2018
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28554-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of fine-scale parameterizations at low latitudes of the North Pacific

Abstract: Fine-scale parameterizations based on shear and stratification are widely used to study the intensity and spatial distribution of turbulent diapycnal mixing in the ocean. Two well-known fine-scale parameterizations, Gregg–Henyey–Polzin (GHP) parameterization and MacKinnon–Gregg (MG) parameterization, are assessed with the full-depth microstructure data obtained in the North Pacific. The GHP parameterization commonly used in the open ocean succeeds in reproducing the dissipation rates over smooth topography but… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
12
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, the estimates seem to underpredict bottom‐intensified dissipation above rough or steep topography. This assessment concurs with recent studies reporting underestimated dissipation by the finestructure method in regions of rough topography or strong forcing (Bouruet‐Aubertot et al, ; Liang et al, ; Thurnherr et al, ). The identified low bias is not expected to be universal, however, as it depends on implementation choices of the method and regional processes at play (Hibiya et al, ; Kunze & Lien, ; Takahashi & Hibiya, ; Waterman et al, ).…”
Section: Comparison To Microstructure and Finestructure Observationssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In particular, the estimates seem to underpredict bottom‐intensified dissipation above rough or steep topography. This assessment concurs with recent studies reporting underestimated dissipation by the finestructure method in regions of rough topography or strong forcing (Bouruet‐Aubertot et al, ; Liang et al, ; Thurnherr et al, ). The identified low bias is not expected to be universal, however, as it depends on implementation choices of the method and regional processes at play (Hibiya et al, ; Kunze & Lien, ; Takahashi & Hibiya, ; Waterman et al, ).…”
Section: Comparison To Microstructure and Finestructure Observationssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In particular, the estimates seem to underpredict bottom-intensified dissipation above rough or steep topography. This assessment concurs with recent studies reporting underestimated dissipation by the finestructure method in regions of rough topography or strong forcing (Bouruet-Aubertot et al, 2018a;Liang et al, 2018;Thurnherr et al, 2015). The identified low bias is not expected to be universal, however, as it depends on implementation choices of the method and regional processes at play (Hibiya et al, 2012;Kunze & Lien, 2019;Takahashi & Hibiya, 2019;Waterman et al, 2014).…”
Section: 1029/2020ms002065supporting
confidence: 90%
“…For smaller rates of conversion (shadowed area), observed dissipation exceeds the theoretical estimate, which suggests that turbulence in those areas is predominantly fuelled by other local (e.g., wind-driven) or non-local (e.g., far-field dissipation of low-mode internal tides 11 ) processes. Note that in regions of rough topography, the finescale parameterisation may lose accuracy 42 and so could be unsuitable to examine near-field dissipation.
Fig. 6Two-dimensional histogram and scatter plot of observed energy dissipation vs. estimate of tidal energy dissipation.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%