1. Dr. Robin Robertson School of PEMS UNSW@ADFA Canberra, Australia Vertical Mixing from ROMS: Spectral Response of Velocities

2. Indonesian Throughflow Domain Transects

3. Elevation Fields Rms differences: M 2 7.6 cm S 2 5.8 cm K 1 11.7cm O 1 8.8 cm With site 8 excluded

4. Isotherm Fluctuations

5. Vertical Mixing Internal Waves are a significant mixing mechanism –3.2 TW (TW=10 12 W) [Garrett, 2003] Interest in estimates of vertical mixing Measurements –Difficult and expensive –Small scale –Episodic From Models –Depends on the parameterization used

6. Vertical Mixing Parameterizations In ROMS Many available in Roms –Mellor-Yamada 2.5 level turbulence closure (MY2.5) –Kpp – Large-McWillamns-Doney (LMD) –Brunt-Väisälä Frequency Based (BVF) –Pacanowski-Philander (PP) –General Ocean Mixing (GOM) –Generic Length Scale (GLS)  -   -   -  l generic

7. Evaluated the Performance of these Mixing Parameterizations Internal Tidal model for Fieberling Guyot Accessible data set for both velocities and dissipation Good agreement for major axes of semidiurnal tidal ellipses between model estimates and observations

8. Domain

9. Comparison to Observations: Observations Model Results rms: 7.1 cm s -1 rms: 6.5 cm s -1 rms: 3.7 cm s -1

10. Baroclinic Tides

11. Velocity Dependence: Vertical Mixing Parameterization

12. Diffusivity of Momentum: Vertical Mixing Parameterization

13. Vertical Diffusivities Averaged over the Region MY25* 1.1x10 -4 m 2 s -1 GOM 7.0x10 -5 m 2 s -1 BVF 3.4x10 -3 m 2 s -1 LMD* 1.9x10 -4 m 2 s -1 LMD-SCCW 1.7x10 -4 m 2 s -1 PP 4.8x10 -5 m 2 s -1 GLS- kkl 1.7x10 -3 m 2 s -1 GLS- k  1.7x10 -3 m 2 s -1 GLS- k  * 9.9x10 -5 m 2 s -1 GLS- gen* 8.9x10 -5 m 2 s -1

14. Is there really no difference in the velocities? Maybe the tidal frequencies aren’t the place to look Vertical mixing transfers energy from tides to high frequencies, especially harmonics

15. Spectral Response Background Location Follows Garrett- Munk spectra (N=5 cph)

16. Leads to 2 questions Why do the spectra follow Garrett-Munk? Which one is the best performer?

17. Garrett-Munk and Vertical Diffusion Vertical Diffusion plays a big role in spectral shape Is not responsible for the transfer of energy between frequencies or energy cascade Does remove the higher frequency energy Background location Black – with vertical diffusion Red – without vertical diffusion

18. What about Higher Frequencies? Diurnal and Semidiurnal tidal peaks clearly visible 0.04 hr-1 (24 hr) 0.08 hr-1 (12 hr) GOM has increased energy at highest frequency (midlevel)

19. Focusing on Higher Frequencies Internal Wave Generation Site

20. Normalizing by MY25 Internal Wave Generation Site

21. Focusing on Higher Frequencies Background Site

22. Normalizing by MY25 Background Site

23. Observations Correlation between high vertical diffusivity and low spectral energy GOM showed enhanced energy at high frequencies; exceeded the 95% confidence PP shows very weak vertical diffusivity BVF, GLS-kkl, and GLS-  have high average K M MY25 has bump in energy at high frequency end Differences at tidal frequencies are small Differences occur in high frequencies.

24. Summary All 10 vertical mixing schemes generated spectra roughly following G-M –Believed to be due to non-linear interactions and the vertical mixing parameterization No answer as to which is “best” Best performers are: GLS- , GLS-gen then MY25, LMD –Based on matching tidal velocities Dissipation: both with depth and area average Spectral response

25. The End: Time for Discussion