1 / 25

XBT in Mediterranean Sea

XBT in Mediterranean Sea. F.Reseghetti (ENEA-ACS-Clim-Med), Lerici (Sp) - Italy M.Borghini (CNR-ISMAR), Lerici (Sp) - Italy G.M.R.Manzella (ENEA-ACS-Clim), Lerici (Sp) - Italy. Reference paper: Reseghetti, Borghini, Manzella (Ocean Science 3, 59-75, 2007). Issues.

kohana
Download Presentation

XBT in Mediterranean Sea

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. XBT in Mediterranean Sea F.Reseghetti (ENEA-ACS-Clim-Med), Lerici (Sp) - Italy M.Borghini (CNR-ISMAR), Lerici (Sp) - Italy G.M.R.Manzella (ENEA-ACS-Clim), Lerici (Sp) - Italy Reference paper: Reseghetti, Borghini, Manzella (Ocean Science 3, 59-75, 2007)

  2. Issues • Extended acquisition + Time as free parameter • Time response of data acquisition system • Initial launching conditions • Weight of the probe • Calibration • Data processing • Fall rate coefficients (FRCs) • Temperature Correction • Depth error • T accuracy

  3. Preliminary • No comparison between XBT profiles (after the processing with the software) and co-located and contemporaneous CTD measurements in Mediterranean Sea • No check on XBT output in Mediterranean seawaters assuming the validity of error interval as Sippican did. • Comparison between CTD casts (42) and contemporaneous and co-located XBTs dropped from a steady ship (URANIA) (55) in Western Mediterranean • CTD casts were done by SEABIRD 911 Plus instruments, calibrated (before and after) each cruise: May 2003 (1); September 2003 (10); January 2004(12); May 2004(10); September 2004(10); October 2004(12). • All CTD profiles were processed with standard SEABIRD software. • Only Sippican XBTs dropped and recorded by the same Sippican MK-12 read-out card and software + the same PC. • The time delay (XBT-CTD) is ranging from 1 to 8 minutes. • ALL T values are “in-situ” Temperatures.

  4. “Standard” T profile (T5)

  5. Issue1: Extended acquisition (in TIME)

  6. Quality of data: Upper region

  7. Bottom part

  8. Issue 2: Response time The XBT probe thermistor has a finite response time to temperature changes. The time constant is 0.16 s. LM Sippican states, that the thermistor used will respond to a step change of temperature in a time period of 0.63 s. Assuming a fall speed of 6.472 ms-1this corresponds to a depth of 4 m. Because of the finite response time the true sea temperature is not sensed until the probe reaches 4 m depth. If there is a significant temperature difference between the probe storage temperature and the sea surface temperature a strong temperature gradient will be recorded in the first 4 m.(AODC MK12 Cookbook, 1999) • Possible solution is to experimentally compute the time each probe needs before it measures “stable” T values (within 0.1°C), the Empirical Time Constant • The averaged experimental value is ETC = 0.3 ± 0.1 s • Each T profile is cut and rescaled by ETC: • T(t0) = T(t0 + 0.3 s)= T(t0+3) from the beginning • Then, identification of the time t0 at which strong dT/dz starts (seasonal thermocline) (rule = four consecutive t intervals where dT/dz < - 0.1 ºC). • Practically, each profile is shifted up by about 2m.

  9. Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.017.54 1516.69 0.716.38 1513.25 1.315.98 1512.06 2.015.84 1511.64 2.7 15.82 1511.58 3.3 15.81 1511.58 4.0 15.82 1511.60 Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.017.64 1517.00 0.716.48 1513.56 1.316.14 1512.54 2.016.04 1512.25 2.7 16.01 1512.16 3.3 15.99 1512.13 4.0 15.99 1512.14 Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.018.24 1518.73 0.716.74 1514.34 1.316.25 1512.89 2.016.10 1512.44 2.7 16.06 1512.32 3.3 16.05 1512.29 4.0 16.03 1512.27 Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.0 22.72 1523.25 0.7 22.72 1523.27 1.3 22.83 1523.56 2.0 22.86 1523.66 2.7 22.88 1523.72 3.3 22.87 1523.69 4.0 22.84 1523.63 Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.0 23.10 1524.23 0.7 22.89 1523.70 1.3 22.68 1523.18 2.0 22.58 1522.92 2.7 22.23 1522.01 3.3 21.61 1520.38 4.0 21.13 1519.08 Depth (m) - Temperature (°C) 0.0 20.54 1525.17 0.7 19.87 1523.34 1.3 19.57 1522.53 2.0 19.46 1522.24 2.7 19.43 1522.16 3.3 19.41 1522.12 4.0 19.41 1522.12

  10. Issue 3: Initial conditions • The height of launching positions seems do not influence in a predictable way the initial motion of the probe. Suggested height 2.5 m: in MFSTEP the height varies from 4 to 14 m. In literature, steady regime after ~ 1.5 s (~ 10 m). • Ambiguous results for the depth discrepancy at the thermocline depth from URANIA tests (2.5 m and 8 m). • In green the former launched, in blue the latter

  11. Issue 4: Weight Seaver & Kuleshov

  12. Issue 5: Calibrations • Six T4 and six DB probes were calibrated at NURC-La Spezia • 10 minutes in the bath to thermalize the probe • 30 s of data acquisition • 4 different reference temperatures • All the probes measure always T values warmer than the bath T4 : T (T )= (0.01845±0.00852)°C+ (0.00212±0.00046)∙T DB: T (T )= (0.03222±0.00970)°C+ (0.00162±0.00052)∙T

  13. Issue 6: Data processing • Improvement with respect to Manzella et al.(2003) • Gross range check (e.g. bottom, ground..) • General check on spatial and temporal values • Gaussian smoothing The Manzella et al. (2003) software smoothes too much the XBT raw profiles, mainly where dT/dz is significant.THEREFOREeach profile is divided in 3 regions (from the surface down to the thermocline, thermocline region, bottom), with 3 different Gaussian filter values (3-3-7 points) • Interpolation at 1-m interval(1-m = variation of 0.005 ms-1 on A, and of 0.00005 ms-2 on B; = the depth the probe moves in 0.16 s = thermistor time response  detection of 63% of a step T variation) • Comparison with climatology • (Final) Visual check and consistency

  14. Depth Problem

  15. Issue 7- (FRCs) • FRCs have been searched for within intervals: T4: 6.400  A 6.750 ms-1, and 0.00180  B 0.00240 ms-2; DB: 6.600  A 6.850 ms-1, and 0.00200  B 0.00260 ms-2. • Used steps: 0.005 ms-1 for A, and 0.00005 ms-2 for the B (1-m accuracy). For each T4/T6 probe, (71 x 13) profiles were computed, and (51 x 13) profiles for each DB probe. • For each CTD profile, 6 reference points below 100 m depth where thermal structures occur (by visual inspection). • The difference between the depth measured by the CTD and the one on the computed XBT profile is calculated in correspondence of such points, and summed up. • The minimum value of the sum of the depth differences indicates the best pair of FRCs for the specific profile. • Final FRCs for each XBT type are obtained by calculating the average, weighting on the length of each profile. • Obtained FRC represent a compromise between faster and slower probes; therefore, some spikes remain in temperature difference profiles. • When the best pair of FRCs is used for each probe, the difference in depth is not not larger than 3-4 m with respect to the CTD along the profile.

  16. New Fall Rate Coefficients The coefficients are rounded to 0.005 ms-1 and 0.00005 ms-2: smaller values produce a depth variation smaller than 1m, which is the intrinsic depth accuracy due to the time constant (0.16 s  1 m).

  17. Upper region IGOSS + M03 R07 - TC R07 + TC

  18. Deeper region

  19. Issue 8: Temperature Correction • To reduce the shift in T profile at deeper depth, a correction [linear function of the depth Y(D)=A+B*D as deduced from ΔT averaged profile (from 100 m 550 m for T4, from 100 to 900 m depth for DB)] is added to the temperature value at each depth. T4 DB A(ºC)= - 0.0285 ± 0.0010 - 0.0389 ± 0.0010 B(ºC/m)= - 0.0000135 ± 0.0000011 - 0.0000164 ± 0.0000012 A is similar to the calibration value at T~12.5°C B is similar to the pressure term cited in literature (Roemmich&Cornuelle, 1987).

  20. Maximum observed depth difference within the sample Issue 9: Depth error

  21. Issue 10: Global T accuracy • It is necessary to identify the thermal structures along the profile: • |T|  0.10C from the surface down to thermocline, when existing; • |T|  0.50C where the thermocline starts (if any), and proportional to its strength (with some spikes up to about 3.0C, but over a layer of a few metres); • |T|  0.07C below the base of the thermocline (|T|  0.14C in regions where identified thermal structures occur).

  22. Bad

  23. Good

  24. To do (money dependent) • Calibrate and weight the probes before a comparison • Measure the diameter of the central hole (a difference enhanced by Kizu et al. 2005) • Compare static calibrations by using MK12-MK21-MK21 USB (and Devil), and different LM3A launchers, and wires and connection boxes. • Tests on T5 probes in Mediterranean Sea • Dynamical comparison with SHUTTLE CTD, which can measure when the ship is moving (it goes up-down, at about 250 m depth, in some minutes) • Analysis in Eastern Mediterranean Sea • But I NEED XBTs Calculations of heat budget are critical when only XBT data are available, due to the influence of bias and other unknown errors in archived data.See f.i. Gouretsky&Koltermann (2007)

  25. Thank You

More Related