1 / 40

Vertical Mixing Parameterizations and their effects on the skill of Baroclinic Tidal Modeling

Vertical Mixing Parameterizations and their effects on the skill of Baroclinic Tidal Modeling Robin Robertson Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Palisades, NY. Domain. Internal Wave Theory. Internal wave generation criteria according to linear theory

haines
Download Presentation

Vertical Mixing Parameterizations and their effects on the skill of Baroclinic Tidal Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Vertical Mixing Parameterizations and their effects on the skill of Baroclinic Tidal Modeling Robin Robertson Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Palisades, NY

  2. Domain

  3. Internal Wave Theory • Internal wave generation criteria according to linear theory •  - slope of internal wave rays •  =1 – critical • Most generation • resonant •  < 1 – subcritical • Less generation • Propagates both on and offslope •  > 1 – supercritical • Less generation • Propagates offslope

  4. Internal Tide Generation according to linear theory

  5. M2 Baroclinic Tides

  6. K1 Baroclinic Tides

  7. Comparison to Observations:M2 Major Axes

  8. Comparison to Observations:K1 Major Axes

  9. Comparison to Observations:Mean Currents

  10. Vertical Mixing Parameterizations • Large-McWilliams-Doney (LMD) Kp profile • Mellor-Yamada 2.5 level turbulence closure (MY2.5) • Brunt-Väisälä frequency (BVF) • Pacanowski-Philander (PP) • Generic Length Scale (GLS) • Lamont Ocean Atmosphere Mixed Layer Model (LOAM ) • LMD - modified

  11. Large-McWilliams-Doney Kp profile • Primary processes • Local Ri instabilities due to resolvable vertical shear • If (1-Ri/0.7) > 0 10-3 (1-Ri/0.7)3 • Convection • N dependent 0.1 * [1.-(2x10-5 –N2)/2x10-5] • Internal wave • N dependent 10-6/N2 (min N of 10-7) • Double diffusion • Only for tracers • For Ri< 0.8, the first dominates • For Ri> 0.8, the third dominates • Modified • Non-local fluxes, Langmuir, Stokes drift • Changes two of the Kp profile values

  12. Mellor-Yamada 2.5 level turbulence closure • Designed for boundary layer flows • Based on turbulent kinetic energy and length scale which are time stepped through the simulation • Matched laboratory turbulence • Logarithmic law of the wall • Not designed for internal wave mixing • Fails in the presence of stratification

  13. Brunt-Väisälä frequency • Diffusivity is a function of N • If N < 0 Kv = 1 • If N = 0 Kv = background value • If N > 0 Kv = 10-7/N • Min of 3x10-5 • Max of 4x10-4 • Background values is input (10-6)

  14. Pacanowski-Philander • Designed for the tropics • Gradient Ri dependent • If Ri > .2 Kv = 0.01/(1-5Ri)2+background max = 0.01 • Otherwise Kv = 0.01 • LOAM – version modified for use outside the tropics • If Ri > .2 Kv = 0.05/(1-5Ri)2+background max = 0.05 • Otherwise Kv = background

  15. Generic Length Scale • Two generic equations • D - turbulent and viscous transport • P - KE production by shear • G - KE production by buoyancy •  - Dissipation • c - model constants • Based on turbulent kinetic energy and length scale which are time stepped through the simulation • MY2.5 is a special case • p=0, m=1, n=1

  16. Major Axis Errors Red indicated absolute error values lower than those of the base case.

  17. Comparisons to Observations (velocities)

  18. Vertical Diffusivity Observations From Kunze et al. [1991]

  19. Vertical Diffusivity (Temperature)

  20. Vertical Diffusivity (Temperature) (cont)

  21. Vertical Diffusivity Observations

  22. Vertical Diffuxivity (Temperature)

  23. Vertical Diffusivity (Temperature)

  24. Summary • Baroclinic tides were simulated using ROMS • Semidiurnal tides were reproduced successfully • Diurnal tides were not reproduced • Critical latitude effects • Mean currents insufficiently simulated • Generic Length Scale (GLS) produced the most realistic vertical diffusivities • Acknowledgments – Data from Brink, Toole, Kunze, Noble, and Eriksen

  25. Model Description  Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) ·  Primitive equation model; non-linear  Split 2-D and 3-D modes ·  Boussinesq and hydrostatic approximations ·  Horizontal advection - 3rd order upstream differencing [McWilliams and Shchepetkin] ·  Explicit vertical advection ·  Laplacian lateral diffusion along sigma surfaces (1 m2 s-1) ·  LMD scheme for vertical mixing  Exact baroclinic pressure gradient ·  Density based on bulk modulus ·  Tidal Forcing – M2, S2, O1, and K1  Elevations - set at boundaries ·  2-D velocities – radiation [Flather] ·  3-D velocities – flow relaxation scheme ·   tracers – flow relaxation scheme ·   Time Step - 4 s barotropic, 120 s baroclinc mode ·   Simulation Duration: 30 days

  26. Hydrography

  27. Evaluation of Operational Considerations and Parameterizations • Horizontal Resolution: • Improving resolution improves agreement • 1 km shows best agreement • Vertical Resolution: • No. of Levels: • Doubling the number of levels from 30 to 60 slightly improved the agreement • Increasing the number of levels to 90, showed no improvement • Spacing: • Uneven spacing with more levels near the surface and bottom improves agreement with observations • Best match - shallow mixed layer, S = 2, and B = .5 • Bathymetry: • Improvement with the finer scale Eriksen bathymetry • Increased generation of internal tides on a small scale • Hydrography: • Improvement with the finer scale Kunze hydrography • Baroclinic Pressure Gradient: • Weighted Density Jacobian performed more poorly than Spline Density Jacobian • Vertical Mixing: • GLS showed the best agreement • Horizontal Mixing: No appreciable effect

  28. Sensitivity Study • Bathymetry • Hydrography • Horizontal Resolution • Vertical Resolution and Spacing • Baroclinic Pressure Gradient Parameterization • Vertical Mixing Parameterization • Horizontal Mixing

  29. Major Axis Errors Red indicated absolute error values lower than those of the base case.

  30. Bathymetry

  31. Bathymetry- M2

  32. Bathymetry- K1

  33. Horizontal Resolution – M2

  34. Horizontal Resolution – K1

  35. Comparison to Observations M2

  36. Comparison to Observations K1

  37. Comparison to Observations Mean Currents

  38. Baroclinic Pressure Gradient

  39. Case Number Purpose Horizontal Resolution (x, y) Vertical Resolution no. of levels) Vertical Resolution: Spacing (mixed layer, S B) Baroclinic Pressure Gradient Vertical Mixing Horizontal Mixing Other 1 Base Case 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 2 Horizontal Resolution 4 km 30 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 3 Horizontal Resolution 1 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 4 Bathymetry 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian Smith & Sandwell 5 Hydrography 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian Kunze 6 Vertical Resolution 2 km 30 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 7 Vertical Resolution 2 km 90 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 8 Vertical Resolution 2 km 60 even (400, 1, 1) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 9 Vertical Resolution 2 km 60 even (100, 1, 1) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 10 Vertical Resolution 2 km 60 uneven (100, 2, 1) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 11 Vertical Resolution 2 km 60 uneven (100, 4, 1) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 12 Baroclinic Pressure Gradient 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) Weighted Density Jacobian LMD 2nd Order Laplacian 13 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ Brünt-Väisäla Frequency 2nd Order Laplacian 14 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ Mellor-Yamada 2.5 Level Clos. 2nd Order Laplacian 15 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ Pacanowski-Philander 2nd Order Laplacian 16 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LOAM 2nd Order Laplacian 17 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD without BKPP 2nd Order Laplacian 18 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD modified 2nd Order Laplacian 19 Vertical Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ Generic Length Scale 2nd Order Laplacian 20 Horizontal Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 1 m2 s-1 21 Horizontal Mixing 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 1x10-6 m2 s-1 22 Other 2 km 60 uneven (100,2,.5) SDJ LMD 2nd Order Laplacian Latitude Shift 5oS Simulations

  40. Inverse Richardson No.

More Related