1 / 14

Case 1/Case 2 Classification

Case 1/Case 2 Classification. Morel & Prieur, 1977. Limnology & Oceanography 22(4):709-722. Case 1/Case 2 Classification. Morel & Prieur, 1977. Limnology & Oceanography 22(4):709-722. Case 1/Case 2 Classification.

rhian
Download Presentation

Case 1/Case 2 Classification

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. Case 1/Case 2 Classification Morel & Prieur, 1977. Limnology & Oceanography 22(4):709-722

  2. Case 1/Case 2 Classification Morel & Prieur, 1977. Limnology & Oceanography 22(4):709-722

  3. Case 1/Case 2 Classification An ideal case 2, a suspension of non-living material with a zero concentration of pigments An ideal case 1 would be a pure culture of phytoplankton

  4. Case 1/Case 2 Classification current definitions • Models use [chl] as the input parameter to predict IOPs (usually a, b, and bb) and/or AOPs (usually R(l) and K) • Models also used to estimate [chl] from IOPs/AOPs (e.g. ocean color) • Models cannot simply use [chl] (anyone need a good thesis topic?)

  5. Problems with Case 1/Case 2 • no sharp dividing line between cases • CDOM concentration • coccoliths (scattering) • [chl] is a poor proxy for biomass or C • chl:C changes • [chl] varies with depth • global correlations do not imply local ones • developed for optically deep waters • all optically shallow waters are case 2?

  6. input of CDOM from shallow areas drained during ebb tide predicted a from a standard case 1 bio-optical model open ocean water from flood tide Problems: An Example

  7. predicted from a standard case 1 bio-optical model Problems: An Example Is this case 1 or case 2??

  8. Oh the Complexities • classify parameters differently (b is case 1 and a is case 2) • doesn’t address some problems • different wavelengths could be classified differently • rapid temporal fluctuations between 1 & 2 • breaking waves Mobley et al suggest dropping the case1/case2 classification and simply model waterbodies according to their constituents. (understand the complexities!)

  9. Current Work optical properties of phytoplankton species Stramski & Mobley, 1997. Limnology & Oceanography 42(3):538-549

  10. Current Work optical properties of mineral particles Babin & Stramski, 2004. Limnology & Oceanography 49(3):756-767.

  11. Current Work coupled physical-biological-optical models Fig. 3a. Simulated particulate absorption at 442 nm. Fig. 4a. Total chlorophyll a from functional groups 1-4. Bissett et al, 1999. Deep-Sea Research: Part I, 46(2):271-317.

  12. Mineral Particles

  13. Understanding IOPs & AOPS • Inverse modeling (Rrs [chl], other parameters) more difficult • Case 1, optically deep waters • radiative transfer theory • derivative analysis • neural networks • spectrum matching Using input of data from Figs 1&2, modeled using Hydrolight

More Related