首页> 外文学位 >Diagnostic calculations of circulation over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.
【24h】

Diagnostic calculations of circulation over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

机译:墨西哥东北海湾上空环流的诊断计算。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Comparison is made of three methods for the calculations of the surface dynamic height using hydrographic station and shipboard acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) data over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Hydrographic station and ship board ADCP data were collected on eight cruises of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Chemical Oceanography and Hydrography Program (NEGOM-COH), supported by the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS). Measurements were taken along 11 cross-shelf lines and the 1000-m isobath in the region between the Mississippi River delta and Tampa, Florida.; The calculations of surface dynamic height and associated geostrophic velocity are referred to as: M0, Montgomery's (1941) method; M1, the method of Sheng and Thompson (1996); and M2, the solution of Poisson's equation using an estimated field of vorticity based on the ADCP measurements (Cho, 1996). Among the three methods, M2 yields the closest mean velocity and vorticity to the ADCP measurements. Furthermore, M2 also has the highest correlation of the calculated velocity (0.82) and vorticity (0.98) to the observed ADCP fields. In contrast, the widely used M0 does not perform well in this region, showing significant differences between the calculated and the observed velocity and vorticity. The overall correlation between the calculated velocity field and the observed velocity field is 0.48 and that between the calculated vorticity field and the observed vorticity field is 0.35.; The sea surface topography mapped by M2 is thus considered the benchmark for comparison with M0 and M1. Roughly 33% of the variance of the observed velocity (the divergent part) has been filtered out by M2. Comparison is further made between the calculated geostrophic, or non-divergent, velocity by M0 and M1 with that by M2. The correlations between the M1 and M2 methods are 0.698 for calculated velocity and 0.539 for calculated vorticity, respectively, while those between the M0 and M2 methods are 0.453 and 0.355, respectively.; It is concluded that the Montgomery (M0) method for estimating dynamic topography and associated geostrophic currents should be restricted to those continental shelves for which the flow is primarily along-shelf with associated sea bed density structure which is primarily a function of the local water depth. Otherwise the method M1 or M2 should be employed, if adequate direct current measurements are available (at least along the open boundaries for M1 or throughout the shelf for M2).
机译:比较了三种方法,利用墨西哥东北部的水文站和舰载声多普勒电流剖面仪(ADCP)数据计算表面动态高度。在美国矿产管理处(MMS)的支持下,在墨西哥湾东北部化学海洋学和水文学计划(NEGOM-COH)的八次航行中收集了水文站和船上ADCP数据。在密西西比河三角洲和佛罗里达州坦帕之间的区域,沿着11条跨架线和1000米等深线进行了测量。地表动态高度和相关的地转速度的计算称为:M0,蒙哥马利(1941)方法; M1,Sheng和Thompson的方法(1996); M2,泊松方程的解,使用基于ADCP测量值的估计涡度场(Cho,1996)。在这三种方法中,M2产生最接近ADCP测量值的平均速度和涡度。此外,M2与计算出的速度(0.82)和涡度(0.98)与观测到的ADCP场之间也具有最高的相关性。相反,广泛使用的M0在该区域表现不佳,显示出计算出的和观测到的速度和涡度之间存在显着差异。计算出的速度场与观测到的速度场之间的整体相关性为0.48,计算出的涡度场与观测到的涡度场之间的整体相关性为0.35。因此,将M2映射的海面地形视为与M0和M1比较的基准。 M2过滤掉了大约33%的观测速度方差(发散部分)。进一步比较了M0和M1与M2计算的地转速度或非发散速度。 M1和M2方法之间的相关性分别为0.698和0.339,而M0和M2方法之间的相关性分别为0.453和0.355。结论是,应将蒙哥马利(M0)方法用于估算动态地形和相关的地转流,应仅限于那些主要沿陆架流动且具有相关海床密度结构(主要是当地水深的函数)的大陆架。 。否则,如果有足够的直流电测量可用(至少沿着M1的开放边界或整个M2的货架),则应采用方法M1或M2。

著录项

  • 作者

    Wang, Ou.;

  • 作者单位

    Texas A&M University.;

  • 授予单位 Texas A&M University.;
  • 学科 Physical Oceanography.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2002
  • 页码 135 p.
  • 总页数 135
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 海洋物理学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号