1 / 29

EFFECTS OF OCEAN MIXING ON HURRICANE HEAT CONTENT ESTIMATES: A NUMERICAL STUDY

EFFECTS OF OCEAN MIXING ON HURRICANE HEAT CONTENT ESTIMATES: A NUMERICAL STUDY. S. DANIEL JACOB and LYNN K. SHAY Meteorology and Physical Oceanography Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149. Drs. Peter Black, Rainer Bleck and Arthur Mariano

danae
Download Presentation

EFFECTS OF OCEAN MIXING ON HURRICANE HEAT CONTENT ESTIMATES: A NUMERICAL STUDY

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. EFFECTS OF OCEAN MIXING ON HURRICANE HEAT CONTENT ESTIMATES: A NUMERICAL STUDY S. DANIEL JACOB and LYNN K. SHAY Meteorology and Physical Oceanography Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149. • Drs. Peter Black, Rainer Bleck and Arthur Mariano • USWRP - NSF Sponsored project: ATM-97-14855

  2. USING A NUMERICAL MODEL INVESTIGATE:  Entrainment Mixing Schemes Gaspar (1988) Kraus and Turner (1967) Pollard, Rhines and Thompson (1973), Price (1981) Deardorff (1983) Compare model results to Gilbert (1988) observations  Role of Oceanic Variability Mixed Layer Temperature/ Depth evolution for realistic, climatological and quiescent initial conditions Momentum Response Compare model results to observations OBJECTIVES

  3. Miami Isopycnic Coordinate Ocean Model (Bleck and Smith 1992) • Advantages • Explicit Mixed Layer Physics • Natural Discontinuity for different water masses • Configuration • Domain: Gulf of Mexico • Resolution: 0.07 • 15 Layers • Closed Boundaries • Initial Conditions • Realistic Conditions from Yearday 200 data (Case E) • Climatological Conditions from Levitus (1982) (Case C) • Quiescent Conditions from average prestorm AXBT (Case Q)

  4. WIND FIELD STRUCTURE

  5. ENTRAINMENT • Based on Observational Analysis (Jacob et al., JPO 2000) • Entrainment is the dominant mechanism in the mixed layer. • Mixed layer heat and mass budgets strongly depend upon the entrainment scheme used. • Numerical Modeling: • MICOM: Gaspar (1988) scheme that uses u*and Q0 to prescribe entrainment rate. Observations suggest the presence of strong near-inertial shears at the mixed layer base. • Mixed layer response using four entrainment parameterizations is investigated.

  6. ENTRAINMENT SCHEMES • Turbulent Kinetic Energy Sources (Niiler and Kraus 1977): • wind stress (u*3) • free convection (Q0) • current shear (V2) • Kraus and Turner (1967) and Gaspar (1988) • u*3 and Q0 • Pollard, Rhines and Thompson (1973); Price(1981) • V2 • Deardorff (1983) • All three source mechanisms Numerical simulations are performed for the four schemes and results are compared to observations.

  7. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS

  8. MOVIE 1 KT Gaspar DDF PRT

  9. 2Rmax Blue - Gaspar Green - KT Red - PRT Cyan - DDF

  10. MOVIE 2 PRT

  11. QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON: LOCATIONS AND SECTIONS

  12. POINT 3 Blue - Gaspar Green - KT Red - PRT Cyan - DDF

  13. MODEL-DATA COMPARISON

  14. SUMMARY • Areal extent of the mixed layer response differs for the four entrainment schemes used. • PRT and Deardorff schemes predict similar response near the track. • Large entrainment rates away from the track are predicted by the Deardorff scheme. Results in cooler and deeper mixed layers. • Advective tendencies are clearly affected by the choice of entrainment scheme. Effects are minimal. • PRT scheme fits the data better than other schemes.

  15. TEMPERATURE-SALINITY DIAGRAM Case E Case E GCW Case C Case Q

  16. PRE-STORM MLT AND MLD Case E Case C Case Q E-Q

  17. STORM MLT AND MLD Case C Case E E-Q Case Q

  18. WAKE 2 MLT AND MLD Case E Case C Case Q E-Q

  19. POINT 3 EVOLUTION POINT 3 Blue - Case E Green - Case C Red - Case Q

  20. ENTRAINMENT AND SURFACE FLUXES POINT 3 Blue -Case E Green -Case C Red -Case Q

  21. MODEL-DATA COMPARISON: TEMPERATURE

  22. MODEL-DATA COMPARISON: VELOCITIES

  23. SUMMARY • Results indicate a clear modulation of MLTs and MLDs by the currents associated with the eddy. Three dimensionality is important in the mixed layer. • Model-Data comparison improves by using realistic initial conditions. • The near-inertial pass band is shifted below f. Compares well to the theoretical estimates. • Simulated MLTs are within observational limits. MLDs and currents in the mixed layer are higher than those observed. • Time-averaged surface fluxes contributed up to 35% of the mixed layer heat budget.

  24. CONCLUSIONS • MLTs simulated using Pollard, Rhines and Thompson (1973) entrainment scheme compare better with observations. • Oceanic background conditions are essential for realistic simulations in coupled models. • Surface fluxes contribute up to 35%, thus cannot be neglected. • Implications for storm intensity.

  25. THINK 3D!

  26. AXCTD PROFILES (SUMMER 1999)

  27. AIR-SEA PARAMETERS DURING GILBERT

  28. POINT 1 EVOLUTION POINT 1 Blue - Case E Green - Case C Red - Case Q U  h U  T

  29. VARIATION OF ADVECTIVE TENDENCIES Case E Case Q Case E Case Q

More Related