a possible mechanism for the observed transport reduction south of Greenland. Using shipboard and mooring data from the two sills, and a hydro-graphic database for the surrounding region, we predict the downstream transport of the two DWBC components via the framework of a streamtube model. The predicted transport explains 94% of the observed DSOW trend and 63% of the observed NEADW trend. This implies that further entrainment of the NEADW must occur during its long pathlength, which would also help explain the fresher-than-predicted NEADW salinity observed at the OSNAP array. |
|||||||||
Comparison between SMOS and SMAP sea surface salinity and SASSIE in-situ measurements in the Arctic Ocean Houndegnonto, O.J., S. Fournier, I.G. Fenty, M. Steele, and A. Pacini, "Comparison between SMOS and SMAP sea surface salinity and SASSIE in-situ measurements in the Arctic Ocean," J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 42, 1009-1025, doi:10.1175/JTECH-D-24-0053.1, 2025. |
More Info |
12 Jun 2025 |
|||||||
|
Sea Surface Salinity (SSS) anomalies and near-surface thermohaline stratification are key parameters to improve our understanding of sea-ice retreat and formation in polar regions. Since 2010, the remote sensing salinity missions ESA SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity) and NASA SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) offer unprecedented SSS observations globally (SSSSMOS and SSSSMAP respectively). In this study, we compare these observations with in-situ salinity observations (SSSin-situ) made during the NASA Salinity Field Campaign SASSIE (Salinity and Stratification at Sea-Ice Edge) during the fall of 2022. The SASSIE SSSin-situ were collected by 9 different platforms: CastAway and Underway CTD, Wave Gliders, Thermosalinograph, Snake-salinity, SWIFT drifters, UpTempO buoys, Jet-SSP and ALTO and ALAMO profilers. Because satellite SSS retrievals are impacted by land and sea-ice contaminations, cold temperatures, and surface roughness, mean differences, RMSD and STD between satellite SSS and SSSin-situ are examined as a function of distance from the coast and sea-ice edge, sea surface temperature (SST) and wind speed. We find that SSSSMOS and SSSSMAP are well correlated (0.66 and 0.78 respectively) with similar RMSD when compared with SSSin-situ. Close to the coast (0–150 km), SSSSMAP compare better with SSSin-situ with RMSD (<2 g/kg) lower than that from SSSSMOS. Near the sea-ice edge (0–150 km), SSSSMOS compare better with SSSin-situ with RMSD (<2.5 g/kg) lower than that from SSSSMAP. In cold water (SST<1.5°C) and low wind speed conditions (< 7 m/s), both SSSSMOS and SSSSMAP are consistent with each other. The RMSD between SSSSMAP and SSSin-situ decreases considerably (<1 g/kg) when SST >1.5°C, while the RMSD between SSSSMOS and SSSin-situ shows less dependence on SST. |
|||||||||
National Weather Service Alaska Sea Ice Program: Gridded ice concentration maps for the Alaskan Arctic Pacini, A., M. Steele, and M.B. Schreck, "National Weather Service Alaska Sea Ice Program: Gridded ice concentration maps for the Alaskan Arctic," Cryosphere, 19, 1391-1411, doi:10.5194/tc-19-1391-2025, 2025. |
More Info |
28 Mar 2025 |
|||||||
|
There are many challenges associated with obtaining high-fidelity sea ice concentration (SIC) information, and products that rely solely on passive microwave measurements often struggle to represent conditions at low concentration, especially within the marginal ice zone and during periods of active melt. Here, we present a newly gridded SIC product for the Alaskan Arctic, generated with data from the National Weather Service Alaska Sea Ice Program (hereafter referred to as ASIP), that synthesizes a variety of satellite SIC and in situ observations from 2007present. These SIC fields have been primarily used for operational purposes and have not yet been gridded or independently validated. In this study, we first grid the ASIP product into 0.05° resolution in both latitude and longitude (hereafter referred to as gridded ASIP, or grASIP). We then perform extensive intercomparison with an international database of ship-based in situ SIC observations, supplemented with observations from saildrones. Additionally, an intercomparison between three ice products is performed: (i) grASIP, (ii) a high-resolution passive microwave product (AMSR2), and (iii) a product available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (MASIE) that originates from the US National Ice Center (USNIC) operational IMS product. This intercomparison demonstrates that all products perform similarly when compared to in situ observations generally, but grASIP outperforms the other products during periods of active melt and in low-SIC regions. Furthermore, we show that the similarity in performance among products is partly due to the deficiencies in the in situ observations' geographical distribution, as most in situ observations are far from the ice edge in locations where all products agree. We find that the grASIP ice edge is generally farther south than both the AMSR2 and MASIE ice edges by an average of approximately 50 km in winter and 175 km in summer for grASIP vs. AMSR2 and 10 km in winter and 40 km in summer for grASIP vs. MASIE. |
|||||||||




