1 / 7

Findings from hindcast runs 04/30-05/21, 2002 Part II

Findings from hindcast runs 04/30-05/21, 2002 Part II. List of runs. Week18-20 (04/30-05/21). Comparison of RUN1 and 3. Differences in the plume region are marginal. Some differences in the estuary; larger mixing length in the plume region leads to lower salinities in the estuary.

luella
Download Presentation

Findings from hindcast runs 04/30-05/21, 2002 Part II

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. Findings from hindcast runs 04/30-05/21, 2002Part II

  2. List of runs Week18-20 (04/30-05/21)

  3. Comparison of RUN1 and 3 • Differences in the plume region are marginal. • Some differences in the estuary; larger mixing length in the plume region leads to lower salinities in the estuary.

  4. Comparison between RUN1 and 2May 13, 2002 • Differences, although still non-trivial, are much smaller than previously observed. • Temperature comparison is not good as expected. (RUN[12]/CR2325_1205a.gif) • Salinity values are generally good; TSG shows RUN2 results are slightly better (RUN[12]/CR2325a_tsg_sal.gif). • This is mainly because of the cruise route being essentially east-west (RUN1/CR2325a_tsg_llgif). • There are some under-estimations of surface salinity in RUN2 (e.g., CR2325-1205a.gif), and over-estimation in RUN1 (e.g., CR2325-1223a.gif), which suggests plume is still somewhat skewed. • Towards end of this week, RUN1 elevations indicate certain instability which magnifies in week20, and may partly explain the large differences between the two results in that week. (COMP-RUN1-RUN2/nf2c5).

  5. Comparison between RUN1 and 2May 15, 2002 • This is a better test for the model as the cruise route traverses a wider latitudes. (CR2327a_tsg_sal_map.gif) • For casts, RUN2 results capture better vertical profile (RUN[12]/CR2327_1107a.gif). • Cast locations are generally close to the mouth; had they been more away, the accuracy of RUN2 results might deteriorate. • For TSG, RUN1 results are slightly better (surprise!): • For this period, the wind is upwelling favorable, and plume should be moving southward; (RUN1/anim-sal_plume_min) • RUN2 results generally indicate a plume bent towards north. Cf. animations of plume at min.

  6. Comparison between RUN1 and 2May 15, 2002 (cont’d) • However, RUN1 elevation doesn’t seem to be right; there is a large set-up in the plume and open-sea region (e.g. nf2c5). • This is believed to be the consequence of a larger minimum mixing length (3m) used. • As a result, the fresh water spreads faster towards the boundary and vertically downwards, creating larger baroclinic velocity. (RUN1/anim-sal_far_min.gif) • Results indicate the direction in which plume is moving is still not right with the refinement, especially for upwelling favorable winds. (RUN2/anim-sal_far_min.gif)

  7. Future work • Since raising the minimum mixing length (xl) didn’t seem to make much difference except creating instability, we’d run the refined grid with original xl (2m).

More Related