Statistical Comparisons of Temperature Variance and Kinetic Energy in Global Ocean Models and Observations: Results From Mesoscale to Internal Wave Frequencies

Statistical Comparisons of Temperature Variance and Kinetic Energy in Global Ocean Models and Observations: Results From Mesoscale to Internal Wave Frequencies
复制标题

DOI:
10.1029/2019jc015306
复制
发表时间:
2020-05
期刊:
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
C. A. Luecke;B. Arbic;J. Richman;J. Shriver;M. Alford;Joseph K. Ansong;Steven L. Bassette;M. Buijsman;D. Menemenlis;R. Scott;Patrick G. Timko;Gunnar Voet;A. Wallcraft;L. Zamudio
C. A. Luecke;B. Arbic;J. Richman;J. Shriver;M. Alford;Joseph K. Ansong;Steven L. Bassette;M. Buijsman;D. Menemenlis;R. Scott;Patrick G. Timko;Gunnar Voet;A. Wallcraft;L. Zamudio
中科院分区:
其他
文献类型:
--
作者:
C. A. Luecke;B. Arbic;J. Richman;J. Shriver;M. Alford;Joseph K. Ansong;Steven L. Bassette;M. Buijsman;D. Menemenlis;R. Scott;Patrick G. Timko;Gunnar Voet;A. Wallcraft;L. Zamudio

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

混合坐标海洋模式两个全球模拟的温度方差和动能(KE)(HYCOM; 1/12 ℃和1/25 ℃)和马萨诸塞州理工学院大气环流模式的三个全球模拟(MITgcm; 1/12毫巴、1/24毫巴和1/48毫巴),都是由大气场和天文潮位强迫的,的温度方差和KE从数据库中的约2,000个系泊的历史观测(MHO)进行了比较。方差计算范围从潮上,占主导地位的内部重力波连续,潮下,占主导地位的电流和中尺度涡的频率。HYCOM和MITgcm之间以及不同分辨率的模拟之间最重要的质的区别在于潮上层带,其中1/48 μ MITgcm最接近观测。在所有的频带检查,HYCOM模拟显示更高的空间相关性与MHO比MITgcm模拟。在许多特定的大陆边缘/边缘海区,HYCOM模拟中的潮上速度、半日速度和周日速度也比MITgcm模拟与观测结果更接近。为了补充模式MHO的比较,本文还比较了HYCOM,MITgcm和网格卫星高度计产品的表面海洋地转涡KE。与模型MHO比较一致,HYCOM模拟与高度计产品的空间相关性高于MITgcm模拟。另一方面,在HYCOM模拟中,相对于高度计产品,表层海洋地转涡KE太大。
Temperature variance and kinetic energy (KE) from two global simulations of the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM; 1/12◦ and 1/25◦) and three global simulations of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model (MITgcm; 1/12◦, 1/24◦, and 1/48◦), all of which are forced by atmospheric fields and the astronomical tidal potential, are compared with temperature variance and KE from a database of about 2,000 moored historical observations (MHOs). The variances are computed across frequencies ranging from supertidal, dominated by the internal gravity wave continuum, to subtidal, dominated by currents and mesoscale eddies. The most important qualitative difference between HYCOM and MITgcm, and between simulations of different resolutions, is in the supertidal band, where the 1/48◦ MITgcm lies closest to observations. Across all frequency bands examined, the HYCOM simulations display higher spatial correlation with the MHO than do the MITgcm simulations. The supertidal, semidiurnal, and diurnal velocities in the HYCOM simulations also compare more closely with observations than do the MITgcm simulations in a number of specific continental margin/marginal sea regions. To complement the model-MHO comparisons, this paper also compares the surface ocean geostrophic eddy KE in HYCOM, MITgcm, and a gridded satellite altimeter product. Consistent with the model-MHO comparisons, the HYCOM simulations have a higher spatial correlation with the altimeter product than the MITgcm simulations do. On the other hand, the surface ocean geostrophic eddy KE is too large, relative to the altimeter product, in the HYCOM simulations.