4.4 Article

Modeling coastal current transport in the Gulf of Maine

Journal

DEEP-SEA RESEARCH PART II-TOPICAL STUDIES IN OCEANOGRAPHY
Volume 52, Issue 19-21, Pages 2430-2449

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2005.06.024

Keywords

Gulf of Maine; river plumes; buoyancy driven flow; numerical model skill

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A numerical simulation of the circulation in the Gulf of Maine is compared with observations taken during the spring and summer of 1994, focusing on two distinct coastal current systems. The eastern Maine coastal current is well mixed out to approximately 50 m depth, with the influence of tidal mixing extending to 100 m depth. In contrast, the western Maine coastal current consists mainly of a surface-trapped plume emanating from the Kennebec River. Various methods of model/data comparison are discussed, ranging from qualitative comparisons of surface temperature and currents to quantitative measurements of model skill. In particular, one primary metric of comparison is the amount and distribution of fresh water carried within the coastal current systems. In both coastal current systems, fresh-water flux has an approximately self-similar structure so that measurements taken at a single mooring location may be extrapolated to estimate the entire along-shore fresh-water flux. This self-similar structure is shown to be internally consistent within the model, and results in good model/data comparisons. The model has more skill at predicting fresh-water flux than other point-to-point surface property comparisons in all cases except surface salinity in the western Maine coastal current. This suggests fresh-water flux is a robust feature in the model, and a suitable metric for gauging the model ability to reproduce the broad-scale transport of the Maine coastal current system. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available