jim o’donnell university of connecticut · 2007-08-09 · plume. journal of geophysical research...
Post on 18-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PASI Lectures on Fronts I: Jim O’Donnell
University of Connecticut
Outline
1. History, Phenomenology and Anatomy2. Classification3. Laboratory and Numerical Analogs4. Quantitative Predictions and
Observations5. Open Questions6. Summary
The Ocean Off Montauk Point
NYRADAR View
• Uda, M. 1938. Researches on”siome” or current rip in the seas and oceans. Geophys. Mag. 11, 307-372.
• Cromwell, T. and J.L. Reid. A study of oceanic fronts. Tellus, 8, 94-101.
• Voorhis, A.D. 1969. The horizontal extent and persistance of thermal fronts in the Sargasso Sea. Deep Sea Res. 16, Suppl. 331-337.
• Zaneveld, J.R.V., M. Andrade and G.F. Beardsley, 1969. Measurements of optical properties at an oceanic front observed near the Gallapagos Islands. J. Geophys. Res. 74, 5540-5541.
Early Scientific Descriptions of Ocean Fronts
From Simpson (2006)Shelf Sea/ Tidal Mixing Front
From Simpson (2006)Shelf Sea/ Tidal Mixing Front
Chlorophyll and Temperature
From Garvine, 1975River Plume Front
Old observations of the ConnecticutRiver Plume (Garvine, 1974)
•The general structure of surface salinity
•SigmaT Cross Section
Connecticut River
Long Island Sound Ebb
Across Front Section
River Plume Front
Tidal Intrusion Front
Simpson, J.H. and R.A. Nunes, 1981
Tidal Intrusion Front
Simpson, J.H. and R.A. Nunes, 1981
Tidal Intrusion Front
Simpson, J.H. and R.A. Nunes, 1981
00 /)( ρρρ −=b
Consider the conservation of MASS in a moving. turbulent Incompressible fluid subject to heating, then defining the buoyancy
),,,( tzyxBDtDb
Σ+∇=
Then
),,,( tzyxzB
zbw
ybv
xbu
tb z Σ+
∂∂
+∂∂
−∂∂
−∂∂
−=∂∂
Which, assuming that only the vertical turbulent flux component is significant, can be written as
2. Front Classification
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
∂∂
∂∂
+∂∂
∂∂
−
∂∂
∂∂
−
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧ Σ+∂∂
∂∂
+
∂∂
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
∂∂
+∂∂
+∂∂
−=∂∂
∂∂
zb
xw
xb
xu
yb
xv
tzyxzB
x
xb
zw
yv
xu
xb
t
z ),,,(
Consider now the evolution of the spatial gradient in the x direction and by differentiating the previous equation, we get
Propagation of an existing gradient-Plume FrontSpatial gradient of heating or vertical mixing-Tidal Mixing FrontDifferential advection of a lateral gradient-Shear FrontCon/divergence and down/upwelling –upwelling front
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
∂∂
∂∂
+∂∂
∂∂
−
∂∂
∂∂
−
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧ Σ+∂∂
∂∂
+
∂∂
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
∂∂
+∂∂
+∂∂
−=∂∂
∂∂
zb
xw
xb
xu
yb
xv
tzyxzB
x
xb
zw
yv
xu
xb
t
z ),,,(
Consider now the evolution of the spatial gradient in the x direction and by differentiating the previous equation, we get
Plume /Tidal Intrusion Front
Mixing Front
Shear Front
Upwelling front
Notes
• Note that this “classification” is just superficial
• Persistence requires a dynamic balance as well as scalar flux balances.
• Note that unsteady behavior is documented in smaller fronts; there is some work on coastal current fronts and there is very little know about tranientbehavior in large scale fronts.
Important points so far…
• The term “front” is ill-defined.• Estuaries are full of them • Estuarine Fronts: How Important Are
They? Largier, 1993. Estuaries Vol. 16, No. I , p. 1-1 1 March 1993
• A classification scheme helps isolate “frontogenesis” mechanisms
• Evolution takes place and that hasn’t been fully described yet.
3. Lab and Numerical Experiments
• To build intuition it is best to remove complexity.
• Lab experiments and simple models can illustrate processes and consequences of interactions
• Gravity current adjustments• The effect of mixing
The leading edge of the Chesapeake Plume at Duck,. NC.Photo from William Birkemeier, US Army Corps of Engineers (via S. Lentz)
From J. E. Simpson and R. E. Britter, 1980:A Laboratory Model of an Atmospheric Mesofront, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.
The Simpson-Britter Experiments
Laboratory measurements of mixing in a turbulent gravity current. This gravity current was produced by releasing dense fluid from a lock at one end of a rectangular channel. The false coloursand contours show across-channel averaged density structure. Contours are at levels of 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 5% of the intialdensity, respectively, with the 5% contour outermost. For more information see: Hacker, J., Linden, P.F., & Dalziel, S.B. 1996 Mixing in lock-release gravity currents. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans.24, 183-195.
Benjamin’s (1968) view
When a gravity current moves into a stationary, immiscible, deep, ambient fluid, von Karman (1940) and Benjamin (1968) showed the speed of the front should be
aaghU ρρρ /)(2 001 −=i.e. proportional to the internal wave speed behind the front.
The proportionality depends on the relative depth of the layers.
Benjamin’s (1968) view
Britter and Simpson (1978)
B&S 78 added the effects of mixing in the leading edge and did a pile of lab experiments.
Benjamin’s (1968) view
Britter and Simpson (1978)
Fron
t Vel
ocity
Layer Depth Ratio
L&I 87
Benjamin
BENJAMIN, T. B. 1968. Gravity currents and related phenomena. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 31:209-243.
BRITTER, R. E. AND J. E. SIMPSON. 1978. Experiments on thedynamics of a gravity current head. Journal of Fluid Mechanics88:223-240.
LUKETINA, D. A. AND J. IMBERGER. 1987. Characteristics of asurface buoyant jet. Journal of Geophysical Research 2:5435-5447.
LUKETINA, D. A. AND J. IMBERGER. 1989. Turbulence and entrainment in a buoyant surface plume. Journal of Geophysical Research 94:12619-12636.
Marmorino G.O. and C.F. Trump, 2000.Gravity current structure of the Chesapeake outflow plume. JGR 105, 28,847-28,861.
O’Donnell, J., G.O. Marmorino, and C.F. Trump (Convergence and Downwelling at the Connecticut River plume Front. JPO, 28, 1481-1495.
Increa
sing M
ixing
OD98
M&T00
=Rate at which fluid behind the front catches up with the front
=Ambient Flow
lab
Met data
Layer Depth Ratio
Con
verg
ence
Vel
ocity
Incre
asing
Mixi
ng
Increased mixing
• Increases the convergence
• And increases the frontal velocity
Summary so far
• The frontal propagation is about right• The entrainment is not well measured and
theory is essentially untested• A discussion of several formulations is in
O’Donnell (1993).• A three layer approximation is probably
better• Three dimensional effects are not
understood.
Tidal Intrusion Front
Simpson, J.H. and R.A. Nunes, 1981
Axial Convergence Front
Nunes, R.A. and J.H. Simpson, 1985
Axial Convergence Front
Nunes, R.A. and J.H. Simpson, 1985
Axial Convergence Front
Nunes, R.A. and J.H. Simpson, 1985
Columbia River Mouth: Jonathan Nash and Jim Moum
Plume Front Observations
Old observations of the ConnecticutRiver Plume (Garvine, 1974)
Connecticut River
Long Island Sound Ebb
Old observations of the ConnecticutRiver Plume (Garvine, 1974)
•The general structure
Connecticut River
Long Island Sound Ebb
Across Front Section
Ebb
Flood
Old observations of the ConnecticutRiver Plume (Garvine, 1974)
•The effect of the tides
Old observations of the ConnecticutRiver Plume (Garvine, 1974)
• Observed Cross-front circulation Front location
Model of Garvine 1974
field pressure thePRESCRIBE These
riation.density va surface theis )( andcontrasdensity maximum theis where
)(and
01
)1(21
0
0
xr
xr
DzzDD
zr
ρ
ρρ
ρργ
γρρ
Δ
ΔΔ
=Δ
=
−<≤≤−
⎪⎩
⎪⎨⎧ +−=
zxp
zww
xuu
dzgp
zw
xu
xz
z
∂∂
+∂∂
−=∂∂
+∂∂
−=
=∂∂
+∂∂
∫
τρρ
ρη
11
0
Hydrostatic
Volume conservation
steady inertia = HPG + Friction
Model of Garvine 1974
( )
friction linterfaciaby dragfield pressureby on accelerati
tentrainmen todue loss force) (flowflux momentum of Divergence
dxd
3dxd
headaches) some(after yeilds momentum x ofn Integratio
tentrainmenflux mass of divergencedxd
yields continuity ofn integratio The
220
2
0
++=
+−=
=
==
∞∞−
∞−
∫
∫
uCrDgEuSdzu
EuSqudz
feD
eeD
γ
Parameterization/specification of mixing and friction
Yet More Model Details
z)u(x, and D(x)for equations aldifferentinonlinear coupled, in tworesult These
)()(
/
/
Lxf
Lx
faexfaTCaexaTE
−
−
==
==
Note: This model prescribes the shape of the density field and seeks the interface shape and circulation consistent with the assumed dynamics.
Require Mixing and Friction to be maximum at the front
Note that this is analogous to the familiar “method of dynamic sections”
• Coriolis force = horizontal pressure gradient.• Pressure is hydrostatic• Measure density
Section across Gulf Stream
at Cape Hatterass
Old observations of the Connecticut River Plume (Garvine, 1974)
•Measured density field •Modeled field
• Observed Cross-front circulation• and some model predictions
Sample locations
Old observations of the Connecticut River Plume (Garvine, 1974)
•Measured density field •Modeled field
• Observed Cross-front circulation• and some model predictions
Sample locations Model with S=0
Model with S=+1
Surface Current and Density Array
1000 1500 2000 25004500
5000
5500
6000
East (m)
Nor
th (m
)
1415
16
1415
16
12:56:29
13:00:46
13:15:40
13:18:46
y'
x'
Ship track & front locations
-3
-2
-1
0
z (m
)
Model Density and Across-front velocity (cm/s)4 4 4 4
6 6 6 68 8 8 810 10 10 1012 12 12 1214 14 14 1416 16 16 1618 18 18 18
(a)
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
z (m
)
-30 -30 -30 -30-20 -20 -20 -20-10 -10 -10 -100 0 0 010 10 10 1020 20 20 2030 30 30 3040 40 40 40
(b)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-3
-2
-1
0
z (m
)
Density (sigma-t) and Across-front velocity (cm/s)444 6 6 68
88 8
10 10 10 101212 12 12
14
14 14 14 1416
1616 16
16
18 18 18
2022
(a)
-20 0 20 40 60 80-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
z (m
)
-20 -20
0
00 0
2020
20 2020
20
40
4040
40 4040
40
4040
40
40
40
4040
6060
60
(b)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Model of Garvine 1974
Model of Garvine 1974
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-4 -2 0 2 4 6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
East (km)
Nor
th (k
m)
(a)
1000 1500 2000 25004500
5000
5500
6000
East (m)
Nor
th (m
)
1415
16
1415
16
12:56:29
13:00:46
13:15:40
13:18:46
y'
x'
Ship track & front locations
-3
-2
-1
0z
(m)
Density (sigma-t) and Across-front velocity (cm/s)444 6 6 68
88 8
10 10 10 101212 12 12
14
14 14 14 1416
1616 16
16
18 18 18
2022
(a)
-20 0 20 40 60 80-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
z (m
)
-20 -20
0
00 0
2020
20 2020
20
40
4040
40 4040
40
4040
40
40
40
4040
6060
60
(b)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Observations With SCUD and TOAD – O’Donnell et al. 1998
Density (sigma-t) and Across-front velocity (cm/s)444 6 6 68
88 8
10 10 10 101212 12 12
14
14 14 14 1416
1616 16
16
18 18 18
2022
)
0 0 20 40 60 80
-20 -20
0
00 0
2020
20 2020
20
40
4040
40 4040
40
4040
40
40
40
4040
6060
60
)
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Observations With SCUD and TOAD – O’Donnell et al. 1998sity and Across-front velocity (cm/s)
4 4 4 46 6 6 68 8 8 810 10 10 1012 12 12 1214 14 14 1416 16 16 1618 18 18 18
0 20 40 60 80
-30 -30 -30 -30-20 -20 -20 -20-10 -10 -10 -100 0 0 010 10 10 1020 20 20 2030 30 30 3040 40 40 40
Model of Garvine 1974:density and vertical velocity
Salinity
Backscatter
w
Vertical velocityIn the Plume In the front
Comparison of model w to data
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80-60
-40
-20
0
Ver
tical
(m/s
)
Acrossfront (m)
ModelBinned Data
Binned model
Summary so far
• Plume and fronts are everywhere• They have very small scales• Garvine’s model for the velocity looked OK• But the length scale for mixing was
arbitary• And the Overturning regions was missing.
Overturning,the Ozmidov Scale ,the Thorpe Scale and the Ellison Scale
LT
><===
−=
dzdLL
NL
dzdgN
E
T
o
//'adjustment
/
frequencybuoyancy or Vaisala the:
3
22
ρρ
ε
ρρ
Vertical displacement
To scale the salinity fluctuations so sections can be compared we normalize by the local vertical gradient to produce the distance that a parcel would have to be displaced along the gradient to create the observed salinity fluctuation.
The scale can’t be greater than the distance to the boundary so the normalized scale is
The RMS of this is the turbulence scale of Ellison (1957) 2/12
1
1
1
'
''
''
''
'
B
Bs
Bs
B
B
B
B
Bs
BsBB
lL
zzss
zs
zl
zzss
sl
sdzdsl
sss
=
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
−−
≈
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧
−−
≈
⎭⎬⎫
⎩⎨⎧=
+=
−
−
−
Stillinger Tank
Front Scales: width
Lab experiments: Itsweire, E.C., K. Helland, and C. Van Atta (1986). “The evolution of grid-generated turbulence in a
stably-stratified fluid,” J. Fluid Mech. 162, 299.Rohr, J.J., E.C. Itsweire, K.N. Helland, and C.W. Van Atta (1988). “Growth and decay of turbulence
in a stably stratified shear flow”. J. Fluid Mech. 195, 77-111.Itsweire, E., J. Koseff, D. Briggs & J. Ferziger, 1993, "Turbulence in stratified shear flows:
Implications for interpreting shear-induced mixing in the ocean", J. Phys. Oceanogr. 23, 508-
1522
Suggest that for
5at ,suppressed is Mixing4/12
2
≈>= NtSNRi
Assuming a “frozen field” then
NULUNLNt
I
I
/55/
===
22
22 ⎟
⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛=⎟
⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛=
dzduNand
dzduS
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 3
2
4
6
8
Ship track and front crossings with the local frontal coordinates
123
45
6
East (km)
Nor
th (k
m)
Start: 11:04
End: 11:09
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 45
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
May 2006 Ship Track
Ebb current
3 survey runs22 total front crossingsaverage boat speed: 2 ms-1
3 survey runs22 total front crossingsaverage boat speed: 2 ms-1
123
T3I
Front Structure
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 4
0
10
20
30
(a)S
-1
0
10
20
30
(b)
S-2
0
10
20
30
(c)
S-3
0
10
20
30
(d)
S-4
0
10
20
30
(e)
S-5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 1000
10
20
30
(f)
Across Front Distance (m)
S-6
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 5
-100 -50 0 50 100
-6
-4
-2
0u
Section 2
(a)
-2002040
-100 -50 0 50 100
-6
-4
-2
0
v
(b)
-40-20020
x (m)
cm/s
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 6
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 7
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 8
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 10010-2
10-1
100
101
102
Ric
hard
son
Num
ber
Across front distance (m)
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 9
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 1000
0.5
1
RM
S d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
Across-front (m)
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-2
10-1
100
RM
S d
ispl
acem
ent/D
epth
across front distance (m)
Lfit=33 (m)
O'Donnell & Ackleson: Figure 11
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010
-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
Dis
sipa
tion
rate
(W/k
g)
Across front distance (m)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 10010-2
10-1
100
101
102
Ric
hard
son
Num
ber
Across front distance (m)
Across front variation in Richardson number
1/4
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 1000
0.5
1
RM
S d
ispl
acem
ent (
m)
Across front variation of L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-2
10-1
100R
MS
dis
plac
emen
t/Dep
th
across front distance (m)
Lfit=33 (m)
Across Front Decay of L/D
Scale ComparisonS1 S3 S4 S5
Itsweire: LI= 23.5 26.7 38.6 26.9
Lfit ~ 33
Comments
Bay Koombanain 10got )1989(Imberger and LuketinaRiver Columbiain 10 found (2005)Jay andOrton
)/(1010~ front, plume CT at the obtained valuesFor the
40~ so
4/1for 5.1/suggest (1988) al.et Rohr of sexperiment Lab
)/( is scale (1965) Ozmidov The
6
4
74
23
23
2/13
−
−
−− −
>≈
=⇒
=
kgWatts
LN.
RiLL
LN
NL
o
O
O
ε
ε
ε
ε
Orton and Jay, GRL 2005 – Columbia River Plume
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010
-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
Dis
sipa
tion
rate
(W/k
g)
Across front distance (m)
)15/exp( x−
From, Levine, Goodman, O’Donnell (2006) – JMS.
Across front variation of
dissipation rate estimates (W/kg)
)15/exp( x−
Scale Comparison
Section: S1 S3 S4 S5CTR Front: LI=5U/N 23.5 26.7 38.6 26.9
Lfit ~ 15
Level (m): 3.7 7.2 9.1 11.7 14.7FRONT Front L=5U/N 74 81
Lfit ~ 60 71 60 91 75
Conclusions– There is a leading edge with
horizontal scale of order of the depth
– A second scale ~ 30m is consistent with the decay of sheared stratified turbulence
– If current parameterizations are to be employed the 30m scale must be resolved.
– Dissipation rate decays across front and maximum decreases along front (maybe)
– Maximum estimate (10-5) may be biased low due to underestimate of vertical gradient in S
Lxf
Lx
faexfaTCaexaTE
/
/
)()(
−
−
==
==
Not such a bad idea after all.
south of Long Sand Shoal,convergence and downwellingintensify
front deepens dramatically but little change in size of mixing region
Survey 3 – Transect K
From Houk 2007
From Houk 2007
X = 42 m
The Start…..
•Bumpus, D.F. (1973) A description of the circulation on the shelf of the east coast of the United States. Prog. Oceanogr. 6, 111-157.•Beardsley R. C. and C.N. Flagg (1976). The water structure mean Currents and shelf/slope water front in the New England continental shelf. Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liege, 6, 209-225.•Beardsley, R.C. and W.C. Boicourt (1981). On the estuarine and continental shelf circulation in the Middle Atlantic Bight, in Evolution of Physical Oceanography, B.A. Warren and C. Wunsch.•Beardsley et al. (1985). The Nantucket Shoals Flux Experiment (NSFE79), I, A basic description of the current and temperature variability, J. Phys. Oceanogr. 15, 713-748.•Aikman, F., III, H.W. Ou and R.W. Houghton, (1988). Current variability across the New England continental shelf-break and slope. Cont. Shelf Res. 8, 625-651.•Houghton, R.W., F. Aikman III, and H.W. Ou(1988).Shelf-slope water frontal structure and cross-shelf exchange at the New England shelfbreak. Cont. Shelf Res. 8, 687-710.•Chapman, D.C. and R.C. Beardsley (1989). On the origin of the shelf water in the Middle Atlantic Bight. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 19, 384-391.•Linder C.A, and G. Gawarkiewicz, (1998). A climatology of the shelfbreak front in the Middle Atlantic Bight. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 18405-18423.
Surface Salinity
Low discharge High Discharge
Bottom Salinity
Low discharge High Discharge
Low Discharge Cross-section - 1
High Discharge Cross-section - 1
Low Discharge Cross-section - 1
N.B. Higher Stratification on the inner-inner shelf
N.B. Overall Stratification is of similar magnitude
32 Isohaline intrusion
Wind Effect during High Discharge- Section 3Upwelling Favorable Light & Variable
Interim Summary
• The thinner, broader, more stratified surface layer during upwelling favorable winds appears to be consistent with the Ekmanstraining idea of Fong and Geyer, 2000.
• The mid water salinity intrusion has not been reported on the inner shelf before. (High resolution surveys reveal more detailed structure.
The Short Towed Array on the Connecticut’s fantail
5 CTDs
Depressor fin
One of the LIS Outflow Fronts
Freshwater in the Coastal Oceanseawifs
SeaWiFS image of Chesapeake and Delaware Bays
estuary(mixing)
Chesapeake Bay buoyant coastal current- far field
Nose
SAR image: Donato and Marmorino, Continental Shelf Research 22, 2002
Buoyant coastal current : 4 km wide, 5 m deepcw/cα ~ 0.2 consistent with
Wα/Ww (surface trapped)
Griffiths &Hopfinger, JFM 1983
Buoyant current in a rotating tank
~4m/day
Important papers about bottom BEL control of Coastal Currents
• Trowbridge, J. H. and S.J. Lentz (1991) Assymetric behavior of an oceanic boundary layer above a sloping bottom. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 21. 1171-1185
• Lentz, S. J. and J.H. Trowbridge (1991) The bottom boundary layer over the northern California shelf. J. Phys Oceanogr. 21, 1186-1201.
• Gawarkiewicz, G. and D.C. Chapman (1991) The formation and maintainance of shelfbreak fronts in an unstratified flow. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 21. 1225-1239.
• Chapman D.C. and S. J. Lentz, 1994: Trapping of a coastal density front by the bottom boundary layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 24, 1464–1479.
• Gawarkiewicz, G. and D.C. Chapman (1992) The role of stratification in the formation and maintainance of shelfbreak fronts. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 22. 753-772.
• MacReady, P. and P.B. Rhines (1991). Buoyant inhibition of Ekmantransport on a slope and its effect on stratified spin-up. J. Fluid Mech. 223. 631-661.
• Chapman, D.C. and S.J. Lentz (1994). Trapping of a coastal density front by the bottom boundary layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 24. 1464-1479.
• Yankovsky, A. E., and D. C. Chapman, 1997: A simple theory for the fate of buoyant coastal discharges. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 27, 1386–1401.
QWy
x
hρo-Δρ
W
geometry
α
0ρ
α
Chapman 2002
From geometry:
hρo-Δρ
W
α
α
/so
/tan
hW
Wh
≈
=
α
yg
yzp
zuf
zpg
ypfu
∂∂
=∂∂
∂−=
∂∂
∂∂
=−
∂∂
−=
ρρρ
ρ
ρ
0
2
0
0
1
1
Assume geostrophic and hydrostatic then
And get thermal wind
hρo-Δρ
W
α
Offshore BEL transport:
fV bx
0ρτ
=
bbx ruLinearized bottom stress:
=τ
Approximate
Wyρρ Δ
≈∂∂
and integrating thermal wind
)('
')(
'
'
0
hzfWguu
fWhguC
uhzu
CzfWgu
fWg
Wfg
zu
b
b
b
++=
+=
=−=
+=
=Δ
=∂∂ ρ
ρ
hρo-Δρ
α
)(' hzfWguu b ++=Using
and assuming that the offshore transport has widened the current to the point where h is such that 0=bu
and set the horizontal integral to the along shore flux
020
)2
('
hh
hzzfWgudz
−−⎥⎦
⎤⎢⎣
⎡+=∫
2' 2h
fWg
=
And then integrate vertically to obtain
fhgdyh
fWgdyudzQ
WW
h 2'
2' 2
0
2
0
0
≈== ∫∫ ∫−
LW W
The depth and location of foot of the front is 2/1
'2
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
gQfh α/hW =&
Recent Observations evaluating the BEL Coastal Current Control Theory
• Houghton, R. (1997), Lagrangian flow at the foot of a shelfbreak front using a dye tracer injected into the bottom boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 2035–2038.
• Houghton, R., and M. Visbeck (1998), Upwelling and convergence in the Middle Atlantic Bight shelf break front, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2765–2768.
• Barth, J. A., D. Bogucki, S. D. Pierce, and P. M. Korso (1998), Secondary circulation associated with a shelfbreak front, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2761–2764.
• Pickart, R. S. (2000), Bottom boundary layer structure and detachment in the shelfbreak jet of the Middle Atlantic Bight, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30, 2668– 2686.
• Linder, C.A., G.G. Gawarkiewicz and R.S. Pickart (2004), Seasonal characteristics of bottom boundary layer detachment at the shelfbreak front in the Middle Atlantic Bight, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C03049, doi:10.1029/2003JC002032
From Pickart 2000, The Accumulated Temperature Change Method (AMT)
From Linder, C.A., G.G. Gawarkiewiczand R.S. Pickart(2004)
From Houghton (2006)
From Houghton (2006)
Upwelling wind response of coastal current fronts
• Based on Fong and Geyer (2000)• Houghton, Tilburg Garvine (2004)
Figure 4. Contours of stress and salinity for t = 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. Shaded contours are used to indicate salinity contours in intervals of 0.5 psu. Superimposed on the shading are contours of magnitude of the total stress in solid contour lines (0.01 Pa intervals). The thick contour line is stress, which is 10% of the applied surface stress.
Figure 7. Contours of vertical salt flux and salinity for t = 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. Shaded contours are used to indicate salinity contours in intervals of 0.5 psu. Superimposed on the shading are contours of vertical salt flux in solid contour lines (10 -5 psu m s -1 intervals). The cross-shore-integrated mean vertical salt flux is indicated in the lower left corner of each panel.
Summary of the upwelling wind response
• Mixing persists at the seaward plume front because of an Ekmanstraining mechanism in which there is a balance between the
advection of cross-shore salinity gradients and vertical mixing.
Dye (colors) and Salinity
Houghton, R. W., C. E. Tilburg, R. W. Garvine, and A. Fong (2004), Delaware River 23 plume response to a strong upwelling-favorable wind event, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L07302,doi:10.1029/2003GL018988.
Important Points
• Fronts are everywhere on the shelf• There are plume fronts, mixing fronts and
shear fronts• The location of the shelfbreak fronts and
coastal current fronts are generally consistent the Chapman-Lentz idea
• Transient wind events play a big role in offshore transport through straining and vertical mixing
top related