Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTrossman, David S.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorWaterman, Stephanie N.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorPolzin, Kurt L.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorArbic, Brian K.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorGarner, Stephen T.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorNaveira Garabato, Alberto C.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorSheen, Katy L.  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-04T21:04:34Z
dc.date.available2016-06-17T09:14:21Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-17
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 120 (2015): 7997–8019en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/7831
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2015. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 120 (2015): 7997–8019, doi:10.1002/2015JC010892.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis paper examines two internal lee wave closures that have been used together with ocean models to predict the time-averaged global energy conversion rate into lee waves and dissipation rate associated with lee waves and topographic blocking: the Garner (2005) scheme and the Bell (1975) theory. The closure predictions in two Southern Ocean regions where geostrophic flows dominate over tides are examined and compared to microstructure profiler observations of the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate, where the latter are assumed to reflect the dissipation associated with topographic blocking and generated lee wave energy. It is shown that when applied to these Southern Ocean regions, the two closures differ most in their treatment of topographic blocking. For several reasons, pointwise validation of the closures is not possible using existing observations, but horizontally averaged comparisons between closure predictions and observations are made. When anisotropy of the underlying topography is accounted for, the two horizontally averaged closure predictions near the seafloor are approximately equal. The dissipation associated with topographic blocking is predicted by the Garner (2005) scheme to account for the majority of the depth-integrated dissipation over the bottom 1000 m of the water column, where the horizontally averaged predictions lie well within the spatial variability of the horizontally averaged observations. Simplifications made by the Garner (2005) scheme that are inappropriate for the oceanic context, together with imperfect observational information, can partially account for the prediction-observation disagreement, particularly in the upper water column.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Science Foundation Grant Number: OCE-0960820; Office of Naval Research (ONR) Grant Number: N00014-11-1-0487; Australian Research Council Grant Number: (DE120102927 and CE110001028); National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant Number: (22R23085)en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sonsen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC010892
dc.subjectMixingen_US
dc.subjectDissipationen_US
dc.subjectFinestructureen_US
dc.subjectInternal wavesen_US
dc.subjectTopographic interactionsen_US
dc.subjectMicrostructureen_US
dc.titleInternal lee wave closures : parameter sensitivity and comparison to observationsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.description.embargo2016-06-17en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/2015JC010892


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record