1. Physical Oceanographic Observations and Models in Support of the WFS HyCODE College of Marine Science University of South Florida St. Petersburg, FL HyCode P.I. Mtg Miami, FL., 1/16/03 Robert Weisberg With R. He, L. Zheng, J. Virmani, Y. Liu, S. Lichtenwalner

2. Approach A Coordinated Program of: 1) In-situ Measurements: (Sea level, Currents, Winds, Surface heat fluxes, Rivers, Temperature, Salinity, Nutrients, Primary productivity and other biological indicators) and 2) Models: (Ocean Circulation and Ecology)

3. OUTLINE A) Anomalous properties in 1998 B) New modeling directions C) HyCODE examples D) Seasonal and Interannual variability E) 2001 simulations

4. Inter-annual Variability in the current fields (1998 vs. 1999) (1998 vs. 1999) NOAA Buoy FSU USF What are the reasons for such distinctive difference? Unidirectional SE current

5. Spring mean wind fields Inter-annual variability in the local wind forcing

6. Up and Downwelling sequence at the DeSoto Canyon Transect

7. Type 1 June 2000 Loop Current Loop Current 25 o N Loop Current Loop Current Track 26 Type 2 Hetland R.D. et al, A Loop Current induced jet along the edge of west Florida shelf, Geophys. Res. Lett. 1999 (1) (2) (3) (4) 10 years Time series of Topex/Poseidon Data October 1996 – February, 1997 (1) October 1996 – February, 1997 (2) June 1997 – November 1997 (3) March 1998 – July 1998 (4) September 1998 – November 1998

8. As the Loop Current case study, we define Sea Level distribution at the boundary west of Florida Keys Loop Current Loop Current

10. Local forcing only Local forcing + LC

11. Cold, nutrient-rich water upwells onto the shelf by the combined effects of local and LC forcing. Bottom Ekman layer currents transport these waters to the coast. 18º (A) (B)

12. Lagrangian trajectories for near bottom, neutrally buoyant particles released on the 50m and 100m isobaths in summer 1998

13. Fall 1998 currents (no LC)Fall 1998 currents (LC)

14. No LCLC Fall 1998 Near Bottom Drifter Trajectories

15. Summary (Science) 1. WFS currents result from local and deep-ocean forcing. 2. Deep-ocean forcing sets the height of material isopleths at the shelf-break. 3. Local forcing drives offshore properties onto the shelf. 4. Local and deep-ocean effects distribute materials across-shelf via the surface and bottom Ekman layers. 5. The bottom Ekman layer is the conduit for the across- shelf transport of nutrient rich deep waters upwelled at the shelf-break. 6. Inter-annual variations in local and deep-ocean forcing cause inter-annual variations in WFS ecology.

16. B) New modeling directions B1. Larger domain for improved offshore forcing. B2. Higher resolution for estuary/shelf interactions.

19. Initial Model Grid for the WFS Horizontal Resolution 150 m~35 km 11 sigma layers

20. Tampa Bay Charlotte Harbor Zoom view of Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, and the inner-shelf

21. C) HyCODE examples

23. Vertical Velocity at mid-depth on 05/15/98 Vertical Velocity along Sarasota Transect on 05/15/98

26. D) Seasonal and Interannual variability

30. Influence by the Loop Current 1998:remote 1999:little to none 2000:local 2001:remote

31. E) 2001 simulations E1. Model and data kinematics E2. Model and data dynamics

32. Model/Data Comparison at EC3 March -May 2001

35. E) Bottom line E1. Given adequate data for gauging model veracity, presently available models can reproduce observations, and more importantly for the correct reasons. E2. The limitations are more with the boundary conditions, i.e., model forcing functions, than with the models. E3. Therefore, the data are of paramount importance, and ocean models must be supported by adequate atmosphere models.