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

1 / 7
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

... length (xl) didn't seem to make much difference except creating instability, we'd run the refined grid with original xl (2m) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:22
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 8
Provided by: Ying80
Category:
Tags: create | findings | hindcast | part | run | runs | up

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

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


1
Findings from hindcast runs 04/30-05/21,
2002Part II
2
List of runs
Week18-20 (04/30-05/21)
Grid Hot/cold start Min. mixing length in open sea (m)
RUN1 original cold (from week18) 3
RUN2 Refined grid cold (from week18) 3
RUN3 (week18 only) original cold 2
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.
    (RUN12/CR2325_1205a.gif)
  • Salinity values are generally good TSG shows
    RUN2 results are slightly better
    (RUN12/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 (RUN12/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
(contd)
  • However, RUN1 elevation doesnt 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)
    didnt seem to make much difference except
    creating instability, wed run the refined grid
    with original xl (2m).
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com