SW _argos = (x - Z_SW) * MV / cal-sw where Z_SW = 4.0 ...... Marine Resources Information Center. Building E38- ... 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway. Miami, FL ...
~ol
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
WHOI-99-15
'! ~ :: c:r c: ~VlOGIl~
.. ~C' d' ~ i-; : :: ~
Technical Report December 1999
1930
Coastal Mixing and Optics Experiment
Moored Array Data Report by
Nancy Galbraith Albert Plueddemann Steven Lentz
Steven Anderson Mark Baumgartner James Edson
December 1999
~ L
b~
ßi~
Upper Ocean Processes Group Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
UOP Technical Report 99-03
WHOI-99-15 UOP 99-03
Coastal Mixing and Optics Experiment Moored Array Data Report by N aney Galbraith
Albert Plueddemann Steven Lentz Steven Anderson,
DATA LIBRARY Woods Hole 0
ceanographic Institution
~ark Baumgartner James Edson
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 December 1999
Technical Report Funding was provided by the Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014-95-1-0339.
Reproduction in whole or in part is permtted for any purpose of the United States Government. This report should be cited as Woods Hole Oceanog. Inst. Tech. Rept., WHOI-99-15.
-
Approved for public release; distrbution unlimited.
Approved for Distribution: c(
o
I" c(
Õ c( : rr
s:-- 0 :: 0 ai
~ ,.o rr
o o
--1 . ~. CA ~Vl /I
Terrence M. 0 ce, Chair
Department of Physical Oceanography
Abstract To investigate vertical mixing processes influencing the evolution of the
stratification over continental shelves a moored aray was deployed on the New England shelf
the Office of
from August 1996 to June 1997 as par of
Naval Research's Coastal
Mixing and Optics program. The aray consisted of four mid-shelf sites instrmented to measure oceanic (curents, temperature, salinity, pressure, and surface gravity wave
spectra) and meteorological (winds, surface heat flux, precipitation) varables. This
report presents a description of the moored aray, a summar of the data processing, and statistics and time-series plots summarzing the data. A report on the mooring recovery cruise and a summar of shipboard CTD surveys taken during the mooring deployment
are also included.
11
Table of Contents Page No.
Abstract............. .................................... ............................................. .... ii Table of Contents..................... ..... ...... ................................. .... ............ iii
List of Figures................... .......... .... ................................................ ....... iv List of Tables....................... ................. ..................................... ............. vi 1. Introduction............................................................................... ........ ..... 1
2. The Moored Array and Instrumentation............................................. 4 3. Data Processing Summary.................. ... .............................................. 27 3.1 Wind Direction ............ ........... ............ .......... ......... ............ ........... 27
3.2 Wind Speed .. ...................... ....... .................................................... 29 3.3 Air Temperature. ......... .................. ................................. ..... ......... 30 3.4 Barometric Pressure.... ............ ..................... .......... ....................... 31 3.5 Incoming Longwave Radiation ..................................................... 32 3.6 Relative Humidity...... .................. ... ....... ..... ............. .......... ........... 32 3.7 Sea Surface Temperature ............................................................. 33 3.8 Precipitation ...... ...... ......... ...................... ,..................... ..... ........ .... 33 3.9 Incoming Shortwave Radiation .................................................... 34 3.1 0 Water Temperature..... ....... ........... ............. ............ ...... ........ .......... 35
3.11 Current Meter Velocity............. ..... .............................. ................ 39 3.12 Conductivity and Salinity.................. ....... ............ ......... ....... ......... 43 3.13 Pressure..... ................. ............... .............. ..................... ....... .......... 52 3.14 Surface Waves............... .............. .................... ......... ..... ...... ..... ...... 52
3.15 ADCP Velocity... ........... ......... ......... .................. ... ............. ............ 59 4. Data Presentation ..... .............................. ................. ....... ................ ...... 62
4.1 Surface Forcing ........... ............. .............................. ...... ............ ..... 63 4.2 Water Temperature.. .................. ....................... ........ ..... ....... ... ...... 81
4.3 Salinity.. ................ ........................................ ..... .............. ............. 99 4.4 Bottom Pressure ............. ........... .................. .... ....... ....... .......... .... 112
4.5 Water Velocity ............................................................................118
5. Mooring Recovery Cruise Report.................................................... 141 6. CTD Sections ... .... ......... .............. .... ....................................... ......... .... 146 Acknowledgments.. .............. ......... .... ......... ............ ....... ... ......... ..... .............. 146 Bibliography....... ......... .... ..................... ..... ....... ................ .......................... 156
11
List of Figures
Page No.
1.1. Site Map.............. ......................... ............... ....... ..... ...... .... ....... .............. 2 1.2. Mooring Schematics........... ......................... ............ .............................. 3 2.1-2.2 Central site plans. ... ............................. .............. ................................. 5-6
2.3 Inshore site plan.................................. .... ........................................ ...... 7
2.4 Offshore site plan........ ................. ........ ........................ ......................... 8 2.5 Alongshore site plan. ........ .... ..... ........................ .... .......................... ..... 9 16-19 20-21 2.10-2.11 Mooring Diagrams, Inshore Site Moorings........................ 2.12-2.13 Mooring Diagrams, Offshore Site Moorings .....................22-23 24-25 2.14-2.15 Mooring Diagrams, Alongshore Site Moorings................. 2.16 Mooring Diagram, Guard Buoy....................................................... 26
2.6-2.9 Mooring Diagrams, Central Site Moorings........................
4.1.1 Surface Forcing Data Return, Central Site....................................... 64 67-68 4.1.2-4.1.3 Meteorology time series, Central Site................................
4.1.4-4.1.5 Air-Sea Flux time series, Central Site ................................ 69-70 4.1.6-4.1.7 Surface Waves time series, Central Site............................. 71-72 4.1.8-4.1.9 Meteorology time series, Inshore Site................................ 73-74
4.1.10-4.1.11 Meteorology time series, Offshore Site.............................. 75-76 4.1.12-4.1.13 Meteorology time series, Alongshore Site .........................77-78 4.1.14 Autospectra of meteorological parameters at Central Site............... 79 4.1.15 Autospectra of air-sea flux parameters at Central Site..................... 80
4.2.1-4.1.4 Water Temperature Data Return ........................................82-85 4.2.5-4.2.8 Temperature time series, Central Site ................................88-91 4.2.9-4.2.10 Temperature time series, Inshore Site ...............................92-93 4.2.11-4.2.12 Temperature time series, Offshore Site.............................. 94-95 4.2.13-4.2.14 Temperature time series, Alongshore Site ........................96-97 4.2.15 Autospectra of temperatures at Central Site..................................... 98
4.3.1-4.3.2 Salinity Data Return ....................................................... 100- 101 4.3.3-4.3.4 Salinity time series, Central Site .................................... 103-104 4.3.5-4.3.6 Salinity time series, Inshore Site .................................... 105-106 4.3.7-4.3.8 Salinity time series, Offshore Site.................................. 107-108 4.3.9-4.3.10 Salinity time series, Alongshore Site ............................ 109-110 4.3.11 Autospectra of salinity at Central Site............................................ 111
4.4.1 Bottom Pressure Data Return ........................................................ 113 4.4.2-4.4.3 Bottom Pressure time series ...........................................115-116 4.4.4 Autospectra of Bottom Pressure..................................................... 117 119-120 4.5.1-4.5.2 Water Velocity Data Return........................................... 125-128 4.53-4.5.6 Water Velocity time series, Central Site........................ 129-131 4.5.7.-4.5.9 Water Velocity time series, Inshore Site........................ 132-134 4.5.10-4.5.12 Water Velocity time series, Offshore Site.....................
4.5.13-4.5.14 Water Velocity time series, Alongshore Site .................135-136
iv
Page No.
4.5.15 Progressive vectors from selected current meters at Central Site ........137 4.5.16-4.5.18 Autospectra of Water Velocities ..........................................138-140 6.1
6.2-6.4 6.5 6.6.
6.7-6.9
CTD Locations............ ............................. .......... .................. ...... .......... 147 148-150 Cross-shelf CTD Sections, deployment cruise.............................. Cross-shelf CTD Section, Ledwell cruise ............................................ 151
Cross-shelf CTD Section, Pickar cruise ............................................ 152 Cross-shelf CTD Sections, recovery cruise ..................................153-155
v
List of Tables
Page No.
2.1. Mooring Deployments and Recoveries ........................................... 10 2.2-2.6 Instrumentation Summares........... .............................................. 11-15 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2.1 3.3.1 3.14.1 3.14.2 3.14.3 3.14.4 3.14.5 3.14.6
Offsets between wind direction measurements................................ 27 Wind direction sources by date .................. ............................ .... ...... 28 VOS, RUC, and A WR comparson.................................................. 29
Wind direction data sources ............................................................. 30 Air Temperature comparson ........................................................... 30 Seatex Data Dates.. ... ....................... ............................................. .... 53 Recorded Wave Parameters .......................................................54-55 Wave Data Gaps...... ............. .............. ............................ .................. 56 Seatex compass correction evaluation.............................................. 57 Comparson of Seatex and NDBC buoy data................................... 59
Non-directional wave parameter sources ......................................... 59
4.1.1 Surface Forcing Statistics ........................... .............. .... ........ .... ........ 65 4.1.2. Surface Wave Statistics.. ..... .......... ......... ..... ......................... ............ 66 4.2.1. Temperature Statistics............. ........ ..................................... .......86-87
4.3.1. Salinity Statistics ........... ....................... ...... ............................. ..... 102 4.4.1. Pressure Statistics ....... ......... ....... ............. ..... ....... .......................... 114
4.5.1-4.5.2 VMCM Water Velocity Statistics ....................................121-122 4.5.3-4.5.4 ADCP Water Velocity Statistics .......................................123-124
vi
1. Introduction A moored aray was deployed on the New England shelf from August 1996 to June 1997 as par of the Offce of Naval Research's Coastal Mixing and Optics program. The primar
objective of this component of the program is to identify and understand the dominant vertical mixing processes influencing the evolution of stratification on continental shelves. The moored aray consisted of four sites located in the middle of the New England continental shelf, about 100 km south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Figure 1.1).
This site was chosen for several reasons. There is a large seasonal varation in both stratification and atmospheric forcing (Beardsley and Boicour, 1981). In summer, winds are weak, surface heating is strong, and the water column is strongly stratified. In winter, winds are strong, there is often strong cooling at the surface, and the water column is typically unstratified. The shelf at this site is wide, the isobaths at mid shelf are fairly straight, and the bottom is relatively flat and featureless. These factors should simplify interpretation of the observations, by reducing the likelihood of complications associated with complex bathymetry. Previous studies in this region provided a basis for planning and a broader temporal context to the observations from this study. The mid shelf location was chosen as roughly halfway between the the complex bathymetry onshore and the shelfbreak front offshore. The shelfbreak front is a narow region of shar temperature and salinity contrasts separating the fresher, cooler shelf water from the warer, saltier slope water.
The moored aray was deployed from August 1996 to June 1997 to capture the breakdown of the stratification in fall and the redevelopment of the stratification in spring. The moored aray consisted of a heavily instrented Central site on the 70-m isobath and three more lightly
instrmented surrounding sites (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The Inshore site is about 11 km onshore of the Central site in 64 m of water, the Offshore site is about 12.5 km offshore of the Central site in 86 m of water, and the Alongshore site is 14.5 km along-isobath toward the east from the Central site. The separations between sites were chosen so the aray would be coherent but the sites would be far enough apar to resolve subtidal temperature and salinity gradients based on historical data. Temperature, conductivity, and current sensors spanning the water column were deployed on surface/subsurface mooring pairs at each site. The Central site discus buoy also supported a redundant suite of meteorological sensors to estimate wind stress, surface heat flux, and freshwater flux. This included sensors to measure wind speed and direction, air temperature, near-surface water temperature, relative humidity, incoming short and longwave radiation, atmospheric pressure, and precipitation. A sonic anemometer and motion package were also mounted on the buoy to make direct covarance estimates of stress (Marn, 1998). A Seatex Wavescan wave buoy was deployed at the Central site to measure surface gravity wave spectra. An upward-looking fanbeam acoustic Doppler current profier (ADCP) was deployed to monitor the presence of Langmuir circulation. Bottom pressure gauges were deployed on the anchors of the three surrounding sites to estimate pressure gradients. Wind, air temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure sensors were also deployed on the surface buoys at each of the surrounding sites.
1
42°N, i . \~~;~~\) ~~.,~_,~r' ~ T
,tl\t v' i i
\~~, l~' II \d~~~~~~~iJ ~
I
.~~
,,. ~i\i' Iii '-~' " \1(' ",
r ", i
l.\ :'j "', '_"'\"
, ~
; 30" \¿.
\ .~. ',' 'J)
'-
;;.:t:' -;~\'-~'n
40_."
w' í' ;-;( _.; -._"'l~.~~..~~\ ;" . \ ,/ \" _;¡ _'~-: f J"-" ~C-i:i!
'~ 50' ¡;.!, .f:.:i'/j .,.,:,. . .. --.. ;.. , ,. J. ., 60 . ~_--~ .:: -"':. 'r;,"\llr: , 70 '- ".-- "'- .. '-_N ,.. _,f" ;: H. ." .,_.ç_~~tral. -,'.. Alongshore. NDBCr_'--'~-ij
. ., .
~ , ----
j ':: ~..- '-"-~~ _J ~', .i .,'
,., -,
.. .. -, v .
40'
I. ., .~ .. .. t:.=i - J.
-. InshÕ-~~~_ __u" --, \. ..j_~': :.1
"-~.rJ- r 80 20''i'! \., ~ ¡;
~ ¡ :"
.,-.--. .,.-. ..~'m_ ...~-., "'~. '~ \~:1 44~08' 1 0ffsli~" ~'.__..V'i .~'!
100
L,200.
400N 30' u 710W
--'''-
'-"''
\~'" ..~, '
:(1 :
..'011
'---'--3'0'
700W
Figure 1.1. Site Map
2
30'
69°W
Inshore Mooring Site
Coastal Mixing and Optics Moored Array
Central Mooring Site Seatex wave buoy
,\,I ,, II
Om
,I I I I,I\ JI II
10m
,I 'i
11'1 fanbeaml\ 'i Offshore Mooring Site
Alongshore Mooring Site
20m
ADCP 'Ili 'Ili .1
30m 40m SOm
.
60m 70m
T sonic anemometer
\\\\ IIII \\ 11 \\ 11 \\ 11
" "
'f meteorological recorder
I current meter (VMCM) . temperature/conductivity
o temperature - pressure/temperature/conductivity
AOCP
Figure 1.2. Mooring Schematics
3
;;
2. The Moored Array and Instrumentation To avoid losses due to the heavy shipping and fishing activity in this region, subsurface moorings and tripods were surrounded by the surface instrumented mooring and two additional guard buoys within a few hundred meters or less (Figures 2.1-2.5.). This strategy was effecti ve as no moorings were lost to shipping or fishing. At the Central site, bottom tripods and physicallio-optical moorings were also deployed by other investigators. Both the tripods and the bio-optical moorings were recovered and redeployed every 3 months to clean sensors and download data. Consequently the mooring and trpod locations at the Central site changed over the period of the study. The relative locations of the varous moorings and bottom tripods
at different times are shown in Figures 2.1-2.2. The locations, deployment and recovery times for each element of the moored aray are listed
in Table 2.1. Most of the moorings were deployed July 3D-August 3, 1996 and recovered June 10- i 6, 1997, with the following exceptions. A toroid was deployed at the Central site from July 31 to August 3 to compare the wind measurements from the discus and toroid buoys. It was then redeployed at the Alongshore site. The Fan Beam mooring was restricted to a sixmonth deployment because of both memory and power limitations. It was deployed September 27, recovered April 9, and redeployed April 17. The acoustic release on the Inshore surface mooring inexplicably fired on September 18. The mooring was recovered and reset on September 26. The acoustic release on the Alongshore surface mooring slipped in its bracket and released on October 9. It was recovered October 16 and redeployed November 2, 1996. The Seatex mooring failed twice. The first failure occurred September 1 during the passage of hurrcane Edouard. The failure occurred at the connection between the mooring chain and the buoy. The buoy was recovered September 4 and redeployed September 26. The Seatex buoy failed again on Januar 24, this time due to paring of the buoyant surface tether. It was 17 . A guard buoy with a VOS wind sensor was recovered Februar 6 and redeployed April deployed at the Central site April 8 to provide additional wind measurements because of the failure of the VA WR wind sensors. The depths (or heights), serial numbers, and sample rates for each sensor at each site are listed in Tables 2.2-2.6. Detailed mooring diagrams indicating the mooring hardware and the locations of each of the sensors on the moorings are presented in Figures 2.6 through 2.16.
4
CMO central mooring site July 30 - September 27, 1996 Discus buoy at 40° 29.53'N 70° 30.17'W water depth ..70 m
.¡.¡. .;:
-- -- ---- -_.- -_.._- ----
o
'"- - -'"
-800
-200
.-600
o
(m) ~ surface discus buoy i Oregon State University (08U) surface mooring
+ OSU subsurface mooring w/surface spar Â. guard buoy . subsurface mooring
- Seatex Wavescan wave buoy
A bottom tripods
Figure 2.1. Central Site Plan, through September 1996. 5
200
__.__d.d.. -200
A ~----~- --- -~-- -- ~--- --r-'- _. - .'r --- --- ~ -----
i' 1+ i I
n.n__n. -400
. ... did.. .. ... d. .... .d ... n.. n I
- _;~ ~ _ ~__~ _ _ _ _~ _ __ _ +_m l_ _ _ _ ~_ u _+_ _ _ ~ n _ _ _ ~ _ _ n.
':"6-oÓ -400 -200 0 200 Distances (m) ~ surface discus buoy
+ UC Santa Barbara subsurface mooring :.." fanbeam ADCP .. guard buoy . subsurface mooring
- Seatex Wavescan wave buoy
A bottom tripods
Figure 2.2. Central Site Plan through July 1997
6
CMO inshore mooring site water depth ..64 m
 "
__e.....200
,
~1\
...... _ :..': -- -. ...
.........0
 "l40 34.90' "
-400
;: VO 27.30'
-200 0 200 Distances (m)
~ surface toroid buoy
Å. guard buoy . subsurface mooring
Figure 2.3. Inshore Site Plan
7
'-200
400
CMO offshore mooring site water depth -86 m
. ..
,
.. m .. ....m . _ _ .~. .. m_..
"
~.m 200
:
1\
mm.....,... m
o
m,mA
- -200
14022.90'1 ~o 32.69'1
-400
-200 0 200 Distances (m)
~ surface toroid buoy
Â. guard buoy . subsurface mooring
Figure 2.4. Offshore Site Plan
8
400
CMO alongshore mooring site water depth -70 m i40 28.60'! 170 20.21 'j
"
'Â. '
200 "
...mm:\__~. .. ~~ ~~:~~:!, 0 "
,,
..
, ...1
, -200
~O 28.40'1
o 20.19j
-400
-200 0 200 Distances (m)
~ surface toroid buoy
, Å guard buoy . subsurface mooring
Figure 2.5. Alongshore Site Plan
9
400
Central Number 1000 1001 1002 1002 1002 1003 1012 1012
Buoy Discus Subsurface Seatex
Long
96-07-30 15:14
97-06-13 13:59 97-06-12 19:17
96-07-30 21:28
96-09-04 21:00
Offstation 96-09-01 18:30
deployment 2
96-09-26 23:39
97-02-06 17:00
deployment 3
97-04-17 04:31
97-06-12 21:26
Offstation 97-01-2421:35 71.0 4029.6 70 30.3
70 30.2 70 30.4
Toroid FanBeam
96-07-31 00: 16
96-08-03 12:18
96-09-27 16:46
97-04-09 14:31
deployment 2
97-04-17 12:52
97-06-12 18:24
70.0 70.0 70.0
Set
Recover
Depth Lat
Long
96-07 -31 13:50 96-07-31 18:38
97-06-16 17:25
40 23.0
70 32.5
97-06-16 12:15
87.0 86.0
4023.0
70 32.7
Set
Recover
Depth Lat
Toroid
96-08-02 14:04
96-09-25 20:25
deployment 2
96-09-26 15: 15
97-06-12 14:50
Subsurface
96-08-02 18:25
97 -06-12 10:32
64.0 63.0
Set
Recover
Depth Lat
96-08-03 15:51
96-10-16 09:15
96-11-02 20:37
97-06-10 15:24
96-08-03 19:39
97 -06- 10 10:42
offstation 96- 10-09 06:00 40 28.5 70.0 70 20.0 40 28.5 69.5 70 20.2
Subsurface
Inshore Number Buoy 1006 1010 1007
Depth Lat 65.0 4029.5 4029.5 70.0
96-07-30 18:32
Offshore Number Buoy Toroid 1004 1005
Recover
Set
40 29.4
70 30.2
4029.5 4029.5
70 30.6 70 30.6
Long offstation 96-09-18 18:50 40 35.0
70 27.5
40 35.0
7027.4
Al hore ongs Number 1008 1008 1009
Buoy Toroid deployment 2
Subsurface
Table 2.1. Mooring Deployments and Recoveries
10
Long
Central Discus
depth (m)
type
sn
-3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4 -3.3 -3.3 -3.3
longwave radiation
28872 -704 28380 -720 25418 -704 28315 -720
-3.1 -3.1
-3.0 -3.0 -2.9 -2.9 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.6 -2.6 1.0 1.5
2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
longwave radiation
shortwave radiation shortwave radiation wind speed wind speed
sonic anemometer precipitation precipitation wind direction wind direction relative humidity relative humidity barometric pressure
barometric pressure relative humidity relative humidity air temperature air temperature sea surface temperature sea surface temperature seacat tension mtr vmcm seacat vmcm seacat vmcm vmcm seacat vmcm seacat-p
704 720 80 001
002 704 704 004 005 46398 -704 50252 -720
037-704 034 -720
5811-704 5812 -720 5101 -720 5115 -704
927 43390 3250 54 1875 001 1877 003 041 1879 51 885
sample rate 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m every 30m
3.75m 3.75m 15m 15m 3.75m 3.75m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 15m 7.5m 25m every 12h 30m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 15m
Table 2.2. Instrumentation Summary, Central Discus; instrument depths, serial numbers and timing.
11
Central Subsurface depth (m)
type
sn
40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5
vmcm seacat vmcm vmcm seacat vmcm seacat vmcm seacat
27 1882 42 43 73 50 72 35 1878
sample rate 7.5m 45s * 7.5m
7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 705m
7.5m 705m
96lO30, then recorded at 7.5minutes until
*Seacat 1882 recorded at 45 seconds until
memory was filed.
Central Toroid (Temporar) depth (m)
tower -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 1.0 2.0 7.0
type WeatherPak wind relati vehumidity air temperature barometric pressure
tpod seacat chlam
sample rate 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 30m 7.5m
sn 648 648 648 648 648 3274 142 126
Table 2.3. Instrumentation Summary, Central Subsurface and Central Toroid; instrument depths, serial numbers and timing.
12
Inshore Toroid depth (m) tower -3.3 -3.0 -3.0 -3.0 1.0
2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
type WeatherPak wind relati veh umidi ty
air temperature barometric pressure tpod seacat vmcm tpod vmcm seacat tpod vmcm
Inshore Subsurface type depth (m) 42.0 47.5 52.5 55.5 57.0 59.5 62.0
vmcm tpod seacat adcp vmcm seacat tidegauge
*Seacat 1874 recorded at 45 seconds until
sample rate 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m
sn 714 714 714 714 714 3830
5m every 15m 5m every 15m
3301 22
30m 7.5m 7.5m 30m 7.5m 7.5m 30m 7.5m
sn
sample rate
28 3271 1874 100 30 1880 46
705m
146 10
4493 45 71
30m 45s* 3m 7.5m 7.5m 5m
961030, then recorded at 7.5minutes until
memory was filed.
Table 2.4. Instrumentation Summary, Inshore Moorings; instrument depths serial numbers and timing.
13
depth (m)
tower -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 1.0 2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0
Offshore Toroid sn
type WeatherPak wind relati vehumidi ty
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
air temperature barometric pressure tpod seacat vmcm tpod vmcm seacat tpod vmcm seacat-p
depth (m)
type
50.5 64.0 69.5 74.5 77.0 79.0 81.5 84.0
seacat vmcm tpod seacat adcp vmcm seacat tidegauge
713 713 713 713 713 3291 141
sample rate 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 30m 7.5m
17
7.5m 30m 7.5m 7.5m 30m 7.5m
884
15m
34 3763 23 1873 3308
Offshore Subsurface sn 1881
40 4428 70 593 002 1876 45
sample rate 45s* 7.5m 30m 7.5m 3m 7.5m 7.5m 5m
*Seacat 1881 recorded at 45 seconds until 961030, then recorded at 7.5minutes until memory was filed.
Table 2.5. Instrumentation Summary, Offshore Moorings; instrument depths, serial numbers and timing.
14
depth (m) tower -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.8 1.0
2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
depth (m)
40.5 50.0 55.5 60.5 65.0 67.5 70.0
type
Alon~shoreToroid sn
WeatherPak wind relativehumidity air temperature barometric pressure tpod seacat vmcm tpod vmcm seacat tpod vmcm
type seacat vmcm tpod seacat vmcm seacat tidegauge
648 648 648 648 648 3274 142 53 3837
samole rate 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 5m every 15m 30m 7.5m 7.5m 30m
55 68
7.5m
3299 24
30m 7.5m
705m
Alon~shoreSubsurface sn 883 12
3833 882 44 144 49
samole rate 15min 7.5m 30m 15min
7.5m 7.5m 5m
Table 2.6. Instrumentation Summary, Alongshore Moorings; instrument depths, serial numbers and timing.
15
- ~ ~~ ~
ll or W ätèh CirCle
3 mete Di Buo with:
~ 3 Knots 1200 Meters I
- High-Freuenc TensoiiAa:eroniie Dai. Lor
. Z Sia Alone Relati.. HumiditylW TempelU'" Sers - 2 Stand Alone Prpitation Sensrs - 1 Sonic Anemometer
Brie wi tw VA WR TlCpcnlurc Se
s-i. Taamde..1I -.lep ArzOl Tna
4. '.5S
i::;tan: Tcmpcnablre
5.OS
SoToaSwtvd 1M.1.K. Al LOt'Ut' 'tMl'MI
I 314" Ca.. VMCMI
TaapcbUucty vdo Tempeta
0.78 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
7.5
0.76 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHIN 10 10.5
TempenEarc Våoty Tempenta
0.35 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
12. IS 15.5
1~'MCMI ISEACATI
0.33 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
0.9 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHIN
13/4" Ca.e VMCMI 2.19 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
Veloc
'"
Temture
"'.5
13/4" Ca.e VMCM I
2. M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
TeapetureCoucvity
is
ISEACATI
3.2 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHA
Vdoåty
30 30.5
Temture
13/4" Cage VM\,M I
2.83 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
TempeturdCoudivity 35
Prere
5 M.314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
NOTE: All Termination Shackles Should be Shot-Peened
TERMINATION CODES
SM. 3/4" SYST. 3 CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE
IÃ BRIDLE: U-Joit" i.. Cb SUdce
SM. 3/4" SYST. 3 CHAIN
\; i" Wcl Lla 314" O- Slucke I' 3/4" Cb Shacke, 711" Wdcl.. Lbi
\: 314" ciia Sbae
10 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
NOTE: Shackes used to -make up thi
70 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHI 70-Meter Lengt should nave the nuts
bows but should be free to rotate.
= e ers (WET WEIGHT
DEPTH 70 M t ~ 5.T.. 5';.01 3.00 Pound~:t~~li~~r.i:~~:Ji~ Anti.Fouling Anclor / :i~~e:
CENTRAL -DISCUS MOORING
c. niPE
DECEEa 6, 199
a.l.7r.." a.l.11l'.'"
n.Dl .10Af"
"
n. a. I -I" w., n... 1-15 J.l"
Figure 2.6. Mooring Diagram, Central Discus
16
i: orWald Cire ~ 3
Knots -126 MeterS
I
TERMINATION CODES t6 3/4" Aador Shcke, S. Pear Rlg.
\J moo ADC Sbadde
ø
(g (9
32 Meters
5/" Aoc Shakl 5/' Pea lUog
1J" AbC 5bacJ
i" Aacb She, SI" Pear Rlg.
II. Aoc Shali
m" AIK Sh 51" Pe. Riag. 11" ADC SbackK
60" Sphere with Argos Transmitter Pamnuter MI!UT,-d
Vdocty
7 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN 40
40
Tcapcta T ......acty Velty T..pe
so
Veloty
55
SG
5s.
Temperatare
~
SEACA T/With
45
~~~Rr~~aE~;l
2.8 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
3.3 M. 31" TRWLR CHAIN 2.5 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
IVMCMI 0.3 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
Tempetanludivtty 57.5
.. 60
Velocty
Tempetu
0.8 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
IVMCMI 0.4 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
T..peCodacYlty 6% 0.7 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN Veloty T..pe
65
6S 0.5 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
T..pòCoacdty
"'.5
ACOUSTIC RELEASE
With Seacat
0.5 M. 31" TRWLER CHAIN
* * This insent rerd one sample ever 45 seonds until October 30, i 996, when it changes
modes and rerds one saple every 7.5 minuie
-....
CENTRAL -SUBSURFACE
C. nJ
MOORING
..1.7F."
..1.1Ir..
==r:,;~~ ....i.Ui-M Figure 2.7. Mooring Diagram, Central Subsurface 17
..,
~ of Watc Circe Chan covere withtygontubingwith 100 "Panther Plast" type 629 floats equally space (2 Floats,
SO M, 318" Trawler
(Ì j KnotS =I 150 Meters I
sere to chain Wi~ and wire clips
30 M. 318" Trawler Chain covere with lygon tubing with 30 "Panther Plat" ty 629 floats equaly space (1 FloatI), seured to c:in with wire and wire clips
20 Meters
TERMA TION CODES If 314" Aiicbo Shackl, 51" Pear RIng.
~ in"AbcSba
Ij 1/" 51" ADCr Sb.cke. ~ ADdor SbddcSJM Pear Rlg.
TOTAL "PANER PLAST" FLOATS REQUIED - 130
48" Sphere
ø
43 M. 31l" TRAWLER CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE SM. 31l" TRWLER CHAIN
DEPT =70 Meters
Q!
Securd to Main Anchor wiih breakiway rigging
'ih~~~')jA1t~ to prevent/ouüng release when moorig is launched
G. Tt DECEER 6.199
SEA TEX
MOORING
Re.,I-S Jai 96
ReyUFeb96 Re.. 3-11 Feb96
Fb Da . 16 Apr 96 FI Rn i . 13 May 96 F.. Rft 2 -:i Ju.7 96
Figure 2.8. Mooring Diagram, Seatex Wavescan
18
~ orWatc Cire ~ 3 Knots =116 Meters I
TERMATION CODES fj sn" Aoc sn" Pear Rl ~ II" AacSISba
30 Meters
~
I" Aalir SbKk SI" P.. Rl 1/" Aac: Sba
(9
II" Aoc SI sn" Pea Rig,
Il"' ADC She
60" Sphere with Fan Bea ADCP and Argos Tratter
ø
30 M. 3/" PROOF COIL CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE 6 M. 3/8" PROOF COIL CHAIN
CENTRAL -Fan Beam Mooring Co ni
::Aii" ari-l'ScM
Figure 2.9. Mooring Diagram, Central Fan Beam
19
.~ norWiiklÇlrce €I 3 Knots =l 180 Metersl Toroid with SurlY. Plug for ext buoyancy, Weather Pack with Argos Telemetr
Bri wltb Set . Tpo aad Baup Argos Traitt
Tpo.t i Me
Par~t~r M~tuurl!d
Veloåty T..po
055 5..5
T..pa
1.2 M. 5nl" SYST. 3 CHAIN
1314" Cae VMCM I
~
10
3.35 M. 51" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 51" SYST. 3 CHAIN
Vdoty
is
Tempere
13/4" Ca~e VMCM I
155
TempetlCoactlty
~
20
4I
T "'pa
2.83 M. 51" SYST. 3 CHAIN
~
25
3.8M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 51" SYST.3 CHAIN
Velty
30
Temptture
13/4" Ca¡e VMCM I
305
5 M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
1,00 Lb Deprer
SM. Sil" SYST. 3 CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE
TERMATION CODES B
3/4" Clla Sba, 7/8 Weklle Ll
3/4"' Cb Sb
5 M. 3/4" SYST.3 CHAIN
e 5 M. 3/4" SYST. 3 CHAIN NOTE: Shackles used to rike up ths
6S-Meter Lengt should have the nuts
:l~~"3 :t~ ~~di: l'~':e ;::e~:s bows, but should be free to rotate
e e
G. nJ
DE" I'" ..1.7r.."
,,-/~~-'=., ""
INSHORE -TOROID MOORING
Jli.2iFcbM
1'Ð-..""" ......I3M.'" "...i-25J...
Figure 2.10. Mooring Diagram, Inshore Toroid
20
I1 orWatc Circ -~ -(ã-:flGotš=l12 Meters I
TERMA nON CODES IG 314" ADCor SIic. 51" Peat' Rig. ~ in" Aac Sbac
CD 38 Meters
5JH Aachor Shac, 51" Pcar RiDK. moo Anebor Sbad
(g
I" Anebor Sh SI Pea Ring.
(9.
taoo ADdr Sii. SI" Pelr Ring, m" ADeor Sb.c.de
ir." AaebOJ Shald
48" Sphere with Argos Trasmitter
~
Pammtltr Mt!IUU"~
Velory
TaDpctul"
Tempere
3 M. 318" TRWLER CHAIN
3.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
ITPODI
Tempetan1Couctly
52
SEACAT/With
(See **Noú Below) ¥f.=::~~bACOUSUc Veloty
ss.s 51
Taa~hle
51.s
TelDpttu.reJCodudl~ity
S9.s
?iiJ-Ntõ~'l~Ji:;r Coil Chain re ODacvity
3.9 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
45-Snd Sapling
in
1.8 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
I Workorse ADCP 0.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
~pU~TIC RELEASE (! ith eacat 0.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN in Tygon Tubing
DEPT = 62 Meters
* TIde Gauge se 10 anchor with breable strps. Chin connect tide gauge to top oC relea.
t
When relea fire and mooring asnds, tie gauge breks Cre Crom anchor.
'1
** Th instrment rerds one saple every 45 sends unti October 30, 1996 when it chnges
modes and rerds one sample every 7.5 minutes
INSHORE -SUBSURFACE
MOORING
G. TU
DE.. 1'l Il 1.1 Fel"
..i.21Fcb"
li Da - 11 Apr_
fIJtl-13Ma" f1ari-UWy"
Figure 2.11. Mooring Diagram, Inshore Subsurface
21
~ orWatc Cire ~lê_3~Knots_=1216_Meters i-_u
Toroid with Surl1! Plug for eic buoyancy, Weather Pack with Argos Telemetry
cilatIMe
Bridle wi Set. Tpo ud Ba.p Arg Traaslltkr
PlJmmt!tt!T Mt!lJ-l:UTi!d Dl!rth M.t!tl!n:
Veloty
Tpo.al I Meta-
1.2 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
455
Tem.petue
I 314" Cage VMCM I
5.05
Tempetu
~
10
3.35 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 5/" SYST.3 CHAIN
Vdoiy
15
Teapcre
1314" Caiie VMCM I
155
2. M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
TempeCouc:\'lly
20
ISEACATI
l)
II
is
Tempeture
3.8M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
Velocty
30
TempeEure
1314" Cage VMCM I
305
2. M. 5/8" SYST. 3 CHA IN
TempcturciCodudlYity 3S
Pr..'"
5 M. 5/8" SYST. 3 CHAIN
SM 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE
TERMA nON CODES B
314" ChiD. Shale 718 Wcklles Lb
3/4" CI Sb
5 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHAIN
l) 20 M. 314" SYST. 3 CHIN
NOTE: Shackles used to make up ths
75-Meler Lengt shouJd-biive the nuts
:i~~l. ~t~ ~":t; l:':e li=Ji~ i) l)
Go ni
DE ~ I""
..I.IF.. ..:i.iir.." ===r.~:.:: ....1.is"."
S-Toa S.h'd
7~~'
OFFSHORE -TOROID
bows. but should be free to rotate.
MOORING
Figure 2.12. Mooring Diagram, Offshore Toroid
22
. -~-of-Watch-elrcle (g 3 Knots =122 Meters I
TERMINATION CODES tR 3/.... AbC Sha 5/ Pe Ria¡ \; m" AncSUe
ø ~~~::5J"PClrRlIo tOO AacSb51" Par RID¡
Q9 1/" ADOl Sba
(;
47 Meters
8
vr Anc Sh 51" Par R1bL
111" AtJShe
31.... Anduir SbKc. moo Par Rlfi.
3/4" Andor SbKc
48" Sphere with Argos Trannutter 3 M.3Æ"
Paramn" ""~mu"f!d
TcmpctarrCoDCvlty
TRWLER CHAIN
.... 11.8 M. 3Æ" TRWLER CHAIN
Tempeture
Vidodry
.. ....
Tempct1rt
....
IVMCMI 3.4 M.3Æ" TRWLER CHAIN 3.9 M. 3Æ" TRWLER CHAIN
TempctarcCoYCty 7045 0.7 M. 3Æ" TRAWLER CHAIN
tlpwa-Lonc AcoUc
TninsDCtkpt 77
Veloc:Uy795 79 T~N",
u.s M. 3l" TKA WLI!K CHAIN
Ter turdiity '15 3.15 M. 3/" Pr COÜ Qiin in T on Tubin
0.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN in Tygn Tulrng acU'nly S4
DEPT =8 MeterS
~~~ii,~i~i~~~~~,~môtr~_~~~1Sr~~;g~~t~I~~~~~~~~~~~'~if~~~~1:' . Tide Gauge sere to anor with breakable slrps ChaiD connects tie gauge to top of reea. When reea lires and moorig asnds tide gauge breks fre from anor.
.. This instrment rerds one sample every 4S send unti Ocbe 30, 199, when it dige modes and rerd one sample every 7.s miute
C,ttR
OFFSHORE -SUBSURFACE
MOORING
DEER,"I," ""1-1
Fel"
..Z-U..diN
I A.,." "...I.LJJi.," Pi
Ð-.
.i..i.2SJ.l"
Figure 2.13. Mooring Diagram, Offshore Subsurface
23
_______ pianutJr or_~atc Ci~!L €I 3 Knots =1202 Meters I Toroid with Sur)' Plug for extra buoyancy,
Weather Pack with Argos Telemetr
Ptlml!II!T M~4fund 1.2 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
Vdoty Tempe
455
I 314" Caee VMCM I
5.05
Ttmpntare
10
Vdodty
IS
~
3.35 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 5/" SYST. 3 CHAIN Tempeture
155
TempeCoucihlty
13/4" Caee VMCM I
~
:i
~
4D
Te.pcture
2.8 M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
is
308M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
3.46 M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
Velocty
30
Tempeture
30
13/4" Caee VMCM I
5 M. 518" SYST. 3 CHAIN
1,00 Lb Derer
SM. Sil" SYST. 3 CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE
TERMATION CODES B
3/4" aw Sbac.lc. 718" Weldes Lik. 3/4" Chla Sbadd.
5 M. 3/4" SYST. 3 CHAIN (! .
IS M. 3/4" SYST. 3 CHIN
NOTE: Shackes used 10 lIke up this 70-Meter Length should have the nuls 70 M. 3/4" SVliï. 3 CHAIN
.._-/ -.... ALONGSHORE -TOROID G_ Tt ..1-7J'~"
welded 10 the shackle pins. The pins should not be welded to ihe shacke
bows, but should be fre 10 rotate.
MOORING
ac..:Z.2IFcb9l
Fl i- -. Ap"
I'RnI.UM._ ....i.is.."
Figure 2.14. Mooring Diagram, Alongshore Toroid
24
~ or Watc Circe -~ -~-3-Knots-=l-i9-Metersml
TERMATION CODES 'Í 3/4" ADCbo Shakl SI" Pear Rig,
\:m" Aacbor Sba 51" Anch Sbae. 54" Pe:r Rig.
CD
~ 37 Meters
(9
in" ADear Shacke t.. Anchr Sbadde, SI" Pear RIDg. 1100 AIt Sucke moo ADor Sbae, SJ" Pear Rhg.
1/00 ADCor Sbae
48" Sphere with Argos Trasmtter Parameter MI!n!iUrtd
Tempei.turciConductvity
Vdocty
Tempeitl
Tcmpeture
3 M. 318" TRWLER CHAIN 40.5
so
sos
55.5
Lewell Seacal
15 Min. Sampling
7.8 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
ff
3.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
I TPODI
3.9 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN Lewell Seacal
Tcmpcr.rurelCoodudivlty
Vcloctv
Tempe3tuc
15 Min. Sampling
65
65
1.8 M. 318" TRWLER CHAIN
in
0.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN
ACOUSTIC RELEASE With Seacat
~ 0.5 M. 3/" TRWLER CHAIN in Tygon Tubing
* Tide Gauge secure to anehor with breble strps. Chain eonnects tide gauge to top of relea. When relea fires and moonng ascnds tide gauge breaks fre from anchor.
ALONGSHORE -SUBSURFACE G. TUE&
MOORING
DEER ,-1m ~141'ebH
1t1.il Fdt" l-Ð-..." l1ani.isJ.." i' an I -13 Ma,.H
Figure 2.15. Mooring Diagram, Alongshore Subsurface
25
~ ~ -fi
--
'" SURLYN GUARD BUOY
C9
TERMIA nON CODES
~
o 3/4" Chain Shackle, 718" Weldles Link, 1. 5/8" Chain Shackle l' 314" Chain Shackle, 718" Weld
less Lin
V: 314" Chain Shackle
I
"A" Meters 1/2" Trawler Chain
:r :r
TI
Alongshore Moorings
Central Moorings
TWO Offshore Moorings
DEPTH 62
70
70
84
DIMNSION "A" 50
60
60
70
Inshore Moorings WATER
50
SCOPE 1.45 1.43 1.43
1.43
Diaeter of Watc
Circle €l 3 Knots I DIMNSION "B" 108 40 118 40 118 40
140
I eters ~ NOTE: Shackles usd to make up this R iê Lengt should have the nuts
ä \. welded to the shackle pins. The pins
~ -,;--
\: bows, but should be free to rotate rl' 5- Ton Swivel should not be welded to the shackle
\"B" Meters 3/4" Chain Ð
2000LB.AN,FOULING ANCHOR (WET. WEIGHT I
G. Tupper 6 De 95 Rev 1-8 Feb 96 Rev 2-15 Feb 96
GUARD BUOY MOORINGS ( EIGHT MOORINGS ) COASTAL MIING EXPERIMENT
F1 Degn - 8 Apr 96 Fina Rev 1 - 13 May 96
Fina Rev 2 - 2S Jul 96
Figure 2.16. Mooring Diagram, Guard Buoy
26
3. Data Processing Sumary 3.1. Wind Direction The comparson between V A WR 704 and 720 showed an average 10.33 degree offset between the two wind direction measurements. Comparsons with the WeatherPak 648 while the
alongshore buoy was deployed next to the central buoy between 7/31/96 00:00 and 8/3/96 12:00 UTC showed an average offset of -0.70 and -12.82 degrees for the V A WR 704 and 720, respectively. Comparsons of the guard buoy VOS wind with VA WR 704 between 4/18/97
and 5/7/97 showed an average offset of 3.40 degrees. All of the comparsons are shown in the table below where positive offsets indicate the "other winds" are rotated to the east of the V A WR winds. The comparsons are shown in the order of reliability meaning that the local WP AK 648 and VOS are better comparsons than the other WP AK comparsons since these are not side-by-side comparsons and some par of the offset may be due to real spatial
varability. Likewise, the comparsons with the numerical weather prediction (NW) model winds are even less reliable and due to the low accuracy of the NDBC wind directions (10 degrees), the NDBC buoy comparson is considered the least reliable. Other Winds WPAK 648 (local) VOS WP AK 648 WPAK 713
WPAK 714 Eta NWP Model RUC NWP Model NDBC Buoy 44008
VAWR 704 -0.70
VAWR 720 -12.82
3.40 -2.18 -9.12 6.63 10.41 12.50 -9.60
-12.40 -19.83 -3.84 2.37 3.80 -19.53
Table 3.1.1. Offsets between wind direction measurements, in degrees
If the model and NDBC buoy comparsons are disregarded, there is a relatively consistent picture of the V A WR 720 wind directions being at least 10 degrees off to the west. The
VA WR 704 wind direction offsets seem to be within or close to the 5.6 degree accuracy of the VAWR. The V A WR 704 wind directions wil be used as the primar wind direction measurement. No
adjustment was made to these winds. During the two periods when the sonic anemometer winds were used to fil gaps in the V A WR 704 record (2/09/97 23:00 - 4/17/97 14:00 UTC and 5/07/97 18:00 end of deployment), the VA WR 704 compass was applied to the sonic wind
direction to get earh-relative wind directions. The V A WR 704 compass failed on 5/12/97 03:30 UTC, however, and the only remaining wind direction measurements at the central site were taken by the VOS on the central guard buoy. These wind directions were patched into the sonic anemometer wind directions so that after 5/12/9703:30 UTC, the wind speeds are from the sonic anemometer and the wind directions are from the VOS. The processing of the sonic and VOS wind directions are discussed below. The central guard buoy was recovered on 6/10/97, so wind directions from 6/10/9720:00 UTC to the end of the deployment 2.75 days
27
were interpolated from the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) modeL. The RUC wind directions were rotated -12.5 degrees to force agreement with the V A WR 704 winds.
Bad values were detected over a 16 hour gap in the sonic anemometer record from 4/7/97 06:45 to 4/7/97 22:45 UTe. This gap was filed with data from the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. The RUC wind components were forced to agree with the surrounding sonic data by adjusting the RUe data so that the slope of the filed values matched the slope of the line between the good points surrounding the gap. This approach preserved the varability in the RUC time series but applies a linearly changing (in time) offset to force agreement at the endpoints of the filed data. The east and north wind components were forced to agree separately and the wind speed and direction were computed from the filed components. The dates and duration of each sensor's contribution to the wind direction time series is summarzed in the following table.
Start Date
End Date
96/07/3015:15
97/02/09 22:45
97/02/09 23 :00
97/04/0706:30
97/04/07 06:45
97/04/07 22:45
97/04/0723:00 97/04/1714:15
97/05/07 17 :45
97/05/07 18:00
97/05/1203:15
97/04/17 14:00
97/05/1203:30 97/06/10 19:45 97/06/1020:00 97/06/13 14:00 Table 3.1.2. Wind Direction sources.
Sensor from which WDIR derived
Days
VAWR 704 Sonic with VA WR 704 compass RUe model fitted at endpoints Sonic with VA WR 704 compass VAWR 704 Sonic with VA WR 704 compass vas rotated -3.40 RUe model rotated -12.5
194.3 56.3 0.7 9.6 20.1
4.4 29.7 2.8
All other missing east and north wind components were linearly interpolated. Wind speeds and directions were computed from the interpolated components.
Sonic Anemometer and VOS Processing The sonic anemometer is in a left-handed coordinate system while V A WR is right-handed. To match the V A WR, the sonic wind was rotated 60 degrees west of north and then the sign of the
north component was reversed. Since the sonic anemometer has no compass, the VA WR 704 compass is used to get earh-
relative coordinates. When the buoy fin is facing north, the V A WR compass reads -183 degrees. When the sonic wind blows toward the buoy fin, the sonic wind direction is -180 degrees relative to the buoy. The offset between the two is therefore -3.0 degrees (compass + sonic wind direction + offset = 0.0 (north)). The magnetic varation applied to the compass is-
15.417. The sonic winds are rotated an additional 7.3 degrees to force agreement with the VA WR wind directions. Agreement was forced since the sonic winds were used to fil gaps in the V A WR wind record. The rotation, then, is as follows: Sonic wind direction = Sonic direction relative to the buoy + V A WR compass
+ offset between sonic and compass (-3.0) + magnetic variation (-15.417) + forced offset (7.3)
28
From
5/12/97 3:30 UTC to the end ofthe deployment, the VA WR 704 compass malfunctioned.
This leaves good wind speeds from the sonic anemometer, but no wind directions. Wind directions from the guard buoy VOS anemometer were used to fil this gap. The VOS winds were rotated by 3.40 degrees east of north to force agreement with the V A WR 704 when both
were sampling simultaneously (4/17/97 17: 14 - 5/7/97 17 :45 UTC). The VOS anemometer was deployed until 6/10/97 10:21 UTC, so no wind directions for the last few days of the central mooring deployment are available.
A problem was detected in the VOS vane encoder on recovery, makng the VOS wind directions suspect. However, it is unknown when the vane encoder began to malfunction. To check this, the VOS wind directions were compared to the V A WR 704 during the time when
they were functioning simultaneously. This comparson suggests that while there is a mean offset of 3.40 degrees between the two sensors, no drft in the VOS wind directions was detected and the VOS replicates the varability seen in the VA WR winds well. Beyond the time that the V A WR compass failed (after 5/12/97), the only comparson possible
is between the VOS winds and those of the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. This comparson suggests that despite a bias in the directions, there is no appreciable drft. The VOS and the RUC varability match well and the correlation coefficient and the standard deviation of the difference between the two are quite similar to what was reported in the CMO atmospheric model technical report for the V A WR:
Comparson
Star
End
VAWR vsRUC VOS vs RUC
96/8/01 97/4/09
97/2/01 97/6/09
Correlation Coefficient 0.924 0.939
Standard Deviation 43.24 40.46
Table 3.1.3. VOS, RUe, and A WR comparison.
3.2. Wind Speed VA WR 704 and 720 comparson showed that up until the 720 winds failed around 1/1/97, the
704 wind speeds were only 2.1 % higher than the 720 speeds. Edson's sonic anemometer agreed very well with the 704 wind speeds - sonic winds were only 1.6% lower than the 704 wind speeds. Considering that the V A WR cups should overestimate winds by about 5%, the
good agreement between the sonic and V A WR lends more credibility to the accuracy of the V A WR winds. The close agreement between the two V A WRs and the sonic anemometer
suggest that the V A WR 704 wind speeds are accurate. The V A WR 704 winds wil be used as the primar wind measurement. No adjustment to the V A WR 704 winds was necessar. The VA WR 704 winds failed on 2/9/97 23:00 UTC. The
cups were replaced and good data began again on 4/17/97 17:14 UTC, but the winds failed again on 5/7/97 18:00 UTC. The two periods when the V A WR anemometer failed (2/09/97
23:00 - 4/17/97 14:00 UTC and 5/07/97 18:00 - end of deployment) were filed with the sonic anemometer wind speed observations. The sonic winds are measured every 30 minutes, so
29
¿
,::~
~lh
~r-!
linear interpolation was used to match the sonic winds with the 15 minute time base of the VAWR. Bad values were detected over a 16 hour gap in the sonic anemometer record from 4/7/97 06:45 to 4/7/9722:45 UTe. This gap was filed with data from the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. The Rue wind components were forced to agree with the surounding sonic
data by adjusting the RUe data so that the slope of the filed values matched the slope of the line between the good points surrounding the gap. This approach preserved the varability in the RUe time series but applies a linearly changing (in time) offset to force agreement at the endpoints of the filed data. The east and north wind components were forced to agree separately and the wind speed and direction were computed from the filed components. The dates and duration of each sensor's contrbution to the wind direction time series is summarzed in the following table. Star Date
End Date
96/07/30 15: 15 97/02/09 23 :00 97/04/07 06:45
97/02/09 22:45 97/04/07 06:30 97/04/07 22:45
97/04/0723:00 97/04/1714:15
97/04/17 14:00
97/05/07 18:00
97/06/13 14:00
97/05/07 17:45
Days 194.3 56.3 0.7 9.6 20.1 36.8
Sensor from which WSPD derived VAWR 704 Sonic anemometer RUC model fitted at endpoints Sonic anemometer VAWR 704 Sonic anemometer
Table 3.2.1. Sources of Wind Direction
All other missing east and north wind components were linearly interpolated. Wind speeds and directions were computed from the interpolated components.
3.3. Air Temperature The V A WR 720 air temperature failed intermttently and from comparsons with the
standalone and WeatherPak 648 when it was deployed alongside of the central buoy, it looks to be about -0.3°C too low. The V A WR 704 air temperature agrees well with the standalone and the WPak 648 - the mean offsets were 0.017 and -0.022°e, respectively, which are right around the accuracy of 0.02°e. The comparsons are summarzed in the following table where the value is the average of the VA WR subtracted from the standalone or WPak in degrees e.
Comparator Standalone (postcal) WPak 648
VAWR 704 0.017 -0.022
VAWR 720 0.234 0.369
Table 3.3.1. VA WR average subtracted from the standalone or WPak, in degrees C.
A drft is most likely present in the V A WR 704 air temperature beginning in early May 1997 due to a dying battery. This drft was detected in both the VA WR 704 sea temperature and the shortwave radiation. Intercomparsons with WeatherPak 648 and 714 and with the RUe and
Eta NWP models did not conclusively show a drft, however. The comparson with WP AK
30
648 shows no drft at all and since this is probably the most reliable of all the intercomparsons, no action was taken to remedy the suspected drft.
The V A WR 704 air temperature wil be considered the primar air temperature measurement.
No adjustment to this air temperature was necessar. The V A WR 704 tape data ended on
06/02/9700:30, so from 06/02/9700:45 to the end of the deployment (06/13/97 14:00), the air temperature was recovered from the ARGOS data. Gaps in the ARGOS data were linearly interpolated. A 21 hour gap in the V A WR 704 record for air temperature from 5/27/97 15:15 to 5/28/97
1 i :45 UTC was found in both the tape and ARGOS data. This gap was filled with data from the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. The RUC data were forced to agree with the surrounding VA WR data by adjusting the RUC data so that the slope of the filed values
matched the slope of the line between the good points surrounding the gap. This approach preserves the varability in the RUC time series, but applies a linearly changing (in time) offset to force agreement with the V A WR 704 at the endpoints of the filed data.
After filing the large gap between 5/27/97 15:15 and 5/28/97 11:45 UTC, all missing data were linearly interpolated.
3.4. Barometric Pressure The V A WR 704 vs. 720 comparson for barometrc pressure shows that when the points with
bad air temperatures are removed, the agreement between the two is very good (the barometric pressure has an air temperature correction and the V A WR 720 air temperature failed intermttently). The offset between the two V A WRs was 0.171 which is less than the stated accuracy of +/- 0.2 mbar. The V A WR 704 barometric pressure wil be considered the primar pressure measurement.
The VA WR 704 tape data ended on 06/02/97 00:30, so from 06/02/97 00:45 to the end of the
deployment (06/13/97 14:00), the barometrc pressure was recovered from the ARGOS data. Gaps in the ARGOS data were linearly interpolated. A 21 hour gap in the VA WR 704 record for barometrc pressure from 97/05/2715:00 to
97/05/28 12:00 UTC was found in both the tape and ARGOS data. This gap was filed with data from the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. The RUC data were forced to agree with the surrounding VA WR data by adjusting the RUC data so that the slope of the filed values matched the slope of the line between the good points surrounding the gap. This approach preserves the varability in the RUC time series, but applies a linearly changing (in time) offset to force agreement at the endpoints of the filed data. After fillng the large gap between 5/27/97 15:00 and 5/28/97 12:00 UTC, all missing data were linearly interpolated.
31
3.5. Incoming Longwave Radiation Agreement between the V A WR 704 and 720 incoming longwave was quite good - the mean
bias between the two was 3.38 W/m2 with a standard deviation of the difference of only 3.57 W/m2. The V A WR 720 longwave measurement suffered from the same failings as the air and
sea temperatures, so there are large periods of bad data. The VA WR 704 wil be considered the primar longwave radiation measurement. No
adjustment to the longwave was performed. Gaps longer than 65 minutes were filed with a 3 hour local average and gaps longer than 20 minutes were filed with a 1 hour local average. A large gap from 5/27/97 15: 15 - 5/28/97 11 :45 UTC was filed with a 24 hour local average. All other gaps (20 minutes or less) were linearly interpolated.
3.6. Relative Humidity Two standalone RH sensors were deployed, but there was no data from RH 005. The relative humidities recorded by VA WR 704 and 720 had a mean bias relative to one another of 1.23% RH which is within the accuracy of the Vaisala Humicap sensor. The mean biases between the V A WR 704 and standalone instrument 004 (both post- and pre-cal) were within the combined accuracies of each sensor as were the biases between the V A WR 720 and the standalone. The postcalibrated standalone agreed best with the two V A WR sensors during moist conditions, but measured too dr by about -6-7%RH at other times. The VA WR 704
relative humidity time series was the longest, but the instrument failed around 5/8/97 13:00
UTe. The initially processed 704 data used calibration coefficients from 24 October 1994, not the more up to date calibrations for sensor V-037-01 taken on 5 March 1996. R. Payne recomputed linear calibration coefficients from the CMO pre-deployment cal data. This linear
calibration was applied to the data for version 2 of the met data. The differences between the new calibration and the old are relatively small; maximum differences are at low humiditiesat 40% RH the difference is about 1.5%RH. The differences between the pre-callinear and
non-linear calibration curves are even smaller; maximum differences less than 0.5%RH. The VA WR 704 wil be considered the primar relative humidity measurement. No adjustment was necessar. The gap at the end of the time series, from 5/8/97 13: 15 UTC to the end of the deployment,
was filed with data from the RUC numerical weather prediction modeL. These data were adjusted to force agreement with the VA WR 704 relative humidity durng the period before the VA WR 704 sensor failed. The RUC correction was as follows:
Adjusted RUC RH = 0.664436 * RUC RH + 33.6203 Since the RUC data is available hourly, the samples at 15,30 and 45 minutes past the hour were linearly interpolated. There was a significant discontinuity between where the V A WR
704 ended and the RUC data began on 5/8/97 13: 15 UTe. This jump was smoothed over by
32
replacing the V A WR 704 data up to 12 hours previous to 13:15 by a weighted average of the
VA WR and RUC data. The weighted average favored the V A WR 704 data at 01: 15 and
13:15. This was
linearly increased the weight toward favoring the RUC data until
accomplished with the following equation: New RH = VA WR RH + p * (RUC_RH - V A WR_RH)
where p increased in time from 0 (at 01:15) to 1 (at 13:15).
All other missing data were linearly interpolated.
3.7. Sea Surface Temperature The V A WR 720 sea temperature failed intermttently and was measuring considerably lower than the V A WR 704 when reasonable values were obtained. The V A WR 704 sea temperature
agrees well with the instruments just below it. The mean offset between Seacat 927 at 2 m depth and the VA WR 704 sea temperature was -0.0037°C when the comparson was
constrained to points measured between local midnight and sunrse. A similar comparson with MTR 3250 at 4 m depth yielded a mean offset of 0.0002°C. The precals and the postcals for Seacat 927 agreed very well, so these temperatures seem reliable and do not show any evidence of drft. The V A WR 704 sea temperature does show a drft staring in the beginning of May 1997 and continuing almost linearly to the end of the deployment. This drft causes the V A WR 704 sea temperatures to be about 0.03°C too war at the end of the deployment.
The VA WR 704 sea temperature is considered the primar sea temperature measurement. No
offsets were applied to the data, however the drft detected at the beginning of May 1997 was corrected. The adjustment took the form of a 2nd order polynomial and was as follows: V A WR 704 STMP = V A WR 704 STMP + 3.92223530E-03 +
9.63761961E-04 * X + -8.72664811E-06 * X * X where X is the number of days since 5/1/97 00:00 UTC The adjustment was applied to all VA WR 704 sea temperatures on and after 4/27/97 01 :45 UTC (X = -3.9270833).
All missing data from the V A WR 704 sea temperature record were filed with data from Seacat 927. This includes the 21 hour gap from 5/27/97 15:00 to 5/28/97 12:00 UTC.
3.8. Precipitation Two R. M. Young rain gauges with a tattletale data logger designed by B. Way were deployed on the Central discus buoy. These sampled every 3.75 minutes. Note that no heater was used so there may at times have been freezing of water in the gauge reservoir. Data logger BPRC001 flooded but B. Way managed to read the data out of the logger and recover a full data record. Data logger BPRC002 functioned the full time. Pre and post calibrations were conducted on both units. The data from BPRC001 looks good. Pre and post calibrations agree to within 3.5%. There are some spikes in the record in August prior to the first major rain event.
33
Data from BPRC002 looks a bit noisy throughout the record. This noise is most noticeable
with the reservoir in nearly empty (i.e., April 7-12). Pre and post cals agree to within 2%. BPRC001 recorded a net rainfall of 891mm over the deployment. BPRC002 recorded a net rainfall of 697mm over the deployment. (Net is average of post and pre cal timeseries). This is a difference of 25% between the two instruments. This does not appear to be an electronic calibration problem. The records show that BPRC001 fils up and empties faster than BPRC002 (i.e., April 2-May 2). This appears to be consistent for the whole record. Although they both clearly see the same events, BPRC001 was chosen as the CMO rain record since its record was less noisy.
The level was first differenced in time. Any changes that where larger than 10 mm or smaller than -lOmm between 3.75 min samples were set to zero. This would remove the periods when the gauge siphons. Then time series was integrated up again in time to provide a cumulative rainfall record. The cumulative rainfall record was then multiplied by a scaling factor so that the total rainfall at the end of the deployment equals 794 mm. This is the average cumulative amount for BPRC001 and BPRC002 pre and post cal data records using the 10 mm threshold. Remaining precipitation issues:
. No attempt has been made to identify or correct time drfts. . . There are times when the gauges empty between events (i.e., April 1, 1997).
. BPRC001 fils up and empties faster than BPRC002. 3.9. Incoming Shortwave Radiation The V A WR 704 was used as the primar incoming shortwave radiation measurement.
Its shortwave record was processed twice. The Version 2 data were processed with a postrecovery calibration taken on 24 September 1997. This value was 10.89, compared to 10.52
used in Version 1, resulting in a reduction of the incoming shortwave by 3.4%. Using the postcals, V A WR 704 measured only 0.9% lower than the V A WR 720 unit. This difference is well within the 3% accuracy (combined) of the V A WR pyranometers. A mean nighttime bias of 3.33 W/m2 (minimum of 2.60 W/m2) was detected, and an offset of 2.6 W/m2 was removed from the shortwave time series. The same drft detected in the VA WR
704 sea temperature at the end of April and beginning of May 1997 was detected in the nighttime shortwave bias. Since this bias reduce~ the incoming shortwave by, at most, 0.8 W/m2, this drft was ignored. The drft is likely the result of decreasing output from a dying battery on V A WR 704.
The VA WR 704 tape data ended on 97/06/02 00:30, so from 97/06/02 00:45 to the end of the deployment (97/06/13 14:00), the shortwave radiation was recovered from the Argos data. The Argos data was processed with an older version of the shortwave radiation equation:
SW _argos = (x - Z_SW) * MV / cal-sw where Z_SW = 4.0 (from the table fie) 34
whereas the tape data was processes with the following equation: SW _tape = ((x * MVHZ) - Z_SW) / cal_sw where Z_SW = 20.0 (hard-coded). These equations are not equivalent and result in a bias. The tape processing equation is considered the correct version. The correction is as follows:
sw_tape = sw_argos * Co / Cn + (4 * MVHZ - 20) / en where Co is the old calibration coefficient (10.52), used in ARGOS processing Cn is the new calibration coefficient (10.89) and MVHZ is 15.0. This correction was applied to the ARGOS incoming shortwave radiation before it was patched into the V A WR 704 tape data.
All gaps in the V A WR 704 time series were interpolated based on the cloudiness of the
surrounding good points. The cloudiness is defined as the ratio between the observed incoming shortwave radiation and the theoretical incoming shortwave with the atmospheric transmission coeffcient set to 1.0. The cloudiness is linearly interpolated over the gap and the missing shortwave is replaced by the interpolated cloudiness multiplied by the theoretical incoming shortwave. While durng mid-morning and mid-afternoon this interpolation looks linear, it replicates the shape of the theoretical incoming shortwave at sunrse, local noon and sunset. If the pO and pi are the indices of good values before and after a gap, then the algorithm to
interpolate across that gap is as follows: cloudO = srad(pO) / srad_theory(pO) cloudl = srad(pl) / srad_theory(p1) slope = (cloud
1 - cloudO) / float(p1 - pO)
intercept = cloud1 - slope * float(pl) i = (pO + 1) + lindgen(p1 - pO - 1) cloud = slope * float(i) + intercept srad(i) = srad_theory(i) * cloud
; Cloudiness at first good point ; Cloudiness at next good point ; Compute slope ; Compute intercept ; Indices of missing points ; Interpolate cloudiness ; Compute estimated shortwave
When one of the good values was a nighttime value (srad_theory = 0), the cloudiness was estimated from the daytime value and assumed to be constant over the gap. If both values were nighttime values, then the gap was at nighttime and was filed with the averaged of the two surrounding good values. A 21 hour gap in the VA WR 704 record for all sensors from 97/05/27 15:00 - 97/05/28 12:00
UTC was found in both the tape and ARGOS data. This gap was interpolated in a similar manner as discussed above. The interpolated values were estimated using a mean cloudiness from the morning before the gap.
3.10. Water Temperature Processing of temperature was relatively simple because of stable sensors and careful predeployment calibrations. Some instruments stopped recording early, a few required
35
adjustments to calibrations, but the majority of sensors performed well within specs and the temperatures could be used with minimal, standard processing techniques. Notes on processing of Seacats: 1. Seacats were read on a Macintosh using Seabird's PC software, which generated slightly
malformatted .cnv files with bad timing information in headers. These files were converted into EPIC using a customized program called scattofix, which hard-wired the record interval and star time. This program also allowed processing of parial fies using usersupplied times and record number limits, to handle instruments which changed speed during the experiment.
2. Instruments 1874, 1881, and 1882 were configured for fast sampling, running at 45 seconds until 961030, then going to 7.5 seconds. These stopped recording early, ending on 961229.
They were processed in 2 pieces, with fast segment being subsampled back to 450 seconds so they could be merged for further processing. 3. Seacats 882, 883, 884p, and 885p sampled at 15 minutes, and were grdded to 7.5 minutes
for creating the 2D temperature fies, using C program grdepic.
4. Comparson of temperatures from VMCMs, Seacats and Brancker Tpods, plus lab tests of the sample interval timing for VMCMs, resulted in the conclusion that the timing of the Seacats is in error by less than one "standard" sample interval (+/- 3.75 min). Clock drft was not checked, but is assumed to be of order 10 sec/month.
5. The calibration adjustments done to date assure a reasonable degree of self-consistency among T-S measured from all Seacats on a given mooring (e.g., eliminate density inversions, and match T -S from instrments within a well-mixed surface or bottom layer). Independent measures of accuracy (e.g., shipboard CTDs and SeaSoar surveys) have not been considered. Note on Seabird Seagauge: These instruments recorded at 5 minute intervals. Temperature data was grdded to 7.5 minutes using C program grdepic. Grdding rather than filtering was used because Seacats and Seagauges use an instantaneous single sample rather than an average value. Our grdding program uses a table lookup, which should mimic an instrment set up with a slower record rate. Note on Brancker Temperature Recorders (TPODs):
All TPODs recorded at 30 minutes and were grdded to 7.5 minutes for inclusion in 2 dimensional temperature files. They all stopped at 970601 12:00 UTC because of limited internal storage.
Time and VMCMs: Temperature is sampled at the star of the record interval, and the VMCM processing software revision made for handling this dataset assigns that time to each record.
36
3.10.a. Central Site
Central temperatures are available for the period 960730 19:07 to 97061218:22 at 7.5 minutes. There are 60859 records at 21 depth bins from 1.5m to 67.5m.
Star time for Seacats 927, 1875, and 1879 (at 2m, 7.5m, and 25m) was hardwired to 960720 12:00.
No special processing was required for Seacats 927, 1875, 1877, 1879,885, 73, 72, or 1878 (at 2m, 7.5m, 12.5m, 25m, 35m, 57.5m, 62.5m, 67.5m) or for VMCMs 1,3,41,27,42,43,or 35 (at 10m, 15m, 20m, 40m, 50m, 55m, 65m).
MTR 3250 (4m) This instrument recorded at 1800 seconds. Data was grdded to 7.5 minutes for merging with other Central site temperatures. Comparson with the other 3 top bins indicated a bias of .04°C,
which was subtracted from this temperature record.
VMCM 54 (4.5m) This instrument performed poorly. The record was short, 61862 records compared to an average of 64500 for other VMCMs at this site, and there were many tape and clock errors. The temperature data was edited using a window of 0° to 22°C for the whole record. For a 1day period on 970106, temperatures were windowed between 5° and 10°C to remove a single
multi-point spike. 242 temperature values were removed with this 2-par filter. Seacat 1877 (12.5m)
The batteries in this Seacat failed, and the record ends at 97050320:07:30 UTe. VMCM 51 (30m) Temperature was edited using a window of 0° to 22°C for the whole time period, and a narow window from 5° to 10°C to remove a spike on 970106. Seacat 1882 (45m)
This SBE-16 was set up as a fast sampler, see note above. Temperatures began drfting before the battery died, so data was blanked after 96/11/12 15:40 UTC. VMCM 50 (60m) Temperature was windowed between 0° and 15°C for the whole time, and from 5° to 7°C from 970329 to 970401, which removed a total of 18 spikes. 3.10.b. Inshore Site Inshore instruments were deployed during the period 96080219:22 to 970612 09:15. There are
60208 representing this time period and 14 bins of temperature data from 1 to 62 meters. All surface mooring data from the Inshore site were blanked during the off-station period from 960918 18:49 to 960926 16:00.
No special processing other than blanking off-station data was required for TPODs 3830 and 3301 (1m and 25m), for Seacat 146 (2m), or for VMCMs 10,45, or 22 (4.55m, 15m, 30m). No
37
special processing was required for VMCM 28 or 30 (42m, 57m), TPOD 3271 (47.5m), Seacat 1880 (59.5m), and Seagauge 46 (62m). TPOD 4493 (10m) This TPOD stopped recording earlier than the others, and was trncated at 970502 06:00.
Seacat 71 (20m) Data from this SBE-16 ends
early, truncated at 970502 06:00 UTC.
Seacat 1874 (52.5m)
Program editepic was used to de-spike the temperatures from this fast-sampler from 961118 00:00 to 96111904:00.
3.10.c. Offshore Site Temperatures are available from the Offshore site from 960731 20:00 to 970616 10:45. There are 61367 data points at 7.5 minute intervals from 16 depth bins from 1 to 84 meters. After normal processing of each bin, the 2 dimensional Offshore temperature file was edited using IDL to blank bin 10 after 970119 and to replace temperature values lower than 3°C with fil values. No special processing was required for TPODs 3291, 3763 ,3308,4228, (1m, 10m,
25m,
69.5m), for Seacats 141, 1873, 884p, 70, 1876 (2m, 20m, 35m, 74.5m, 81.5m), VMCM s34, 17, 40, 2 (at 4.55m, 30m, 64m, 79m). VMCM 23 (15m) Program Timecheck was used to correct the time base. Editepic was used to correct a single 1
point spike by windowing temperature between 5° and LO°C from 961227 to 961228.
Seacat 1881 (50.5m) Temperatures were windowed between 4.2° and 25°C from 96073119:59 to 97011916:00 to
remove a single-point spike. Seagauge 45 (84m) A bias of .013°C was applied to the temperature to force agreement with the 81.5m Seacat.
3.10.d. Alongshore Site Alongshore temperature data is available for the period from 96080321:30 to 970610 09:37 UTe. There are 59618 data points at 14 depth bins from 1 to 70 meters. The alongshore surace mooring broke free, was recovered and reset, so instrments above 30 meters have
been blank-filed from 961009 06:00 to 961102 21:18 to eliminate offstation data. Data fies from Brancker temperature recorders (Tpods) from this site were exported to a workstation for processing using ftp in binar mode, which left a oeCTRL-M:: character at the end of each line. The files were edited with a shell script to remove the trailing control characters before being run through standard processing. Most Brancker data from this site ends on 970601 00:00 UTe.
38
No special processing was required for Seacat 142, 68,883,882, 144 (2m, 20m, 40.5m, 60.5m, 67.5m), TPOD 3837, 3299, 3833 (10m, 25m,55.5m), VMCM 55,12,44 (l5m,50m, 65m), or Seagauge 9 (70m). TPOD 3274 (lm) This tpod's record ends on 961206. VMCM 53 (4.55m) There were many timing errors in the data from this instrment, especially in the data from the second deployment; however, the temperature sensor performed well. MTR 3242 This instrument, a mini-temperature recorder developed by the Pacific Marne Environmental Lab (PMEL), was clamped to the cage in which VMCM 53 was held. It was meant to provide a spare temperature record in case of any problem with the current meter's temperature, but it was not needed. The data it recorded has not been processed. VMCM 24 This instrument performed very poorly. Because of numerous interval counter errors, data from this current meter was omitted from the site fie.
3.11. VMCM Velocity Standard Processing of VMCMs: All VMCM tapes were read on a NBC 286 PC using standard SeaData Reader software. Files were then run through programs VMCM_cdf, VMCM_cal, and putinepic on a Sun IPC workstation. Timecheck was then run to correct any interval counter errors. Despiking was performed as needed using program editepic, and then fies were merged to produce a single two-dimensional file for each site, using program zmerge. Any re-blanking or final despiking was done with IDL programs. Time and VMCMs: Because of a new understanding of the sampling and recording strategy in the VMCM, these instrments were processed twice. Time is calculated using a reset time and" an interval counter recorded in each scan. The interval counter resets to the value 1, and then increments before writing to tape, so that the counter for the first record written to tape is 2.
The temperature is sampled at the star of the record interval, and the VMCM processing software now assigns that time to each record. This is done by subtracting 1 sample interval from the reset time and then adding the product of the interval counter less 1 and the sample rate. Velocity is sampled over the full record interval, so the time value for the center of the velocity sample can be generated by adding 1/2 sample period to the time word. Data Return: The processing system in use for this experiment does not provide an accurate count of missing records. Data return has been inferred from running a time-checking program,
39
but some interval counter errors are corrected before this step is run. Information is provided here as an indicator of problems, not as an exact count of missing records. 3.ll.a. Central Site
Central site data was truncated to 60861 records between 1996/07/30 19:03 and 1997/06/12
18:33. There were 10 VMCMs at this site, but the velocities from the lowest current meter had to be discarded due to rotor failure. VMCM 54 (4.55m) This instrument performed poorly. The record was short, 61862 points compared to about 64500 for other VMCMs at this site, and there were many tape and clock errors. Timecheck reported 2497 gaps and 8041 records interpolated. Velocities were windowed to +/-100 cmls for the whole time period, which removed 3 spikes. VMCM 1 (10m) This instrument performed well and required no special processing. Timecheck reported 261 gaps and 318 records interpolated. VMCM 3 (15m) This instrument performed exceptionally well and required no special processing. Timecheck program reported 151 gaps and 177 records interpolated.
VMCM 41 (20m) This instrument performed well and required no special processing. Timecheck program reported 252 gaps and 315 records interpolated. VMCM 51 (30m) This instrument performed exceptionally welL. There were 2 spikes in the velocities that were removed using the editepic C program. Timecheck program reported 160 gaps and 193 records interpolated. VMCM 27 (40m) This instrument performed exceptionally well and required no special processing. Timecheck program reported 163 gaps and 197 records interpolated. VMCM 42 (50m) This instrument performed well and required no special processing. Timecheck program reported 232 gaps and 285 records interpolated.
VMCM 43 (55m) This current meter worked fairly welL. There were spikes in the compass, which were left in the record. The instrument slipped in its cage. Timecheck program reported 242 gaps and 286 records interpolated.
40
VMCM 50 (60m) This instrument performed poorly, primarly in terms of interval counter errors. There were 2 spikes in the velocities that were removed using editepic, windowing to +/-100 cmls. Timecheck program reported 499 gaps and 541 records interpolated. VMCM 35 (65m) Rotor 2 did not perform welL. After a close inspection of the rotor data, it was decided that velocities from the entire VMCM 35 record should be discarded. Timecheck program reported 295 gaps and 361 records interpolated. 3.II.b. Inshore Site
Inshore site data was trncated to 60310 records from 1996/08/02 19:22:30 to 1997/06/12
09:30:00. There are 5 VMCMs with good velocitiy data. The surface mooring was adrft for 8 days and was redeployed without stopping the instruments. VMCMs on the surface mooring (10,45,22) were blanked during the period the mooring was adrft, 1996/09/18 18:49 to 1996/09/26 16:00. VMCM 10 (4.55m) This instrment performed well, except that rope in the rotors forced us to discard the velocity data after 1996/12/05. Program timecheck interpolated over 214 records due to interval counter gaps.
VMCM 45 (15m) This instrument performed exceptionally well. Program timecheck interpolated over 148 records due to interval counter gaps. VMCM 22 (30m) This instrument performed exceptionally well. Program timecheck interpolated over 116 records due to interval counter gaps. VMCM 28 (42m) This instrument performed exceptionally well. Program timecheck interpolated over 179 records due to interval counter gaps. VMCM 30 (57m) This instrment performed welL. Program timecheck interpolated over 355 records due to interval counter gaps. 3.l1.c. Offshore Site
Offshore data was truncated to 61368 records from 1996/07/31 20:00 to 1997/06/16 10:52. There are 5 VMCMs of good velocity data from 4.5 to 79 meters. VMCM 34 (4.55m) This instrument performed well. Program timecheck found and repaired 314 gaps, and interpolated 387 records.
41
VMCM 23 (15m) This instrument performed well. Program timecheck found and repaired 147 gaps, and interpolated 175 records.
VMCM 17 (30m) This instrument performed exceptionally well. Editepic was used to window velocities between -100 and 100 cmls after 1996/07/3116:16. Program timecheck found and repaired 153 gaps, and interpolated 178 records.
VMCM 40 (64m) This instrument performed well. Program timecheck found and repaired 319 gaps and interpolated 402 records.
VMCM 002 (79m) This instrument performed exceptionally. Program timecheck found and repaired 202 gaps and interpolated 254 records. 3.ll.d. Alongshore Site
The Alongshore velocities were truncated to 59620 records between 1996/08/0321:30 and 1997/06/1009:52. There were 5 VMCMs deployed, but the 30 meter instrment, the lowest
VMCM on the toroid, performed so poorly that its data has been discarded, leaving 4 VMCMs between 4.5 and 65 meters.
The surface mooring went adrft sometime after an Argos fix at 96/10/0822:38. The mooring was recovered and instrment data was collected before the mooring was reset. Data from the
two deployments was merged and filed with 4751 flag values from 1996/10/08 22:30 to 1996/11/03 00:00, a period that includes all time during which the mooring was adrft. The rotors on the top two VMCMs were fouled with rope after 1996/12/25, so those records are padded with fil values after that point. VMCM 53 (4.55m) There were many timing errors in the record from this instrment, especially in the data from the second deployment. In the 18415 records produced in the first deployment, there were 20
gaps and 23 records interpolated. Durng deployment 2, there were 43961 records written, 150 gaps, and 175 records interpolated. Data was blanked from 1996/10/08 to 1996/11/03 because of the mooring failure, and from 1996/12/25 to the end of the deployment because of rope fouling the rotors. An MTR was strapped to the instrument's cage. VMCM 55 (15m) The compass on this unit malfunctioned, and velocity data had to be blanked staring on
961112. Although velocities looked reasonable throughout the deployments, histograms of compass values showed many 0 values were recorded after this date. In the record for the first deployment, there were 13 gaps and 15 records interpolated. In the second deployment, there were 161 gaps and 197 records interpolated.
42
VMCM 24 (30m) Because of the number of interval errors, the data from this instrument was omitted from the alongshore record. The distribution of interval counter errors made it impossible to reconcile the time base of this data with that of surrounding instrments. Rotor 1 died parway thr deployment 1, and the compass failed on 960901. VMCM 12 (50m) This instrument performed welL. There was a reset at record 221 which required some special time handling. A note on the Curent Meter Operation Information log indicates that the upper hub was intermttently sticky before deployment, but this apparently did not impact velocity
measurement. Program timecheck found 133 gaps and interpolated 162 records. VMCM 44 (65m) This instrment performed welL. Program timecheck found 248 gaps and interpolated over 309
records.
3.12. Conductivity and Salinity The moored conductivity cells typically exhibited offsets and drfts durng the deployment,
presumably due to fouling. This problem was generally small near the surface and more severe closer to the bottom, suggesting it was primarly due to suspended parcles rather than
biofouling. As described below these offsets and drfts were identified and corrected (to the extent possible) by comparsons with adjacent instruments on the same mooring. Salinity was then estimated from the corrected temperature (Section 3.10) and conductivity data following Fofonoff and Millard (1983). 3.12.a. Central Site
Seacat 927 (2.0 m) The conductivities from" Seacat 927 had two problems - a drft and high frequency noise
staring around October 1996.
Filtering was unsuccessful at removing 2-3 day excursions in salinity caused by lower errors in conductivity. As a result, all conductivity measurements after 09/03/96 frequency 11 :00:00 UTC were removed. Seacat 1875 (7.5 m)
A small drft in conductivity (.. 0.002 S/m) was detected in the comparson of Seacats 1875 and 1877. The drft was removed using a linear correction of the form:
Cond = Cond + (0.00059001915 + 3.9658057e-06 * xl
where x = number of days since 07/30/9619:07:30 UTe.
43
Seacat 1877 (12.5 m)
The batteries in this Seacat failed so that no data is available after 05/03/9720:07:30 UTC. Sèacat 1877 agrees very well with 1879 and with the adjusted 1875, so no adjustment was
necessar. Seacat 1879 (25.0 m)
Seacats 1877 and 1879 agree very well, so no adjustment was necessar. Seacat 885 (35.0 m) This instrument had a 15 minute sample rate, and was grdded using IDL for inclusion in the central salinity fie. A drft in conductivity (-c 0.007 S/m) was detected in the comparson of Seacats 1879 and 885. The drft was not quite linear, especially at the beginning of the drft. The drft correction was developed from two non-linear fits of the following form:
yl = c - b * c / (ax + b) where a = 0.72905066, b = 0.95063280, c = -0.0028500265 and x = number of days since 11/14/9600:00 UTC y2 = c + 1 / (ax + b) where a = 0.99999997, b = 114.10044, c = -0.0088093893 and x = number of days since 11/14/9600:00 UTC The final correction, y, was taken from y1 between 11/14/9600:00 and 1/5/9700:00 UTC and
from y2 between 1/25/97 00:00 UTC and the end of the deployment. From 1/5/97 to 1/25/97, a linear ramp ranging from 1 to 0 was applied as y = (y 1 * ramp) + (y2 * (1 - ramp)). y was set to zero from the deployment to 11/14/9600:00 UTe. The correction was applied as follows: Cond = Cond - y Seacat 1882 (45.0 m)
This instrment had a 45 second sample rate until 10/30/96, then 7.5 min. The battery failed in Seacat 1882. Both the conductivity and temperature stared drfting about 2 - 3 weeks before instrment failed. Data after 96/11/12 15:40:00 UTC was removed. Seacat 73 (57.5 m) A drft in conductivity (-c 0.015 S/m) was detected when Seacat 73 was compared to the corrected conductivity of Seacat 885. A correction for the drft was derived from both a linear and a non-linear fit to the data of the following form: y1 = ax + b
where a = -0.00052595380, b = -6.4245248e-05 and x = number of days since 10/10/9600:00 UTC y2 = c + 1 / (ax + b) where a = 1.0000000, b = 12.615262, c = -0.016915549 and x = number of days since 10/10/96 00:00 UTC
44
The final correction, y, was taken from y1 between 10/10/9600:00 and 12/20/9600:00 UTC
and from y2 between 12/26/96 00:00 UTC and the end of the deployment. From 12/20196 to 12/26/96, a linear ramp ranging from 1 to 0 was applied as y = (y1 * ramp) + (y2 * (1 - ramp)). y was set to zero from the deployment to 10/10196 00:00 UTe. The correction was applied as
follows: Cond = Cond - y
Although the linear fit to the data is quite good, the non-linear curve was used to force the correction to be near constant at the end of the deployment period (May and June). The linear drft correction continues to decrease over this period and may result in over-correcting conductivity (although without any well-mixed data in Mayor June, this is just a guess). Seacat 72 (62.5 m) A large drft in conductivity (.. 0.05 S/m) was detected in the comparson of Seacats 72 and 73. These shifts appear to be episodic rather than gradual, which makes the application of simple mathematical (functional) adjustment schemes nearly impossible. To force agreement durng well mixed periods, a correction based directly on the difference between Seacats 72 and 73 was applied.
The conductivity difference C = Seacat 72 - Seacat 73 was first computed. A three day running median fiter was passed over C so that only centered medians were computed when 20% or more of the 3 day period (14.4 hours or more) was well mixed (i.e., the temperature difference between the two Seacats was less than or equal to O.OlC). The differences between these well mixed periods were linearly interpolated. The time series of conductivity difference was then subtracted from the Seacat 72 conductivity. This adjustment scheme assured that during well mixed periods, Seacat 72 and 73 would agree. During stratified periods, the adjustment to the conductivity changed linearly in time between the last well-mixed offset and the next well-mixed offset. If the shifts in conductivity are indeed episodic and occur during times of stratification, then this adjustment scheme wil be incorrect. Without any other information during stratified periods, however, it seems to be the "least incorrect" approach (when compared, say, to guessing when there is an abrupt change in the conductivity calibration).
As an aside, it would be interesting to know what is causing these drfts and offsets. The shifts are often quite sudden, which suggests that some real oceanographic event is the cause. Since
Seacats 73 and 72 had similar shifts and these are near the bottom, perhaps sediment from the bottom is getting in the conductivity cell and affecting the measurement. Sediment in the cell
would change the volume of water in the cell and hence, the "dimensions" of the cell used in the conductivity calibration. Seacat 1878 (67.5 m)
Seacat 1878 also had large conductivity shifts (.. 0.06 S/m) when compared to the adjusted Seacat 72. The shifts were similar in character to those found in Seacat 72, that is, episodic and large.
45
The approach to adjusting the Seacat 1878 conductivities was the same as in the adjustment of Seacat 72. A three day running median fiter of the well mixed differences between Seacats 1878 and the adjusted 72 (when more than 20% of the three day boxcar window contained well mixed points) was used as the basis of the adjustment curve. These differences were linearly interpolated in time to provide adjustments during stratified periods. The adjustment time series was then subtracted from the Seacat 1878 conductivity. 3.l2.b. Inshore Site
Seacat 146 (2.0 m)
The comparson between Seacats 146 and 71 showed a slight drft in conductivity after 1 March 1997, but it isn't immediately obvious from the data which instrument should be adjusted. The post-cal report from Seabird reported a drft of 0.00120 and .00390 PSU per month for Seacats 146 and 71, respectively. Based on these post-cal results, Seacat 71 was assumed to be the one that drfted and so it was the one to be adjusted. No adjustments were made to Seacat 146.
Seacat 71 (20.0 m) The battery failed in Seacat 71 so that the data after 05/06/97 14:30:00 UTC was discarded. The conductivity and temperature data contained some bad points interspersed with good data after 05/02/97 and these bad points were edited out. A slight conductivity drft (.: 0.005 S/m) was detected in the Seacat 71 conductivity
after
03/05/97 (see above). The adjustment offset was as follows:
offset = 0.0 before 03/05/97 13:16:43 offset = 5.8739608e-05 * x - 0.00026745742 after 03/05/97 13:16:43
where x = number of days since 03/01/97 00:00:00 UTe. The adjustment to the Seacat 71 conductivity was New Conductivity = Old Conductivity - offset After adjusting the conductivity, there is an apparent 0.001 S/m bias in the Seacat 71 conductivity when compared to the Seacat 146 conductivity. This bias is due to the pressure difference between the two instruments (-20 dbar) and was NOT removed. The resulting salinities from Seacats 71 and 146 agree very welL.
Seacat 1874 (52.5 m) The battery failed in Seacat 1874. Both the conductivity and temperature stared drfting about 2-3 weeks before instrment failed. Data after 12/06/9623:40:00 UTC was removed.
A drft in Seacat 1874 (.: 0.004 S/m) conductivity was detected when compared to Seacat 71. The adjustment was as follows:
offset = 0.0 before 08/02/9623:23:34 UTC
46
,~
l l'
offset = -2.4291928e-05 * x + 0.0052221500 after 08/02/96 23:23:34
where x = number of days since 01/01/96 00:00:00 UTe. The adjustment to the Seacat 1874 conductivity was
New Conductivity = Old Conductivity - offset
An apparent bias of 0.001 Slm remains between Seacats 1874 and 71, however this bias is due to the pressure differences between the two instruments (-32.5 dbar). Seacat 1880 (59.5 m) This Seacat was compared to both Seacat 71 and 1874 and a drft was detected (.. 0.03 S/m). Since the first 3 months of the deployment were stratified, no well mixed
periods existed between Seacats 1880 and 71. However, since 1880 and 1874 were only 6.5 m apar, there was plenty of well mixed data to compare during this time. Seacat 1874 failed in early December, so the remainder of the adjustment was based on well mixed periods between 1880 and 71 during the winter. The adjustment was as follows: The conductivity differences C1 = Seacat 1880 -71 and C2 = Seacat 1880 - 1874 were computed. Abias of 0.002 Slm was applied to C1 since these instruments were almost 40 m apar (to account for the pressure difference of 40 dbar). The difference time series C was filed first with the conductivity differences from C1 durng well mixed times only (prescribed as temperature differences less than O.Ol°C). C was then filed in with conductivity differences from C2 during periods when Seacats 1880 and 1874 were well mixed and there was no well mixed data from C1. A three day boxcar median fiter was applied to C with the restrction that a median value would only be computed when 20% of the data contained in the three day window were well mixed. The gaps in C (stratified periods) were then linearly interpolated. The adjusted 1880 conductivity time series was computed as C subtracted from the old conductivity. This adjustment scheme assured that during well mixed periods Seacats 1880, 71 and 1874 would agree. During stratified periods, the adjustment is a "best guess" at how the calibrations are changing. If the calibration changes abruptly during a stratified period, this approach wil be less than ideaL. Without any other basis for comparson during these periods, though, this approach seems reasonable enough. Seagauge 46 (62.0 m) This instrument had a large drft in conductivity (.. 0.35 S/m) when compared to the adjusted Seacat 1880. The adjustment was similar to that for Seacat 1880. A three day boxcar median was used to filter the differences in conductivity between Seagauge 46 and Seacat 1880. The stratified periods in the fitered difference time series were linearly interpolated. The adjustment was as follows:
New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median filtered 46 - 1880)
47
J.ll.c. Offreit Seacat 141 (2.0 m) This Seacat agreed very well with Seacat 1873. A slight offset in conductivity from March to the end of the deployment was attrbuted to Seacat 1873. No adjustments were necessar for
this instrment. Seacat 1873 (20.0 m) A slight drft was detected in Seacat 1873 conductivity (0: 0.01 S/m) staring in late March 1997 when compared to Seacat 141. The drft was also apparent in a comparson with Seacat 884. The adjustment was as follows:
offset = 0.0 before 03/21/97 07:22:06 offset = -0.00011838607 * x + 0.0093888463 from 03/21/9707:22:06 to 04/19/97
06:52:45 offset = 0.00023779074 * x - 0.029180341 after 04/19/9706:52:45
New conductivity = Old conductivity - offset
where x = number of days since 01/01/97 00:00:00 UTe. An apparent bias of 0.001 S/m remains between Seacats 1873 and 141, however this bias is due to the pressure differences between the two instrments (18 dbar).
Seacat 884 (35.0 m) . A bias in conductivity was detected in Seacat 884 when compared to the adjusted Seacat 884. This bias was removed as follows: New conductivity = Old conductivity + 0.0015 Seacat 1881 (50.5 m)
The batteries in Seacat 1881 faied on 01/19/97, but the qualityofthe conductivity data began to deteriorate over 3 weeks prior to this. The conductivity values were edited out after 12/24/96 04:20:00 UTe.
This instrument agreed well with the adjusted Seacats 884 and 70. No adjustment to 1881 was
necessar. Seacat 70 (74.5 m) A slight drft in conductivity was detected in Seacat 70 (0: 0.003 S/m) when compared to Seacat 884. There were only a few times when both 70 and 884 were in a mixed layer,
however the offset between them did not var significantly and was small relative to some of the other errors detected in the CMO Seacats. A three day boxcar median was used to fiter the differences in conductivity between Seacat 70 and 884 with the restrction that a median value was only computed when 20% of the data contained in the thee day window were well mixed (prescribed as a difference in temperature
48
of less than O.OlC). Since the two instrments were seldom in a well mixed layer, only a few median differences were computed. The differences during the stratified period were linearly interpolated from the well mixed median values. The earliest and latest median value in the time series were used to fil in the offsets at the beginning and end of the deployment respectively. A bias of 0.002 S/m was removed from the difference time series to account for the pressure difference (40 dbar) between the two instruments. The difference time series was used as the adjustment as follows: New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median filtered Seacat 70 - 884) - 0.002
This adjustment scheme assured that during well mixed periods Seacats 70 and 884 would agree. During stratified periods, the adjustment is a "best guess" at how the calibrations are changing. If the calibration changes abruptly during a stratified period, this approach wil be less than ideaL. Without any other basis for comparson during these periods, though, this
approach seems reasonable enough. Seacat 1876 (81.5 m)
A drft in conductivity was detected in Seacat 1876 (-= 0.023 S/m) when compared to the adjusted Seacat 70. The drft appears episodic in nature, so the median fiter approach was used.
The adjustment was the same as for Seacat 70, except that no bias was removed from the difference time series to account for pressure differences (Seacats 1876 and 70 are only separated by 7 m).
Seagauge 45 (84.0 m) Both the temperature and conductivity were adjusted for Seagauge 45. A temperature bias of 0.0132C was detected when Seagauge 45 was compared to Seacat 1876. These instruments are
only separated by 2.5 m and are almost always within the well mixed bottom boundar layer, so the bias was easily detected. This bias was removed from the Seagauge 45 temperature. A large drft in conductivity was also detected for Seagauge 45 (-= 0.26 S/m) when compared to the adjusted Seacat 1876. The adjustment for this drft was the same as for Seacat 70, except no bias was removed from the difference time series to account for pressure differences.
3.l2.d. Alongshore Site Seacat 142 (2.0 m)
This Seacat agreed very well with Seacat 68. A slight offset in conductivity from March to the end of the deployment was attributed to Seacat 68. No adjustments were necessar for this
instrument.
Seacat 68 (20.0 m) A drft in conductivity was detected in Seacat 68 (-= 0.08 S/m) when compared to Seacat 142. The drft began in late Februar and persisted until the end of the deployment. The adjustment was as follows:
49
offset = 0.0 before 02/23/9722:41:06
offset = 0.00054863941 * x - 0.029596466 from 02/23/9722:41:06 to 03/05/97 05:12:55 offset = -0.00011772303 * x + 0.012529170 from 03/05/9705:12:55 to 04/03/97 04:31:42 offset = -2.0594906e-05 * x + 0.0035750568 after 04/03/97 04:31 :42 New conductivity = Old conductivity - offset
where x = number of days since 01/01/9700:00:00 UTe. An apparent bias of 0.001 S/m remains between Seacats 68 and 142, however this bias is due to the pressure differences between the two instruments (18 dbar). Seacat 883 (40.5 m) A conductivity drift was detected in Seacat 883 (oe 0.16 S/m) when compared to the adjusted Seacat 68. This drft was adjusted using the median filter approach.
A three day boxcar median was used to filter the differences in conductivity between Seacat 883 and 68 with the restriction that a median value was only computed when 10% of the data contained in the three day window were well mixed (prescribed as a difference in temperature of less than O.OlC). The differences durng the stratified period were linearly interpolated from the well mixed median values. The last median value in the time series was used to fil in the offsets at the end of the deployment. A bias of 0.0015S/m was removed from the difference time series to account for the pressure difference (-20 dbar) between the two instruments. The difference time series was used as the adjustment as follows:
New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median fitered Seacat 883 - 68) - 0.0015 The alongshore surface buoy broke free from its moorings in early October and was not reset until early November. This period spans the destrction of the stratification between Seacats 883 and 68, so no well mixed data is available before early November. Based on a comparson
with Seacat 882, it was estimated that Seacat 883 began to change its calibration around 10/15/96. As a result, a linear adjustment was made between 10/16 and 11/12/96 and a constant bias was applied prior to 10/16 as follows: offset = -0.005 before 10/16/9621:44:51 offset = -0.0013814112 * x + 0.39547961 from 10/16/9621:44:51 to 11/12/9603:22:30
offset = (median fitered Seacat 883 - 68) - 0.0015 after 11/12/9603:22:30 New conductivity = Old conductivity - offset
where x = number of days since 01/01/96 00:00:00 UTe. This adjustment scheme assured that during well mixed periods Seacats 883 and 68 would agree. During stratified periods, the adjustment is a "best guess" at how the calibrations are changing. If the calibration changes abruptly during a stratified period, this approach wil be
50
less than ideaL. Without any other basis for comparson during these periods, though, this approach seems reasonable enough. Seacat 882 (60.5 m) Seacat 882 had a drft in conductivity (c: 0.20) similar to that of Seacat 883. The adjustment was also similar.
A three day boxcar median filter was applied to the well mixed Seacat differences between 882 and the adjusted 883 with the restrction that a median value would be computed only when 10% of the data within a three day window were well mixed. A 0.0015 S/m bias was removed from the difference to account for the pressure difference between the two instruments (20 dbar). Differences during stratified periods were linearly interpolated. The adjustment was then
New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median filtered Seacat 882 - 883) - 0.0015 A constant and linear adjustment was used to approximate the changes in calibration for Seacat 882's conductivity in exactly the same fashion as for Seacat 883. These adjustments were as follows:
offset = -0.016 before 10/21/96 14:55:30 offset = -0.0017983009 * x + 0.51381877 from 10/21/96 14:55:30 to 11/15/96 19:00:00 offset = (median fitered Seacat 882 - 883) - 0.0015 after 11/15/96 19:00:00 New conductivity = Old conductivity - offset
where x = number of days since 01/01/9600:00:00 UTe. Seacat 144 (67.5 m) This Seacat had a drft in conductivity (c: 0.07 S/m) which was detected when compared to the adjusted Seacat 882. The adjustment for this Seacat involved the boxcar median approach.
A three day boxcar median filter was applied to the well mixed Seacat differences between 144 and the adjusted 882 with the restriction that a median value would be computed only when 10% of the data within a three day window were well mixed. Differences during stratified periods were linearly interpolated. A 0.0005 S/m bias was removed from the differences to assure that the salinity and density differences were near zero. This bias may be due the pressure difference between the instrments (7 dbar). The adjustment was then
New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median filtered Seacat 144 - 882) - 0.0005 Seagauge 49 (70.0 m) This seagauge had a drft in conductivity (c: 0.30 S/m) which was detected when compared to the adjusted Seacat 144. The adjustment for this tidegauge involved the boxcar median approach.
51
A three day boxcar median filter was applied to the well mixed Seacat differences between 49 and the adjusted 144 with the restriction that a median value would be computed only when 10% of the data within a three day window were well mixed. Differences during stratified periods were linearly interpolated. The adjustment was then New conductivity = Old conductivity - (median filtered Seagauge 49 - 144) 3.13. Pressure Seaguage note: The Seagauges were SBE 26 units, all set up to record pressure at 5 minutes.
Wave sampling was disabled to save internal storage space. Pressure from Seagauges was only minimally processed, essentially only inventoried. Seacat-p note: There were SBE-16 Profilers at 35 meters on Central and Offshore surace
moorings. There are no plans to make use of any pressure data from these instrments. 3.l3.a. Central Site
There was no Seaguage at the Central site.
3.l3.b. Inshore Site Seagauge 46 (62m) This SBE 26, with pressure sensor 61776, was set up to record pressure at 5 minutes. The pressure data from this instrment required no special processing.
3.l3.c. Offshore Site
Seagauge 45 (84m) 5m This SBE 26, with pressure sensor 61768, recorded pressure at 5 minutes. Pressure from this instrment required no special processing.
3.l3.d. Alongshore Site
Seagauge 49 (70m) 5m This SBE 26, with pressure sensor 61777, recorded pressure at 5 minutes. Pressure from this instrument required no special processing.
3.14. Surface Waves The Seatex Wavescan buoy was deployed at the Central site of the CMO aray (40.4933 N, 70.5047 W) between July 1996 and June 1997. The buoy is designed as a wave rider, with a flotation system on its tether that is meant to minimize any restriction of the buoy's motion.
3.l4.a. Seatex deployment summary The data record was not continuous due to two failures of the surface tether which necessitated recovery and re-deployment of the buoy. The buoy was deployed three times during CMO, as described in Table II.14.1. The first deployment stared on 30 July 1996,21:30 (all times UTe). The buoy broke free on 01 September, sometime after 18:30 during hurrcane Edouard. It was recovered on 04 September, 21:00. The second deployment stared on 26 September
52
1996,22:30 UTe. The buoy broke free again on 24 Januar 1997, sometime after 21:00. Recovery from the second deployment was on 6 Februar, 17:00. The third deployment stared on 17 April
1997, 04:30 and continued without incident until
12 June 1997,21:30 when
the buoy was recovered along with the rest of the CMO moored aray. It appeared that data obtained during periods of free drft were of good quality. Thus, the star
and stop times of good data for each deployment are:
Deployment 1
2 3
Star 96-07-302200 96-09-262200 97-04-170500
Stop 96-09-04 2100
97-02-061700 97-06-122100
Table 3.14.1. Seatex Data Dates
3.14.b. Data acquisiton system sampling scheme The Data Acquisition System (DAS) was configured to burst sample once per hour for a duration of (approximately) 17 min. Each burst consisted of 1024 samples obtained at a rate of 1 Hz (sample interval = 1024/60 = 17.067 min). Each DAS file contained "raw" data (1024 points of heave, pitch, roll, compass), plus scalar wavefield parameters, spectral data, and statistics derived from the raw data. The DAS clock was "adjusted" so that even though sampling stared "on the hour" for the DAS, the actual interval was (approximately) centered on the hour. This was done by setting
the DAS clock 8 minutes slow. The time recorded by the DAS appears to be the star time of the burst. Thus, since we want the center time for the sample interval (star time plus 8 min), the erroneous DAS clock time is actually the time we want.
The time base is UTe. Times in the ASCn data fies are decimal yearday. Days for the first deployment are yearday 1996. The second deployment spans 1996-1997, but yearday is continuous staring in 1996 (note that 1996 is leap year, 366 days). Days in the third deployment are yearday 1997. By convention, yearday 1.5 is noon on Januar 1.
". '"
j,
r\
3.14.c. Initl processing Binar fies uploaded from the Seatex DAS were unpacked and converted to ASCn by the
program seatex.c (Nan Galbraith, March 1997). Four types of ASCn output files were created: (1) "high-speed" data, consisting of 1 Hz heave, roll, pitch, and compass during each 17 min burst, (2) "results", consisting of mean wavefield parameters for each burst, (3) "standards", consisting of heave, roll, pitch and compass statistics for each burst, and (4) "spectral" data, consisting of frequency spectra of heave, direction, and directional spread for each burst.
The high-speed data were left as ASCn fies. The results, standards, and spectral data were converted to EPIe. Deployment 1 and 3 EPIC data were continuous in time and of high
quality; no furher processing was done.
53
Data from the second deployment were found to have a significant number of timing and data errors. Most of the timing errors consisted of day 15 or hour 15 of the date being replaced by zero. The timing errors could be easily identified, but the wave field parameters for those ~ records appeared to be corrpted as well. Thus, it was decided to eliminate all records that had timing errors. Remaining wave field parameters that were clearly out of range were interpolated using editepicf.c. There were some bad points in the maximum wave height parameter that were not detected by editepicf. These were flagged (set to 1e+35) using program pplus. Despite these efforts, the deployment 2 data remain noisy. 3.14.d. Recorded parameters
The parameters recorded in different fie types are outlined in Table 3.14.2. Results files:
VARIBLE
DESCRIION
UNS
HMO
(m) (m) (m)
SFP RB
significant wave height height of maximum wave sig wave ht of swell energy density at T spectral width
MDIR THTP
"main" wave direction vector mean dir at TP
( deg)
THH THL
mean dir at high freq
il
mean dir at low freq unidirecti vity index
(deg) (deg) nJa
TP TPC TM02
period of spectral peak TP from spectral moments spectral mean period
(s) (s) (s)
COMPM
vector mean compass
(deg)
H MAX HMOLF
(mA2/H)
(H) ( deg)
54
Standards files:
VARLE
DESCRIION
UNS
hmin, hmax hmean hstdev
minimax heave mean heave heave standard deviation
(m) (m) (m)
rmn, rmax
minimax roll mean roll roll standard deviation minimax pitch mean pitch pitch standard deviation
(deg) (deg) (deg) (deg) (deg)
minimax compass mean compass
(deg)
compass standard deviation
(deg)
rmean rstdev pmin, pmax pmean pstdev
cmin, cmax cmean cstdev
( deg)
( deg)
S ectral fies:
VARLE DESCRIION
UNS
de th(*) fre uency
(H)
hsp heave spectrum
(mI\2/H)
hs r directional s read
(rad)
hth directional s ectrm
(de)
Table 3.14.2. Recorded Parameters of Seatex Wavescan Files
* To maintain compliance with EPIC standards (allowing existing EPIC tools to be used to process the files) the frequency is stored in the 'depth' varable. This varable has the lon~name 'Frequency' and units of 'Hz' in an attempt to flag this for the user.
3.14.e. Cleanup of "Results" files (November 1997)
EPIC fies of "results", "standards", and "spectra" were read into Matlab and converted to binar fies. Subsequent processing was done using Matlab, and final versions of the data files are in Matlab binar (.mat) format. Deployments i and 3: Star and end dates of good data were determned for each deployment
and the records were truncated accordingly. Yeardays in deployment 3 had 366 days added to produce continuous yearday (1996). No de-spiking or interpolation was needed.
Deployment 2: Star and end dates for good data were determned and an evenly spaced timebase was generated between the starend dates. Records contained both gaps and bad
points. Gaps were mostly related to the "fifteens" problem: Data were garbled for hour 15 or day 15 (see above). Thus, there were one hour gaps each day (at hr 15), plus a few
55
unexplained gaps of 1-3 hr, which could be interpolated with good results. In addition, there
were 6 gaps of:; 3 hours (see Table 3.14.3). To provide a continuous timebase, these were also interpolated, but the effect of the missing data is noticeable. yearday 289 320 350 376-377
length of gap
cause date problem, Oct 15 date problem, Nov 15 date problem, Dec 15 unknown date problem, J an 15 unknown
-1 day -1 day -1 day
0.7 day
381
-1 day
395-6
0.7 day
Table 3.14.3. Gaps in Seatex Wavescan Data Record
Bad points were cleaned up by examning histograms of each varable to find minimax limits, flagging points outside the limits, and eliminating the flagged points. Flagged points and gaps were then filed by interpolation to the uniform (hourly) time base.
3.14.j. Cleanup of "Spectral" files (August 1998)
Deployments 1 and 3: Star and end dates of good data were determned for each deployment and the records were truncated accordingly. Yeardays in deployment 3 had 366 days added to produce continuous yearday (1996).
Deployment 2: Star and end dates for good data were determned and an evenly spaced timebase was generated between the starend dates. Records contained both gaps and bad
points. Gaps were mostly related to the "fifteens" problem (see above). Bad points were identified by values of heave spectrum (hsp) :; 20 in the first frequency bin. This turned out to be a good index for all frequency bins and also for the other spectral files. Bad points were eliminated from the record, then bad points and gaps were filed by interpolation to the uniform (hourly) timebase. Heave spectra: Timing errors were fixed in steps 1 and 2 above, but the spectral data needed some further editing. Deployments 1 and 3 showed "drop-outs" where a frequency bin had spectral level = 0.0. The minimum "good" value appeared to be 0.0031. Thus, the simple approach was to find the zeros and set them to 0.0031. For deployment 2, both drop-outs (spectral level = 0.0) and "noise" (frequency bins with very low amplitude) were found. Setting all values less than 0.0031 equal to 0.0031 was not effective. The low amplitude points needed to be interpolated. The approach taken was as follows: Find the bad points (hsp.c0.0031) in the first 5 frequency bins and set them equal to 0.0031. This was a reasonable fix for the "zeros" found at low frequency. At the same time, look for bad points in the last frequency bin and set them equal to the mean for bin 64 (=0.03). This ensured that the bins between 6 and 64 could be properly interpolated on the next pass. On the next pass, eliminate the remaining bad points and
interpolate any gaps using the original frequency bin spacing.
56
~
,:¡,
t T'
Directional spectra: Timing errors were fixed in steps 1 and 2 above, but the spectral data needed some further editing. Deployments 1 and 3 did not have distinguishable bad points. For deployment 2, "drop-outs" (direction dropping to oc 10 degrees in individual frequency bins) were distinguishable, Histograms indicated a "tail" on the distribution (more points than would be expected) between 0-6 degrees. Detection and interpolation of "bad" points was attempted, but the "cleaned" data appeared worse than the original. Thus, deployment 2 directional data remain "noisy" and an effective procedure to clean up the data remains to be implemented. 3.14.g. Magnetic varition and compass correction (September 1998)
Background: Magnetic varation correction was not applied to the Seatex compass during initial processing. Significant differences (10-15 degrees) between high-frequency wave direction and wind direction were observed, even after magnetic varation was accounted for. A post-cruise compass calibration showed unanticipated compass error (up to 12 degrees) due to placement of lantern batteries in Seatex well. Thus, both magnetic varation and compass correction must be done. Evaluation: Two different corrections were evaluated. The first was based on a fit to the buoy spin data collected by Neil McPhee, the second was based on a fit to the difference between the Seatex parameter mean direction at high frequency and the wind direction (TI - WDIR). In each case a fit of the form error = A + B sine compass + phi) was used. The residual after correcting using both fits was also evaluated. The results were as
follows (all values in degrees):
method buoy spin wind error spin residual
A 0.8 6.1
4.8 -0.2
B 11.8 5.7
phi -61.6 -61.2
4.8
19.3 -18.3
2.1 Table 3.14.4. Seatex Wavescan Compas Correction Evaluation
wind residual
The fit to the difference between thhf and the wind direction was used for the correction using the following justification. 1. There is no known physical basis for a mean offset or sinusoidal deviation of the highfrequency wave direction relative to the wind.
2. The wind direction has been subjected to several independent checks by Baumgarner and Anderson. 3. The difference between thhf and wind shows sinusoidal varation with the same phase as
the spin error. This supports the supposition that the difference is due to compass error (although wind error amplitude is only 1/2 of spin error).
57
4. The spin was not conducted under actual deployment conditions (the buoy was re-
constructed after recovery and down-cruise), thus it is only "indicative" of the error in the field. 5. Correction using spin_error is not very effective (offset=5, amp=5) compared to no
correction at all (offset=6, amp=6).
Applying the correction: Magnetic varation and compass correction were applied to results fies (four directional parameters, thhf, thlf, thtp, mdir plus compass) and the directional spectra (hth aray in hth_xx.mat). The correction consists of three steps: 1. rotation through 180 degrees (met to ocean convention).
2. magnetic varation correction (magvar = -15.417 deg).
3. compass error correction (based on wind direction).
All corrections are done to data afer "cleaning" (editing) as described above. The compass is a special case since the rotation through 180 deg (met to ocean convention) is not desired. The compass values the standards fies (cmin, cmax, cmean, cstdev) are not corrected.
3.14.h. Combined non-directional wave data Three data sources were used to form a continuous time series of significant wave height (HMO), peak wave period (PWP) and average wave period (A WP) during the Coastal Mixing and Optics Experiment. The primar data were a subset of non-directional wave parameters the Seatex Wavescan buoy. When Seatex data were not from the three deployments of available, wave parameters from NDBC buoys 44008 and 44025 were used. Buoy 44008 is located at 40.50 N, 69.42 W, about 90 km east of the CMO site. Buoy 44025 is located at 40.25 N, 73.17 W, about 225 km west and 25 km south of the CMO site. The second Seatex deployment was the longest continuous time period where both Seatex and NDBC data were available. This period was used to assess the relationship between Seatex and NDBC wave parameters. Wave parameters from NDBC buoy 44008 showed the best correlation with those from the Seatex, and could be used reliably (see rms errors below) to fil Seatex data gaps. Unfortunately, the record from buoy 44008 ended before the end of the CMO experiment and could not be used to completely fil the gap between Seatex deployments 2 and 3. Parameters from buoy 44025 showed the next best correlation with the Seatex, and were used during the short (7.5 day) period that neither Seatex nor buoy 44008 data were available. Coefficients from a linear regression analysis between NDBC and Seatex records during deployment 2 were used to adjust the NDBC data prior to merging with the Seatex record.
58
The correlation coefficients and rms error of the fits for each varable were:
SEATEX NDBC 44008 NDBC 44025
CORRELATION PWP AWP IDO 0.91 0.74 0.93 0.77 0.67 0.79
RMS ERROR AWP PWP IDO 1.68 s 0.47 s 0.37m 0.73 s 0.61 m 1.86 s
Table 3.14.5. Seatex Wavescan and NDBC Comparison
The gap between Seatex deployments 1 and 2 was filed completely with NDBC 44008 data. Six gaps in the Seatex deployment 2 record of greater than 3 hours, but less than 1 day, were also filed with NDBC 44008 data. The gap between Seatex deployments 2 and 3 was only parially filed since the NDBC 44008 record ended prior to the star of deployment 3. The remaining gap of about 7.5 days was filed with NDBC 44025 data.
The data sources for varous time periods in the continuous record are noted below.
TIM PERIOD 212.9167 - 248.8750 248.9167 - 270.8750 270.9167 - 403.7083 403.7500 - 465.6667 465.7083 - 473.1667
DATA SOURCE Semex (deployment 1)
NDBC 44008 Seatex (deployment 2) NDBC 44008 NDBC 44025
Seatex (deployment 3) Table 3.14.6. Sources of Non-directional Wave Parameters
473.2083 - 529.8750
3.15. ADCP Velocity
Three types of ADCPs were deployed at three sites. A BroadBand Workhorse was deployed NarowBand ADCP on the Offshore subsurface on the Inshore subsurface mooring, a mooring, and a modified BroadBand on a dedicated subsurace mooring at the Central site. All were upward-facing, each required a slightly different processing system. 3.IS.a. Inshore ADCP: 300 kHz workHorse
A 300 kH RD Instrments "WorkHorse" BroadBand ADCP (SN 100) with a dual-axis electrolytic tilt sensor, a RDI designed flux gate compass, and 20 Mbytes of PCMCIA solid state memory was deployed on the CMO Inshore subsurface mooring. The mooring was deployed on 02 August 1996 and recovered on 02 June 1997. Water depth was 63m and the
ADCP beams were pointed upwards from 55.5 m depth. A "standard" ensemble sampling scheme was used (no burst sampling). A sequence of 22 acoustic transmissions (pings) separated by 8.15 sec were averaged together to form one ensemble every 3 min. The backscattered signal was processed over time intervals corresponding to a 4 m depth cell length. The depth resolution of the transmitted pulse (pulse length) was also 4 m (no oversampling in depth). Twelve depth cells were recorded, giving a nominal profilng range of
59
50 m to 5 m depth. Velocities were corrected for tilt and converted to geographic coordinates by the ADCP firmware prior to ensemble averaging. The manufacturer's estimate of velocity precision for the 3 min ensembles is about 0.6 cmls. Data files containing header information, velocity profiles, and echo amplitude profiles were created in NetCDP EPIC format. Bin depths and velocity magnitudes were corrected for the in-situ soundspeed. A magnetic varation correction of -15.417 degrees was applied to the horizontal velocity vectors. Good data star on 08-02-96, 20:27 UTC, just after deployment. Data end on 11-27-9601:57, prior to the mooring recovery, due to power and memory
limitations. The depth bin nearest the transducer was unusable, and was eliminated from the final data files.
Corrption from the sidelobe surace hit was expected at about 3 m from the surface. Mean intensity profiles showed that the influence of the surace hit extended to the 5 m depth bin, but not below. The 37 m depth bin was also corrpted, presumably due to the steel sphere at 38 m on the inshore subsurface mooring. Thus, WorkHorse ADCP bins 1 and 9 should not be used in scientific analyses. Comparson of WorkHorse ADCP velocity to the Inshore VMCM at 15 m showed periods of 1-5 days with large discrepancies. Large error velocity varance was associated with the large discrepancies. It was determned that surface wave orbital velocities were aliased into the
WorkHorse ADCP ensemble average velocities because the ping interval (8.15s) was long compared to surface wave periods. This effect decreased with increasing depth, and was small be treated with care. below 30m. WorkHorse ADCP velocities above 30m depth must 3.15.b. Offshore ADCP: 300 kHz narrowBand A 300 kH RD Instrments NarowBand ADCP (SN 593) with Humphres pendulum tilt sensors, a KVH flux gate compass, and 18 Mbytes of EEPROM solid state memory was deployed on the CMO Offshore subsurface mooring. The mooring was deployed on 31 July
1996 and recovered on 16 June 1997 from RN Oceanus. The water depth was 86m and the ADCP beams were pointed upwards from 77 m depth. A "standard" ensemble sampling scheme was used. A sequence of 100 pings separated by 1.64 sec were averaged together to
length was 4 m, while the nominal depth resolution of the transmitted pulse was 8 m. Thus, the data were over-sampled in depth and successive depth cells were not independent. Eighteen cells were recorded, giving a nominal profiling range of 70 m depth to the surface (0 m depth). Velocities were corrected for tilt and converted to geographic coordinates by the ADCP firmware prior to ensemble averaging. The manufacturer's estimate of velocity precision for the 3 min ensembles is about 0.7 cmls.
form one ensemble every 3 min. The depth cell
Data files containing header information, and velocity, percent good, and echo amplitude profies were created in NetCDP EPIC format. Bin depths and velocity magnitudes were corrected for the in-situ soundspeed. A magnetic varation correction of -15.417 degrees was applied to the horizontal velocity vectors. Good data star on 07-31-96, 19:15 UTC, just after
deployment. Data end on 11-24-9601:42 UTC, prior to the mooring recovery, due to power and memory limitations.
60
Corrption from the sidelobe surface hit was expected at about 10 m from the surface. Mean intensity profies showed that bins shallower than 8 m were clearly influenced by the surface hit. It was more difficult to determne whether data at 12 m were corrpted. There was no evidence of corrption from the steel sphere at 47 m on the offshore subsurface moonng. Thus, NarowBand ADCP bins 1-3 should not be used in scientific analysis, and bin 4 should be treated with caution. NarowBand ADCP velocity to the Offshore VMCM at 15 m showed good agreement (within a few cmls). There was no indication of corrption from surface wave aliasing (note ping interval of 1.64 s). Comparson of
3.
IS.c. Central ADCP: 300 kHz broadBandfanbeam
A 300 kH RD Instruments BroadBand ADCP (SN 1486) modified for use as a surfacescanning "fanbeam" sonar was deployed on a dedicated subsurface mooring at the CMO the fanbeam ADCP. The
Central site 40 29.50'N, 70 30.60'W. There were two deployments of
first deployment was on 27 September 1996 with recovery on 09 Februar 1997, both from R! Oceanus. The second deployment was on 17 April 1997 from the R! Knorr with recovery on 12 June 1997 from R! Oceanus.
The instrument consisted of standard RD Instruments 300 kH BroadBand ADCP electronics attached to a custom designed transducer head. The BroadBand sensors included a dual-axis electrolytic tilt sensor and a Precision Navigation TCM-2 flux gate compass. The transducer head contained four bar-shaped transducers (approximately 250 mm by 45 mm by 10 mm) onented so that the beams were narow (about 3 degrees) in azimuth and broad (about 24 degrees) in elevation. The beam center lines were angled upwards by 12 degrees and separated by 30 degree increments in azimuth.
The instrment was housed in a 60 inch syntactic foam sphere. A specially designed plate and collar held the instrument housing vertically in a hole through the center of the sphere with the transducer head on top. The mooring was deployed in 70 m of water with the top of the sphere at 30 m depth. A burst sampling scheme was used. For the first deployment, 37 acoustic transmissions (pings) separated by 1.3 seconds were averaged together to form an ensemble, and 20 ensembles separated by 1 mIn were recorded to memory during 20 min bursts. The burst repetition time was one hour, and the burst interval was centered on the hour. For the second deployment 60 pings separated by 1.0 s were averaged for each ensemble, and 30 ensembles separated by 1 mIn were recorded durng 30 min bursts. Ping-by-ping heading and tilt correction could not be done by the instrument firmware due to the unconventional geometr
of the beams. Instead, the averaged "beam" velocities were recorded along with heading, pitch, and roll information (mean and standard deviation) for each ensemble.
Binar data fies were extracted directly from the internal PCMCIA recorder. These data can be examned and extracted in ASCII format using the RD Instruments BBUST program.
61
Section 4. Data Presentation The processed time series are summarzed in sections 4.1-4.5. Surace forcing data are presented in section 4.1, water temperatues in section 4.2, salinities in section 4.3, bottom
pressures in section 4.4, and water velocities in section 4.5. Each section includes a summar of the data retur, basic statistics (means, standard deviations, minimums and maximums), plots of the time series, and representative spectra (typically from the Central site).
62
4.1. Sunace Forcing The surface forcing section includes time series of the measured meteorological varables, wind stress and surface heat flux, and surace wave characteristics. Wind stress and surface heat flux were estimated using the formulation described in Faiall et al. (1996), including the cool skin, but not the war layer corrections. Complete composite time series of meteorological varables and fluxes are presented for the Central site where redundant sensors were deployed. Time series of the meteorological parameters from the WeatherPaks at the Inshore, Offshore, and Alongshore sites are included for completeness. The WeatherPak data has not been processed to remove bad values because of the poor data return from these
instrments.
63
I
i:
~:: ~ C\ ~
I
.. ... u: ..C\ ..i. 0)
i:
i. 0.
0)
U
..
..C\ CZ
i.
i. C\
..0)0)
~
8 C\
i. C\ 0. bJ i: ... ü i.
..0) ~
i:C\ t0\ ~O\
-
0
~
0)
ü c.i.
Ü 0)
::
0
c.
~
u: i.
z0
E
..=0)
~ ..
rJ
C\ C\
i. Q)
..
0
rJ
i. Q)
..=
..
... u:
Q)
8c:
i
i:
s:
.~ ..
c:
s:
-iQ) Q)
0.
r: -is:
~
.~ ..
U
Q)
i.
a-i
s:
~
:.c:
c: Q)
;: c: ..::
i. ..0
r:
i=
''-0 ''-c:
..
-ic:
c: Q)
;: c: ::
i.
~ :: rJ
i: ..i.
::
''-u
:: .~ .. .-c: Q)
Q)
s:
..
i:
0
:. '§
Q) i.
8 0
OJ
..;:
rJ
¡a
Q)
c:
c:
i: ~ ..c::: i. Q) 0.
8Q)
E-
i. :¿
Q)
;:
Q)
i. ..c::: i. Q) 0.
8Q)
E-
c:
Q)
r:
c:
s: ''-0 c: 'Q.
..
..
'ü
i:~
~ ~s: .~ .. U
Q)
i.
a
Figue 4.1.1. Sudace Forcing Data Retu, Central Site 64
..ü
0
Q)
8
c: i. c:
i:
0. 0) u:
Q)
;:
c:
~ ~s:
''-0
..u
Q)
i.
a i
s:
0
Z
bJ
::
..
Central Surface Forcing Statistics Dates: 1996/07/30 15:15 to 1997/06/13 14:00,30524 Records
Measured Meteorological Parameters Variable
wnde wndn srad hrh bpr stmp atmp lrad precip
Key: wnde wndn srad hrh bpr stmp atmp lrad precip
Mean
Minimum Maximum -20.17 18.58 -20.68 16.87 232.44 0.00 1039.55 11.76 41.44 103.11 9.15 977 .35 1039.95 4.34 3.87 21.68 5.60 -9.54 25.69 48.39 211.01 428.21 207.83 -0.46 794.42
StdDev
1.43
5.35 5.09
-0.21 142.50 84.84 1016.18 9.92
9.24 324.05 469.97
wind velocity east wind velocity nort shortave radiation relative humidity baromeuic pressure water temperature
m1s m1s watts/m2 %
millibar
air temperatue
longwave radiation accumulated precipitation
°C °C watts/mL
mm
Denved Flux Parameters Variable
QH QB Qs Q1
QN taue taoo
taumag prate evap
Mean
-35.02 -12.23 134.66 -39.31 48.10 0.03 -0.02 0.12 2.ge-08 1.4e-08
StdDev
58.63 45.87 219.66 37.81 249.30 0.13 0.12 0.14 2.1e-07 2.4e-08
Minimum Maximum -269.23 159.61 -317.29 119.64 0.00 982.37 -125.28 43.37 -648.66 939.64 -1.24 1.00 -1.28 0.76 0.00 1.29 -4.5e-06 8.4e-06 -6.5e-08 1. e-07
Key:
QH QB
Qs Q1
QN taue taoo
taumag prate evap
latent heat flux sensible heat flux
net sw radiation net lw radiation net tota heat wind stress east wind stress north wind stress magnitude precipitation rate evaporation rate
W/mL W/m2 W/mL W/m2 W/mL N/m2 N/m2 N/mL m1s m1s
Tab1e 4.1.1.
65
Seatex Wavescail Statistics Deployment 1: sta 1996/07/3022:00 end 1996/09/04 21:00 864 records Variable HMO
Mean
StdDev 1. 1
0.96
H MAX
1.62
1.6
HMOLF
0.47
0.67 103.87 110.02 107.44 59.88 0.15 2.98 2.82
MDIR THTP THHF THLF VI TP TPC TM02
27101 265.09 180.70 298.82 0.80 8.62 10.39 5.57
1.28
Minimum Maximum 0.41 7.34 0.53 9.86 0.11 5.11 0.57 359.21 0.23 359.84 0.80 359.96 1.67 359.69 0.30 0.98 3.12 16.00 6.36 18.85 3.43 10.98
Deployment 2: star 1996/09/2622:00 end 1997/02106 17:00 3188 records
Variable HMO
H MAX HMOLF
MDIR THTP THHF THLF UI TP TPC TM02
Mean 1.95
2.89 0.64 187.23 190.89 168.44
243.93 0.80 7.95 9.18 5.40
Minimum Maximum 0.45 6.05 1.4 0.61 10.00 0.63 0.09 4.18 117.78 0.19 359.99 120.05 0.36 359.94 99.07 0.06 359.98 108.66 0.02 360.00 0.19 0.10 0.99 2.51 2.51 14.22 2.10 5.23 16.60 1.4 3.25 10.29
StdDev 1.00
Deployment 3: star 1997/04/1705:00 end 1997/06/1221:00 1361 records
Variable HMO
H MAX HMOLF
MDIR THTP THHF THLF VI TP TPC TM02
Mean
StdDev
1.70
0.71
2.54 0.48 170.11 183.35
0.40 130.13 130.43
141.9
10 1.34
236.04 0.86 7.98 8.97 5.50
114.20 0.13
1.2
1.87 1.64
0.97
Minimum Maximum 0.47 4.65 0.54 7.24 0.08 2.52 0.00 359.98 0.02 359.98 0.27 359.86 0.13 359.86 0.26 0.99 3.66 14.22 5.48 16.39 3.59 8.27
m m m
o
nfa s s s
Table 4.1.2. 66
( %) Ál!p!WnH ~A!iepM
(0) uOll::~i!a pUl1\
(i.W 1\) UOlre!p-e"M
~A-eA\:iOaS
~ c.
t:
.-~o
l
o('
3
U oil ('Q
-
V)
d:
cd
~ ~ a)
c.
.!
-o .-oo~ cd
() 01
V)
oa)
0° ('Z
-
;:
~a)
-~~
-
V)
cd
~t:
a)
U
0'U ('O
c. ()
.-~
~
o
V)
'"
t:
cd
01
0.
oil (' c.
.-t:~ .-
-~~
-
V)
cd
c.
cd
o U
b.
0= ('-c
ovi \rC' 0Ó C' ..
N-
o 0 0 o V' 0
\D 00
("
c..s w) p~~dS PU!.M
vi r. ó i
V' (" 0 o r- "d
-
(Jo) ~lTI-ei~dw~i
0 0 V' o V' 0 o 0 0 o C' 0C' "d .. 00 o V' .. V' "d (" o 0 0\ - (i-eqW) ~mss~ld ::!il~WOi-es:
(i.W MJ UO!l-e!P-eCl
~A-eA\i5uoi
Figure 4. i. 2. Meteorology time series, Central Site, August--December.
67
(%) Ái!p!uinH
(,.ll 1\) UOplllpllèI
~APllplI
~AllMlI°4S
(0) UO!i::~i!a PU!1\
ir .. cz
i:
.-~o
i:
0:: ~..
ro
~ ~ a,
.,ocz ..ro
ir ..
.-ü01
;;
oro ~ ::
..oo ~
oa,
ir ..
~a,
..~ro
i. 0.
~~i:
~~
U cz .-Ü
ir ..
a,
~~
o
i.
.. c;
"0
::
i:
ro
01
.-i:~ .-
ir ..
~cz
0& ~
..~ro
..
ro
o U
a tr a ir C" 0 N-
a a a \0 00 r-
(,.s ui) p~~dS PU!1\
a tr a tr r- a ir r. 0 a i- ..
N-
~ -=
a a a .. a - 00 a tra a a a 0\
i
(:0) ~iniiu~dui~i
(iiiqui) ~inss~ld ::r-i~uiores:
-- tr
ir ..
a tr tr N aaN ~ r-
Cc.ui 1\) UOPll!Pllll
~AllMgUO'1
Figure 4.1.3. Meteorology time series, Central Site, January--June.
68
(,.w i'ÓJ xnld lB;)H lU;)lB'1
(.w M) UOllB!PBlI
(,.w N) SS;)llS
;)ABMlI0lfS l;)N
PU!M
o~
-
V)
U
~o
o Q)
C/ Q)
~ .-::
~
V)
ro Q)
CZ
.-;.
~
i
0° ~Z
-o C/
.-~U
-
o.
V)
0 "'
i:
..
ro
OU ~O
OI
.-i:~ .~ .ro
-
V)
~C/
0.
ro
0 U
o ~ Q) CI
V)
b.
~~
-i
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 o 00 000 00 0 o C' C'00 -. o C' C'-. -C' C" C' o ir ir II 1i i I
CLw M) xnW lB;)H
(.w M) UO!lB!PBlI
(,.w M) xnW
;)Ia!SU;)S
;)ABMíiu0'11;)N
lB;)H l;)N
lIa ViO
-- 00
o o ir0 0 ir C'
(ww) UO!lBi!d!~;)ld p;)lBinWn~~v
Figure 4. i. 4. Air-Sea Flux time series, Central Site, August-December.
69
OL
.aunr--Á~BnUBr 'a~TS IB~~ua8 'saT~as amT~ BaS-~TV .Ç.l.n a~n8Td
Heat Flux r: moO)
Radiation r: moO)
Flux (W moO)
Sensible
Net Longwave
Precipitation (mm)
Net Heat
Accumulated
Ul 0 -- Ul 00 00 Ul-i0 000 00 oVi oVi 0 0000 i
Ul
- 00 N0 ,tN N ,t 0\ N000 00 0000 00000 ,tN 0000 00 0000N0 I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Ui
"i W 0"
('o
Jl ~-1 \ v: ~ \
If- lH ~ t
~~
t ltlttlitQ
¡ l~
~ r. l" ~
~~$~~~~i~~~
~ ~ t ~ ~( ~ ~ ~
_. ~ _.
~~( ~i~~i 'S~i ~~ ~ §
0-
~~ i \
f ~ f i ~ f i¿ f l :s ~ l J ~ l i ~ ~_. n r.
f~ I ~~) ~~ ~f1 if~
f~ ~ \ f t
~~ I ~i~ ~i rr~i )"~i
V:~ 1 ~-f
r~~ _. ~ I
v:~ 1 ~-£
~~ II ~~l" ~J dLJ
0en
-
~ ~ ; ~ C
tL~
f L J
..W
i:~ 0
Ui
Heat Flux (W moO)
Radiation (W moO)
Stress (N moO)
Latent
Net Shortwave
Wind
oM ..
V)
C)
Oll MO
rJ
Q)
~
c\
~
..
V)
Q)
U
c.;.
~
0° MZ
=
CI rJ
.-~U
00.
..
V)
"' 0c\
.. o C)
MO
OJ
.-0 .-~
-~ ~
..
V)
c\ rJ c\
0.
0 U
Oll Me/
..
V)
OJ
O:: M..
00 \0 "3 N 0
ir
(m) iq8l~H ~A'RM.lU'R"!t!u8lS
(s) POl.~d ~A'RM. ~~d
-
o-
ir
NO- 00 \0 "3N (s) POl.~d ~A'RM. ~8'Rl~A\i
Figure 4. i. 6. Surface Waves time series, Central Site, August--December.
71
..
V)
i:
o:: ~.. ..
V)
r/ (l
~
C'
;: o~ ~ ::
~ (l u ~;.
::
..
V)
CI
r/
.-..U o.
i. 0.
0
~~
'" 0C' ..
V)
01
.-0
.-~ ..~ ..r/
i.
.. ~
::
C' C'
0 U
..
V)
..
00) ~ p;
..
V)
00
\0
..
N
o
-
o..
V)
V)
NO .. 00 \O..N
(ui) iqíl!~H ~AP, M. iup,:)y!uíl!S
(s) P0!l~d ~AP,M. ~p,~d
(s) P0!l~d ~AP, M. ~ílP,J~A V
Figure 4.1.7. Surface Waves time series, Central Site, January--June.
72
"w
1-
t-
.
t1
(1
g.
(1
ri
¡"
t:
I
rt
(1
i:
(¡Q
~
..
ro
rt
1-
Ul
(1
t1
0
P"
úl
::
H
(1 (1 t1 1ro (1 ..
(1
S
1-
rt
0.
rt (1 0 H 0 I0 (J
W
.
(X
"_.
-t. .
"(1
t1
i:
OQ
Coastal Mixing and Optics Inshore WeatherPak Observations
C".':_~::r.....;¡;'i¡L;::.".:_.
950 (: ~.
'" "'i
8 0
1050 § §
I~~~:::::::':::::::: l: ~ ~ I. ~:J ir~J:~:: ~ . "1000 8 3 i. IIOO?) . . . ~ 30 i 5' '30 i 5 30 15 30 15 30 i 5 30 Aug Sep Oct Nav Dee
~ U~~ß:::::::::::::::: li:!
l ~il.~1 l~U,,"' : e, : : : : : :, : : ' : : : i
--
(.rqw) ~inss~ld
(0) UO!l~i!a PU!A\
00 00 0 0 \O~ C'O
(:0) ~inlei~dw~i l!V
00 ~ C' 0 0 t"
:i!ll~WO.rg
o 0 0 o - 0lr 00 lr0
- - - C\
\l cr
i:
C
o:: M-i
.-..o ro ;; iiU
.rcr
\l ..
~ro ~i-
;: 00: M::
o ....
Q.
ro
\l
Q.
~
Q.
i-
..cro ~i:
cr
.-..() 0.
o
-=
õ.
-
g-: \l
-=
"û
L,
t:
.. 0:
::
ro C1
.-t:X
\l
~ .-
..
..crro
o~ MU-
ro
o U
\l
o 0 00 C" C' -
o 0 00 C" C' -
(..s w) p~:idS pUlA\
(..s w) ¡Y~dS isnÐ
00 lr 0 lr00 (%) Ái!p!wnH ~A!lllp~
Figure 4. i. 9. Meteorology time series, Inshore Site, January-June. 74
Ui
-.
1-
t-
.
Ii
~ ro
ro
n
ro
b
rt
en
i:
OQ
~
ro ..
rt
1-.
ui
ro
Ii
0
:Y
en
l-
0 l-
.
en
ro
1-.
Ii
ro
en
ro
S
1-.
rt
~
OQ
rt ro 0 Ii 0 f0
W
.
0
.
ll-
.i .
ro
i: Ii
OQ
Coastal Mixing and Optics Offshore WeatherPak Observations
:a õ'¡ ,~ A: § ::
o '-~ ,~ ò
UI~mui~l: : : : : : .. : : , : : : ¡¡:!
r~i: ~'L:'~"I(~~:::::::::::::::' r
'Vl
..
~
(.rqw) ;)lnSS;)ld
(0) UO!l:J;)l!G PUlA\
00 00 0 0 \Q V C"
:J!ll;)WO.rg
o 0 0 0V'00
(::0) ;)ini~i;)dw;)i l!V
-00V' - - - 0\
00 c V N C C"I
0
ir C/
i:
i: 0:: M-i
.-..0 c;
;: ¡.
Q)
.rC/
V)
0
.;
~c; ~¡.
;;
Oo; M~
....(l
c;
(l
ir
~ Q)
¡.
..0 tt 0
.. 0.
~~
C/
C/
.-..U 0.
ir
~i:
_o;..
0
~
ro
l
OJ
.-i::x .-
-..
~
-
V)
--~
~
c; cr ro
0 U o 0 "" C"
00 -
(..s w) p;);)dS pUlA\
o C "" C"
00 -
S i
(..S w) p;);)dS isnn
~ ~ ' ,. ~ -~ 00 00 V' a
.. .0
.' (!
£
~~ V)
V'
(%) Ái!p!wnH ;)A!l-e!;)tI
Figure 4.1.11. Meteorology time series, Offshore Site, January--June.
76
(.rqw) :)inss:ild (0) UOll:::)llQ PU!A\
C C C C C C \O-:C"C
::!l:)WOlB8: 00 C ir C 0 C
(;)0) :)inrei:)dw:)i l!y
C C -: C"C C ";1
o -0 0\ ir - -
o(" if
t:
.-..o ro
-
II
;: 1Q,
..if o
U oll ("Q
~~
01-
V'
~.. Q,
ro
;:
Q,
0° ("Z
~ Q,
1-
~oif
II
-~o
o () ("O
OJ
t:
if
.-..() 0.
o
II
"" t:
ro OJ .
0-
oll ("tZ
.-t:~ .-
-..
~
."11
ro
if
ro
o U
OJ
0= ("..
COOO C" C" -
0000 C" N -
00 ir C Cir C
(..s W) p;i;ids PUlA\
(..s w) p:i:idS isnn
(%) Ái!p!wnH
- -
:)A!lBP~
Figure 4.1.12. Meteorology time series, Alongshore Site, August--December.
77
(.æqw) ~inss~ld
(0) UO!l:Yl!G PU!i\
a a a a a \0 a.. N
:i!l~wo.æs:
a a a a a \I
-- a- -a 0\ \Ia
(;)0) ~inlei~dw~i i!V
a a ..Naoc;
a
-
Ir Ç/
C
.-..o ro
i:
o :i C"-i
;: ~
iU
..Ç/ o
-
Ir
~ro ~~
;: O~ C"::
.... iU
ro iU
-
~
Ir
~ ~
..oÇ/
i. 0.
g~
0. C
..o
~Ç/
Ir
o
-~::i.
.-.. 0. U
"'
C
ro
0.
Ir
.-C~ .-
~ ~..
.. .0
.-oæ C'
Ç/ ro
o U
-
tr a C" aN a- a
a C" aN a- a
(,.s w) p~~dS PU!i\
(,.5 w) p~~dS lsnD
a a \I a a \I a (%) Â1!p!WnH
~A!lel~lI
Figure 4.1.13. Meteorology time series, Alongshore Site, January-June.
78
OfM,
ill
10'
OfM,
Wind
ill
10'
Barometrc Pressure
10'
10'
:r0.
:r0.
'",
"' .c
U
g
U
10.
10.'
10"
g ill
~ 10.'
~
10-'
10"
10.' 10., Frequency (cph)
10.
Hr
10'
10.'
10.'
10.'
10°
10'
Frequency (cph)
OfM,
OfM,
10'
1D'
ill
Relative Humidity
ill
10'
Incoming Short-wave Radiation
10'
:r0.
:r0.
10'
U
U
t 10'
~ 10°
10.,
10"
~
~ 10'
10'
10.
10' 10' Frequency (cph)
10°
10'
10'"
~ 10.,
10., 10.1 Frequency (cph)
OfM,
ill
10'
Air Temperature
ill
10'
Sea Surface
Temperature
10'
:r0.
:r0.
t ill
t
u
10" 10"
101
OfM,
10'
10"
10°
u
~ 10.'
10°
10-'
10"
10.'
10.,
10°
10'
10'"
Freuency (cph)
~ 10.)
10.,
10.,
10°
10'
Freuency'(cph)
Figure 4.1.14. Autospetra of meteorological parameters at Central Site. Rotar autospectra of the wind provides both clockwise (solid) and counter-clockwise (dotted) spectras. Diural (D), semi-diural(M2), and inertal (f) frequencies are indicated. 79
DrM,
Ul
106
Df1I,
Sensible Heat Flux
Ul
106
Latent Heat Flux
10'
.:c.
:c 10'
c. u
u
"E
"E
102
~
100
10-2
104
~
~ 10.3
102
10°
10-2
10-1
10°
104
101
== io3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
DfM,
DfM,
lOS
106
Ul
Net Short-wave Radiation
Ul
lOS
Net LonÆ-wave Ra iation
106
10"
.:c.
.:c.
u
~
~u
10'
E
"E
~ 102
10°
104
~
~ 10.3
103
1& 101
10° 10-1
10.2
10-1
10°
104
101
== 10-3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
DfM,
10°
101
DfM,
108
102
Ul
Net Heat Flux
Ul
106
Wind Stress
100
.:c.
.:c.
u
~
10-1
Frequency (cph)
u
~
10"
"E
10.2
"E
~ 102
10°
104
~ 10-3
e104
10-6
10-2
10-1
100
104
10'
Frequency (cph)
~ 10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
Figue 4.1.15. Autospectra of air-sea flux parameters at Central Site. Rota autospectra of the wind stress provides both clockwise (solid) and counter-clockwise (dotted) spectras. Diurnal (D), semi-diural (M2), and inertial (f) frequencies are indicated.
80
4.2. Water Temperature The water temperatue data are presented as offset time series plots. Spectra from selected depths at the Central site are shown.
81
=
~~ ~ i: ~ i-
0.
~ çr
~ i..~i: i~ 0. S ~
~
~
.r~
~
E-
..i:
=r-
..i-=
U
i:0\ ~O\ ..
~
u ~
~
i-
= i..~~
o
~
;;
o
..i:i:
Z
o
..u
--0
0. ~
tZ
OJ
000000
s s s s s 0s ins s s s s s s s s os ins ~ ir ir ~ ~ ~ ~ C' -. -. t- O C' in 0 ir 0 ir 0 ir 0 in tC' C' M M -. -. in in in ..ro ..CI .. ..ro ..CI '¿ '¿ P: u P: :s u U ~ U ~ U :s :: U uCI :s ~ ro CI ro :s ~ u:(! E- U u:(! U (! U U CI(! U CI(! U (!CI U U CI(! -o :E :: ~ u: :E ~ u: ~ u: :E u: :E :E u: ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;
-
~
s s ins 0s ir ~ O C' in t\0 \0 \0 \0 ..CI
:E
U
U CI (!
U
U (!
CI
:E u: :E u:
;;
Figure 4.2.1. Water Temperatue Data retu, Central Site
82
..CI
:E
;;
~
=
-,::
~ c; ~ ;. 0;
~ tI
;. c;
~
.a
~
c;
;. d) 0;
..d)
8d)
~
Ed)
;. o
..tI
=tc;0\ -,0\ '!
~
üd)
-=;. = ;. ..::
o
0:
;;
d)
o
..c;c;
Z
o
..ü
o 0; d)
CI
OJ
::
8
0 Cl
0ei E-
8
0
N
..ct
U ct
~
CI
ir8
-.
~ U ~ ~
08 ci Cl
0ei E-
ir .-
08 ci N
0
:E
U ct
Cl
:: ~
CI
8
0
U
..ct
~
8
ir N
0c. E-
8
~ 0~ ~ U ~ ~
08 N -.
~ ~ ~
U
8
ir t-.
ir8 N ir
Cl
U ct
0 c.
E-
..ct
~
CI
8
~ tir
~ U ~ ~
Figue 4.2.2. Water Temperature Data return, Inshore Site 83
ir8 0\ ir ~u
ct
~
CI
08 N \D ~ "'
~
~
i:
..~ ;: ro ~ i-
0.
~ r: 0) i-
a
..~ro
:; .r0) ~
i-
0)
0. E
0)
E0) i-
..o ~ 4oi-
i:t-
roO\ ..0\ ,.
~
u0)
i: i-
o
~
;;
ro ro
Z
..~0)
o
..
o
..u
.-0
0. 0) CZ
0. ~
E
E
0.- 0
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
0 0 0tr 0 0\tr ""tr 0 tr 0"" 0.- tr~.- 00C' trC'~ 0~rl tr "" \0 r- 0\ tr \0 rl r- .. 00 ..ro .. .. ê¡ ro Cl ro ro uro :: Cl ECl Cl :: u :: rou 0 00. uro :: :: U 0 ro .. U rou "'E= 0 u u U 0. U :: 0. 0. EC'
tr
""
OO
Cl
Cl CZ
;;
E-
:: ;;
Cl
CZ
E-
:: ;;
Cl
CZ
Cl CZ
Cl
:: ;;
E-
CZ
:: ;;
CZ
Figure 4.2.3. -Water Temperature Data return, Offshore Site
84
~
ç:
~:: ~ :; Cd
i.
~ ~ çr
Q.
i.
..::
i. Cd
Cd
i. Q.
:;
Q.
.rQ. i:
~ s ~ Q.
i.
..0çr
OJ
=l-
=
.-0
~O\ .. Cd 0\
~i.
c.
= i. ..::
0
..
;;
U
Q.
Q.
~
Cd Cd
0
z0
..u
o ~ Q.
CI
E \JE ~ Ñ ~ ..ro (, Cl :; 0i: u:ro U :; E~ E
~ ..
Q)
0E ~E 0E ~E \JE ~E Ó NII Ó 0 ..Ó \J .. Ñ ~.. \J ..
\JE II \J
\JE
:; :; ~
Cl
(, ro
Cl
0 i: E-
:; U :; ~
ro (, ro
Q)
u:
Cl
0i: E-
ro (, ro
Q)
u:
U
0i: E-
E ~ Ó II 1. 1.
..ro Q)
u:
:; U :; ~
\JE r1.
0E Ó r-
(,
"0 .-
..ro ro
Q)
u:
Figure 4.2.4. Water Temperature Data retu, Alongshore Site 85
Q)
E-
Statistics: Water Temperature (degrees C) Central: Dates: 1996/07/30 19:07 to 1997/06/12 18:22, 60859 Records
Bin Depth
Mean
End Date
1997/06/12 18:22
9.90 9.84
1997/06/12 18:22
9.81
1997/06/12 18:22
1997/06/12 18:22
9.74 9.59 9.50 9.26 8.96 8.70 8.47 8.34 8.22
4.35 4.33 4.27 4.23 4.14 3.94 4.01 3.48 3.15 2.92 2.74 2.63 2.49
1996/11/12 15:37
10.78
1.49
1997/06/12 18:22
8.10
2.27 2.14 2.10 2.05 2.03
1
1.0
1997/06/12 18:22
9.91
2 3
2.0 4.0 4.5 7.5
1997/06/12 18:22
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21
10.0 12.5 15.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5
StdDev
1997/06/12 18:22
1997/05/03 20:07 1997/06/12 18:22 1997/06/12 18:22 1997/06/12 18:22
1997/06/12 18 :22 1997/06/12 18:22
1997/06/12 18:22
8.11
1997/06/12 18:22
8.14 8.17 8.19 8.20 8.18
1997/06/12 18:22 1997/06/12 18:22
1997/06/12 18:22 1997/06/12 18:22
1.99 1.96
Min
Max 21.68 21.46 20.83 20.85 20.81 20.52 20.79 20.14 19.89
3.87 3.86 3.86 3.85 3.84 3.82 3.83 3.82 3.93 4.12 4.13 4.15 4.44 7.30 4.68 4.69 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.70
18.81 16.84 14.54 14.52 14.38 13.86 13.51 13.50 13.92 14.49 14.34 13.27
#Pts 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 53193 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 20133 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859 60859
Inshore: Dates: 1996/08/02 19:22 to 1997/06/12 09: 15, 60208 Records
Bin 1
2 3
4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13
14
Depth 1.0
2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 42.0 47.5 52.5 57.0 59.0 62.0
Mean
End Date
1997/06/0109:22
1997/06/1209: 15
9.63 9.63 9.54 9.36 9.02 8.77 8.46 8.28 8.21 8.23 10.50 8.19 8.19
1997/06/1209:15
.. 8.18
1997/06/1209: 15
. 1997/06/1209:15 1997/06/01 09:22
1997/06/1209:15 1997/05/0205:52 1997/06/01 09:22 1997/06/1209:15 1997/06/1209: 15
1997/06/01 09:22 1996/12/2723:52 1997/06/1209:15
StdDev 4.51 4.41
4.32 4.15 3.57 3.47 3.07 2.92 2.76 2.66 1.45
2.38 2.35 2.34
Min
Max
3.47 3.46 3.43 3.43 3.50 3.50 3.61 3.69 3.87 3.93 7.64 3.92 3.93 3.94
Table 4.2.1. Water Temperatue Statistics 86
21.26 20.93 20.56 19.99 19.64 19.40 17.67 17.15 14.71 13.85 13.59 13.52 13.52 13.45
#Pts 56370 58481 58481 56370 58481 50582 56370 58481 60208 58097 28261 60208 60208 60208
Offshore: Dates: 1996/07/31 20:00 to 1997/06/16 10:45, 61367 Records
Depth
Bin
End Date
1
1.0
1997/06/0109:22
2
2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 50.5 64.0 69.5 74.5 79.0 81.5 84.0
1997/06/16 10:37
3
4 5
6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16
1997/06/16 10:37
1997/06/0109:22 1997/06/16 10:37 1997/06/16 10:37
1997/06/0109:22 1997/06/16 10:37
1997/06/16 10:37 1997/01/19 16:00 1997/06/16 10:37
1997/06/0109:22 1997/06/16 10:37 1997/06/16 10:37
1997/06/16 10:37 1997/06/16 10:37
Mean 10.06 10.05 9.97
9.80 9.46 9.18 8.87 8.60 8.42 9.38 8.09 8.28 8.36 8.52 8.59 8.59
#Pts Max StdDev Min 4.32 4.49 22.21 58476 4.19 4.49 21.74 61366 4.09 4.50 22.80 61366 4.49 3.97 24.17 58476 4.48 24.36 61366 3.45 4.50 24.34 61366 3.11 4.55 2.87 23.99 58476 4.60 2.61 22.26 61366 2.46 4.75 20.64 61366 15.78 32993 1.32 6.06 1.84 4.98 15.24 61366 4.98 1.83 14.31 58476 4.98 1.84 13.55 61366 4.97 13.57 61366 1.84 4.99 13.59 61366 1.83 1.83 4.97 13.57 61366
Alongshore: Dates: 1996/08/03 21:30 to 1997/06/10 09:37,59618 Records
Bin
Depth
1
1.0
2
2.0 4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 40.5 50.0 55.5 60.5 65.0 67.5 70.0
3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14
End Date
Mean
StdDev
1996/12/0605:52 1997/06/1009:22
14.52 9.53
3.46 4.42
1997/06/10 09:22
9.44 9.23 8.87 8.60 8.32 7.91 8.08 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.14 8.13
4.31 4.08 3.51 3.16 2.91 2.45 2.35 2.21 2.07 2.02 2.00 1.99
1997/06/0105:52 1997/06/1 0 09:22
1997/06/1009:22 1997/06/0105:52 1997/06/1009:22 1997/06/1 0 09:22
1997/06/0105:52 1997/06/1 0 09:22
1997/06/1009:22 1997/06/1009:22 1997/06/1009:22
87
Min 8.51
3.79 3.78 3.77 3.76 3.82 4.01 4.32 4.45 4.72 4.71 4.70 4.70 4.70
Max 21.08 20.66 20.53 19.54 19.76 19.31 17.39 15.00 14.09 13.81 13.36 12.96 12.87 12.85
#Pts 19056 54803 54803 53047 54803 54803 53047 54865 5961"6
57860 59616 59616 59616 59616
Ita
..
a
C'
..a
Ita
~
Ita t-
0..a
Ita
..C'
a It ..
0a
C'
a It C'
0a (' i=t-
ceO\ ..0\ ..
uQ, Cl
;;
o
Z
..~
..i.i: Q)
U
o :; u
..u
o
"i: Q)
ct
,~
~
on
::
--
IC't ..It It
It C' ..It It
~mliu~dw~i
~imiu~dw~i
Figure 4.2.5. Shallow temperatue time series, Central Site, August - December 88
S "1 ..
s
C'
-.s
s
v:
-.
lls r-
o..s
\rs
.. C'
s \r ..
oC's
s \r C'
oC's
i:
..::
;: ~ ~
..~
..;.=
i. 0.
~
..
u o ~ u
i. ~
~
..
~
llC' ..\r ll
\r \r \r
C' ..
~unl'Eiadwai a.i'Eiadwa i
Figure 4.2.6. Deep temperature time series, Central Site, August - December 89
8 Ii ('
8 0 ~
8 Ii ~
8 0 Ii
8 Ii Ii
Ii8 rIi
0\08
Ii8
~ \0
Ii8
\0
Ii8
r-
\0
i: r-
~O' ..0'
-
u(! Q
;:
o
Z
..ro
..i.=
u~ o ~ u
..u
o
0. (!
vi
OJ
L.
:: -c
IiN Ii- Ii
IiN Ii- Ii
'dlUllm~dW'di
'd.IlU'ddW'd i
Figue 4.2.7. Shallow temperature time series, Central Site, Januar - June 90
a I( M
a o -.
oI(a
a I( I(
I(a t" I(
o\0a
a
v: C' \0
a I( \0
I(a t" \0
i:
..::
;: ro
~
~~i-
i. 0. -c
=
11
U
o ~ u æ
~
.0
æ
I( I( I(
C' ..
l
I( I( I(
C' ..
~mi-ei~dui~.L
~mltm:idui~.L
Figure 4.2.8. Deep temperature time series, Central Site, Januar - June 91
..a
a
N
a
ir ""
0..a ir..a 0Na irNa 0('a
a
N ""
ira
r-
""
ira C" ir
a rir
a
0\
ir
a
N \0
i:r-
c; 0\ ..0\ ..
uCI Cl
;;
z0 Q)
~
..0tr
-0 =
~
..u
u
0
0. CI
cr
00
iNr ..ir ir
~
ir N ..II ir
~UniBigduigi
gimBigduigi
::
.:
Figure 4.2.9. Temperature time series, Inshore Site, August - December 92
-s
s s s os V' .. - -
C' V'
s s 0s C' s o N V' C' (' -.
S
ir r-.
s s S
rV' 0\ V' C' IQ
t:
..;:
~ :E
Q.
i-
..o ..i: o ~ u
i. 0.
C'
~
i. C' :E
..~
~
N-
V' V' V'
V' V' V'
~mrei~dui~.L
~.ItU~dui~ .L
C' -
Figure 4.2.10. Temperatue time series, Inshore Site, Januar - June 93
..E
E
N
0..E V'..E N08 -. E
V'
8 N V'
8 0 M
8
V'
M
E
V'
ci
V'
8 8 8 0\8 8 -.8 -. ir ir \0 ir 0\ -. r- .. 00 00 \0 ri: r-
~O\ ..0\ ..
uQ) Cl
;;
o
Z Q)
~
o .. ~ 4o o ~ u
..u
o
0. Q)
u:
0.
:: -c
V' V' V'
N ..
LL
V' V' V'
~lmBi~dw~i
~mlBi~dui~i
N ..
Figue 4.2.11. Temperature time series, Offshore Site, August - December 94
-s
s Ifs os ~ -
C'
s S0 If - C'
S If C'
s S ~s Ifs IfS oMs If M If ci \0 0\ ~ \0 rIf
S
0\
r-
IfS
-
a ~ 00
00
;:
..:i
;; ~ Cl
(!
~
..o ~ Co o o ~ u
i.
0-
~
i. Cl
~
.i Q)
u.
;
If If If
C' ~im-ei~dui~i
If If If
C' -
~ini-eigduigi
Figure 4.2.12. Temperature time series, Offshore Site, Januar - June 95
E
('E
E
V'
~
0-E
E
-
V'
0C'E
E
V'
('
E
V'
0 ~
E
0 ir
E
V' V' V'
irE
0\0
irE
\0
E
V'
t-
\0
0t-S i:t-
-
..0\
C\ 0\
ü(! Q
;;
0
Z Q,
¡.
..0
en
b. = ..0
~ 0 :;
..ü
0
U
0. (! u:
OJ
V ('' -ir ir
~
ir (' ir - ir
~lmBi~dUl~.L
~.iBi~dUl~ .L
:: -o
Figure. 4.2.13. Temperature time series, Alongshore Site, August - December 96
e
\te oe
C'
--
- \t-e
oC'e
e \t C'
\te
oe o-- \t
e
v:
\t \t
\te
o\0
e \t \0
\te
r' \0
or'e
i:
..::
~ ~
~ ~ o
~
CI
b1
i:
~
-'o
~ o ~ u
L. ~
~
.D
~~
\t \t \t
\t \t \t
C' ~unltugduigi Figure.
C' -
gimeigduigi
4.2.14. Temperature time series, Alongshore Site, Januar - June 97
OfM,
OfM,
10'
10'
ill
ill
2m
102
.:Q,
10'
.:Q,
100
u
100
u
t
t 10-'
=-
10"
10"
10-3
10-2
10-'
=-
10"
10-1'
10"
10"
10'
10-3
Frequency (cph)
10-'
OfM,
100
101
OfM, 10'
ill
ill
30m
10'
40m
10'
.:Q,
10"
u
100
u
t
t
~
10-'
10"
10"
10-3
10-2
10"
10-2
10-1
10°
10'
10-1
=10-3
Frequency (cph)
10-'
10-1
10"
10'
Frequency (cph)
OfM,
OfM,
10'
10'
ill
ill
55m
102
.:Q,
10-1
Frequency (cph)
iet
.:Q,
15m
67.5m
10'
.:Q,
100
u
100
u
t
t 10-'
10"
10"
~ 10-3
10-2
10"
10.2
10-1
100
10'
Frequency (cph)
10"
=10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
Frequency (cph)
Figure 4.2.15. Autospectra of temperatures at Central Site at various depths. The tidal M2 and inertal frequencies are indicated with arows. 98
4.3. Salinity
The salinity data are presented as offset time series plots. Spectra from selected depths at the Central site are shown.
~
,if. ÎÕ hi
f
99
i: ~ ..;:
~
~Cl .eI
o
~~i:
~ ..i:i: ;;
.. ... ... ..i:i: u:
..ro Cl
U
I
0~
\J \J 0 a a \J \J \J ~ \J \J \J r- ~ rr- .. ..c- ..c- .. ~.. ('.. ~.. \J ..c- \Q ..c- \Q ..ccccc-
Uc- Uc- U U U U U U cccc- U iu iu cccCI
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
iu
CI
Figue.43.1. Salinity Data Return, Central and Inshore sites 100
i:
~~ ;; t\ :; ;. 0.
~
a
:; C)
~ ...
C/
C)
..
C)
E
..~
.~ ..
ci
C)
Q,
..t\t\
Q
..;; "2 .-
-crt\
Q,
~
C/
;.
..0u:
;.
..o ~ ~ o
i: t\0'i: ~O' ..
on
i:
..0
Ü Q, Q
~
;;
z0 ..ü
'0
0. Q, cr 00
0s 0s irs irs irs 0s
s s s irs irs irs 0s 0 0ir 0 "" .. o: ~ N 0 ir r- oo 00 ..~ N ..~ c...~ ..~ ..~ ..~ u~ u u u~ u~ ~u "' ~ ~ u: u: u: u: u: u: t:
0 0"" 0\0 r-\0 0r..~ N ..~ ..~ ..~ ..~
C'
u~
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
u:
CI
u~
u~
u~
u~
u:
u:
u:
u:
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
"'
t:
Figure 4.3.2. Salinity Data Retur, Offshore and Alongshore sites 101
~
~
Statistics: Salinity (PSU) Central: Dates: 1996/07130 19:07:30 to 1997/06/12 18:30:00, 60860 Records
Bin 1
2 3
1996/09/03 10:52
31. 77
1997/06/12 18:30
12.5
1997/05/0320:07
31.88 31.92 32.01 32.09 32.18 32.36 32.44 32.49
25.0 35.0 45.0 57.5 62.5 67.5
4 5 6
7 8 9
Mean
Depth 2.0 7.5
End Date
1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:22 1996/11/12 15:37 1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30
StdDev 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.27 0.35 0.39
Min 31.17 30.58 30.87 31.01 30.63 31.19 31. 09
30.93 31.02
Max 32.38 32.88 33.37 33.27 33.53 33.31 34.84 34.69 33.99
NPts 6655 60860 53193 60860 60859 20133 60860 60624 60860
Inshore: Dates: 1996/08/02 19:22:3Q to 1997/06/12 09:22:30, 60209 Records
Bin 1
2 3
4 5
Depth 2.0 20.0 52.5 59.0 62.0
End Date 1997/06/1209:22 1997/0510205:52 1996/12/0623:37 1997/06/1209:22 1997/06/1209:22
Mean 31. 77
31.85 32.10 32.22 32.22
StdDev 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.21
Min 30.57 30.94 31.51 31.60 31.61
Max 32.50 33.05 33.01 33.19 33:14
NPts 58694 50795 24226 60208 60209
Offshore: Dates: 1996/07/31 20:00:00 to 1997/06/16 10:52:30, 61368 Records
Bin 1
2 3
4 5 6
7
Depth 2.0 20.0 35.0 50.5 74.5 81.5 84.0
End Date 1997/06/16 10:52
1997/06/16 10:52
1997/06/16 10:52 1996/12/2404: 15
1997/06/16 10:52
1997/06/16 10:52 1997/06/16 10:52
Mean 31.98 32.09 32.25 32.42 32.97 33.13 33.14
StdDev 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.33 0.57 0.62 0.62
Min 30.47 30.64 30.85 30.73 31.20 32.00 32.01
Max 32.86 34.87 35.57 35.19 35.25 35.45 35.18
NPts 61368 61368 61368 27907 61368 61368 61368
Alongshore: Dates: 1996/08/03 21:07:30 to 1997/06/10 09:52:30, 59622 Records
Bin 1
2 3
4 5 6
Depth 2.0 20.0 40.5 60.5 67.5 70.0
End Date 1997/06/10 09:52 1997/06/10 09:52 1997/06/1009:52 1997/06/1009:52 1997/06/1009:52 1997/06/1 009:52
Mean 31.92 32.00 32.12 32.33 32.41 32.42
StdDev 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.34 0.34
Table 4.3.1. Salinity Statistics 102
Min 29.00 31.10 30.41 31.18 30.16 31.76
Max 33.07 33.95 33.86 33.84 33.97 33.80
NPts 54315 54321 59622 59622 59622 59622
E
N
E
v:
r-
E
V)
N ..
E
E
V)
V)
('
N
E
V)
~
E
V)
rV)
E
V)
N \0
E
v: r\0
i:r-
~O\ -.0\ ..
uC! Q
~
o
Z
..ro
..~C C1
U
o ~ u
..u
o
0. C! .. CI
on
:: -c
Ll V) (' ('(' ('..
V) (' ('(' ('..
ÃlrUrfBS
ÃlrUr(BS
Figure 4.3.3. Salinity time senes, Central Site, August - December 103
ir8 t-
ir8
C'
8 ir C'
8 II ~
II8
tir
II8
II8
C'
\0
\0
t-
c
~=i
;: ~ ~
..ro
.b i: (l
i-
0.
-c
U
o ~ u i-
~
~
.0 Q)
ri
ir ~ ~~ ~
II ~ ~~ ~
Ál!UH~S
Ál!U!res
Figure 4.3.4. Salinity time series, Central Site, Januar - June 104
8
o~
~8
8
Vî
~ Vî
8
0\ Vî
~8 \0 i:r-
c; 0\ ..0\ ..
uil Q
~
0
Z
0~ 0
..
-0 CJ
=
~
..u
U
0
0. .
il .-
m .-
OJ
~
::
~
Vî ~ ..~ ~ ~
Vî ~ ..~ ~ ~
á!U!res
álU!!BS
Figure 4.3.5. Salinity time series, Inshore Site, August - December 105
oNE
E
N
E
0\ in
~E
\0
i:
..::
;; ro ~
~ io
..cr
i. 0.
~
~i: o ::
u i. ro
~
.D
~ ¡i
in (" (" .. (" ("
l( .. (" (" (" ("
Á¡!U!IBS
Á¡!U!IBS
Figure 4.3.6. Salinity time series, Inshore Site, Januar - June 106
E
E
N
E
E
0N
V'
~
V'
0V'
E
V'
""
r-
E
V'
..
OO
E
"" 00
i:r-
ro'" ..'" ..
(,
Q)
Cl
o;:
Z ~ ~
..o ~ 4o o ~ u
..
o(,
0. Q)"
Cl
0. =i .o
~
V ~ ' ~~ .. ~
V' ~ ~~ .. ~
ÁnU!IBS
ÁlTU!IBS
Figure 4.3~ 7. Salinity time series, Offshore Site, August - December 107
e N
oNe
e \J ('
\Je ..r-
e
tr 00
e -: 00
s:
~::
;; ~ :E
(! i-
..~o c. o o u~
i. 0. -c
i. ~ :E
..
~
\J (' ('(' ('-
\J (' ('(' ('-
Ál !U!fB S
Ál!U!fBS
Figure 4.3.8. Salinity time series, Offshore Site, Januar - June 108
S Ñ
S
0Ñ
s
In
Ó ~
s
In
0\0
s
In
t"
\0
S
O
t" i: t"
c; 0' ..0' ..
uQ.
o
;:
o
Z (1
i-
..ou:
OJ
~
..o ~ o ~ u
..U
o
i:
Q. .-
eii
co
~
::
-:
Vî .. (' ('~ ('
Vî (' ('(' ..('
Ál!U!feS
ÁllUfeS
Figue 4.3.9. Salinity time series, Alongshore Site, August - December 109
a
N
oa
N
Ita
o~
a
v: o \0
Ita r-
\0
or-a
i:
..::
~ :E
(J
i.
..ocr
0. i:
i. 0.
-~
~
o
o u~ i. CI :E
.0CI ¡i
It (" .. (" (" (" Álrur~s
It ("
(" (" (" ÁllUr~S
Figue 4.3.10. Salnity time series, Alongshore Site, Januar - June
110
DfM,
ill
102
5CI
DfM,
7.5m
,.~
10°
10°
e:
~
10-2
:§ 10-2
~ CI
~
10-4
10-6 10-4
==
10-4
10-' 10-2
10-3
10-1
10°
10-4
101
10.3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
ill
102
10-1
101
DfM,
35.0m
Hl
leY
10°
45.0m
5CI
e:
e:
i:
i:
"ë
:§ 10-2
~ CI
10-4
10-' 10-4
~ CI
~
10-4
10-' 10-2
10-3
10'1
10°
10-3
101
~ 10-2
Frequency (cph)
ill
102
10°
10-1
101
Frequency (cph) DfM,
DfM,
5CI
10°
Frequency (cph)
DfM,
5 CI
12.5m
CI
e:
i: :§ ~ CI
ill
102
57.5m
ill
102
10°
5
67.5m
10°
CI
e:
e:
i:
i:
:§ 10.2
:§ 10-2
~ CI
10-4
10-' 10-4
~ CI
~ 10.3
10-4
10-6
10.2
10.1
10°
101
10-4
~ 10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
Frequency (cph)
Figure 4.3.11. Autospectra of salinity at Central Site at varous depths. diurnal (M2), and inertial (f) frequencies are indicated. 111
Diural (D), semi-
4.4. Bottom Pessure Bottom pressure data from the Tidegauges at the Inshore, Offshore, and Alongshore sites are presented as time series plots. Spectra are also shown.
112
~
~:: ~ ~ . t\
i-
0.
~
i-
t\
~ i: i..::~
.0 ~
~
cG
~r-
..t\t\
t\ 0\ ~O\ ~
Q
~ i:: ~ ~ ~ i-
ü~ Q
0.
~ 0
a~E
E
~ N
00
\0 ~ 0. g 0. ~
~
0. =i ~ 0. ~
.-
"0 .-
"0 E-
e0
e .a0
-
0
E-
~ t¡
.aen s:
E aÓ
l:
~ 0.
g0. ~
"0 .-
E-
~
;. .a0en
0.
--:0 s:
Figure 4.4.1. Bottom Pressure Data Retu
113
Z
..Ü
0
0. ~ cr b. ::
~
Statistics: Bottom Pressure Inshore Seagauge: 1996/08/02 19:20 to 1997/06/12 09: 10, 90311 Records End Date
1997/06/1209:09
Mean (mbar)
7324.4
StdDev I 33.21
Mi
Max 7412.2
7243.6
#Pts 90311
Offshore Seagauge: 1996/07/31 20:00 to 1997/06/16 10:40, 92049 Records I
End Date
11997/06/16 10:39
Mean (mbar)
9594.6
StdDev 33.6
Min
I
9518.1 I
Max 9682.5
#Pts 92049
Alongshore Seagauge: 1996/08/03 21:30 to 1997/06/10 00:35, 89318 Records End Date
1997/06/10 00:35
Mean (mbar) I StdDev I 33.21 7908.41
Min
7829.0 I
Table 4.4.1. Pressure Statistics
114
I
Max 7995.4
#Pts 89318
i: r-
roO\ ~O\ ,.
u(!
o
,,S
Q)
i. :: cr
cr
Q)
i.
~
S
'-
0. (!
0. (! "' .-
~ .-
(!
..0r:
E(! l-
~
l-
0
.. ~ 40
::
U
0
=: ro
=: ro
0
Z
0.
0.
....0 (!l-0 0 .. ~ -i:r:
'-
(!
(!
N \0 '-
;;
0r-
-. 00
,,S
,,s
.¡
0U
0.
--c0 i:
0. (!
en
~00 .q
r-
I
00 C" r-
00C'
r-
0. =: -c
-00r-
0\
0 0 \D
0\
00 II
0\
0 00 00
0 00\ r-
(.maw ainss~ud
Figure 4.4.2. Pressure time series, August - December
us
0 000
r-
i:
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ oo
00 Q.
~
~
S
0 ~ ~0
0r-
~ 00 '-
,,s
'-
Q)
Q)
OJ
~ ~
OJ
~ ~
OJ
(" \0 '-
OJ
0
..
E-
E-
Q)
~ 0
~ ~
en
i:
..
..0 ~ ~ 0
~
u
Q.
~
"' .-i
"' .-i
~
~
Q)
Q)
Q)
0 -
CO
,,s
,,s
Q.
:E
en
OJ
-~i:0
~ ~ :E
..
~
Q)
00 .q
t-
00 M r-
00 C"
t-
00 r-
o,
00 ID
0\
00 ir
0\
00 000
00 0'
t-
(.maw) ;;inSS;;ld
Figure 4.4.3. Pressure time series, Januar - June 116
00 00
t-
102
,-0
Inshore (62m)
DfM,
DfM,
til
102 Offshore (84m) til
10°
10°
~ Ui e: 10-2
Ui
e:
10-2
0)
0)
:: CI
CI CI
..
..
::
~
CI
0)
i:..
104
1O~
10-8
104
0)
i:..
104
10~ 10-8
10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
104
101
~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1d
101
Frequency (cph)
Frequency (cph) DfM, 102
Alongshore (70m)
til
10°
~ Ui
e:
10-2
~ :: CI
~
CI
i:~
104 10~ 10-8
104
10.3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
--
Figure 4.4.4. Autospectra of bottom pressure at varous sites. Diural (D), semi-diural
(M2), and inertal (f) frequencies are indicated.
117
4.5. Water Velocity The water velocity time series are presented as vector plots of low-pass filtered data with a 3 day cutoff and decimated to a vector every 12 hours for clarity. Thus the water velocity time series plots do not include tidal, inertial and higher frequency motions. The
corresponding statistics are for the complete (unfiltered) time series.
VMCM data are presented for all instrented depths at each site. ADCP velocity data time series plots and rotar spectra from selected depths are presented for the Inshore and
Offshore sites. Progressive vectors of VMCM data are also shown for selected depths at the Central site.
118
=
-i~
~ ro :: $-
0.
~
$ro
:: E
..~~
~
..roro
~(!
. ""
CI
..~
~ =l"
o
a~ ~i.i: .. ... (, ..o~
.£ ~
(! .~ .. CI (! i.
roO\ -i0\ ..
..r: ~i:
(!
U
(, ~
a
~
~
o
Z
..(,
.0 0. ~
CI
88888888888 iroooooooooc: -.óiróóóóiróiro --C"C'-.irir\O\OC' ""uuuuuuuuuo ~:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;~ ..~~~~~~~~~ :;U :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; eJ
888888 irooooir -C'-.irir
-. ir ó C" r- ir
e:;:;:;:;eJ ""uuuuo
~:;:;:;:;~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~
Figure 4.5.1. Water Velocity Data Retur, Central and Inshore sites 119
b1
~
~
i:
i-~
;; ~ ~ i-
~ ~ i-
~
~ ~(1 ~
ci +.C/
so ~ Q)
(1 cz
.. . -t
ci
~~
~
..ocr
Q) .. ~
~ 0
Cl ..
i:t~O'
i-O' ..
OJ
;; ~ .~ ~ 0 --g (1 ~
-~i:o
ü
(1
Cl
;:
o
Z
..ü -0
~ (1
u: II II
~ ~ U ~ ~
o8 II
o8
ci
~
8
~ -.
\0
8
~ 0\ r-
:E ~ ~u U U~ U :E ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
8
~ rr-
0.
U
o ..
II8
o8
~ U ~ ~
II .-
ci II
II \0
~ U ~ ~
~ U ~ ~
u~
-.
o8 o8
~ ~ ~
:E
~
Figure 4.5.2. Water Velocity Data Retur, Offshore and Alongshore sites 120
Central VMCMs: 1996/07/3019:07 to 1997/06/12 18:30,60860 Records VelocIty East (cmlsecond)
Bin Depth I 4.5 2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9
1997/06/12 18:30
Mean -7.90 -9.56 -9.41 -9.15 -8.00 -7.72 -6.79 -5.95
1997/06/12 18:30
- 5.40
End Date 1997/06/12 18:30
10.0 15.0 20.0 30.0
1997/06/12 18:30
40.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30
StdDev I MIn I Max I NPts ¡ 17.03 -92.47 58.19 60860 17.06 -91.23 59.79 60860 -74.07 52.76 60860 15.61 -71.89 52.77 60860 14.83 -63.48 46.76 60860 13.62 -68.12 50.15 60860 15.06 -66.87 44.75 60860 15.19 -65.39 43.87 60860 14.83 -75.60 46.84 60860 14.48
Velocity Nort (cmlsecond)
Bin Depth 1
2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9
End Date
4.5 10.0 15.0 20.0 30.0
1997/06/12 18:30
40.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30
1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30 1997/06/12 18:30
StdDev Mean -3.52 13.65 13.78 -1.42 12.47 -0.48 11.62 0.32 10.41 0.50 1.34 1.36 1.30 0.01
11.51 11.69 11.50 10.94
Mi -68.93 -67.74 -58.77 -44.98 -40.32 -43.20 -52.61 -49.20 -53.89
NPts Max 53.96 60860 53.84 60860 57.68 60860 48.27 60860 44.72 60860 I 51.98 60860 i 48.57 60860 I 48.44 60860 I 39.12 60860 I
Inshore VMCMs: 1996/08/02 19:22 to 1997/06/12 09:30, 60210 Re.:orj~ Velocity East (cmlsecond)
Bin I Depth 4.5 1 2 15.0 3 30.0 4 42.0 5 57.0
StdDev Mean 15.96 -8.40 15.03 -6.25 13.62 -5.74 15.35 -4.81 13.62 -2.69
Max I ~PLs Min 22ï J 5 -78.17 40.83 586s-70.83 53.24 5 S6sl:5 -63.87 45.94 602J) -63.94 52.78 602 J ) -55.61 43.64
StdDev Mean 14.22 -2.56 1996/12/0623:52 13.07 -0.77 1997/06/1209:30 11.31 0.43 1997/06/1209:30 12.58 1.30 1997/06/1209:30 10.26 0.49 1997/06/1209:30
Max I ~P'u. Min ","'-1 __I,) -46.28 53.15 5 S6si -50.86 52.99 -41.65 38.50 5S6sl -46.85 41.59 602: ) 602:) -37.93 43.57
End Date
1996/12/0623:52 1997/06/1209:30 1997/06/1209:30 1997/06/1209:30 1997/06/1209:30
Velocity North (cmlsecond)
Bin Depth 1 4.5 2 3
4 5
15.0 30.0 42.0 57.0
End Date
Table 4.5.1. VMCM Water Velocity Statistics at Central and Inshore sites 121
Offshore VMCMs: 1996/07/31 20:00 to 1997/06/16 10:52, 61368 Records Velocity East (cmlsecond) Bin 1
Depth 4.5
2
15.0
3
30.0 64.0 79.0
4 5
Mean StdDev 18.16 -9.67 1997/06/16 10:52 -10.84 15.98 1997/06/16 10:52 -10.10 14.14 1997/06/16 10:52 -6.76 15.35 1997/06/1610:52 -3.81 12.23
End Date
1997/06/16 10:52
Min I Max I NPts I -101.74 50.28 61368 -95.87 44.39 61368 -66.50 38.34 61368 -61.26 43.22 61368 -57.58 33.83 61368
Velocity Nort (cmlsecond) Bin
Depth 4.5
2
15.0
1997/06/16 10:52
Mean -4.01 -1.38
3
30.0 64.0 79.0
1997/06/16 10:52
1.25
1997/06/16 10:52
0.92 -0.59
1
4 5
End Date 1997/06/16 10:52
1997/06/16 10:52
StdDev 14.88 9.76 11.07 8.74
12.11
Min Max NPts -59.96 51.19 61368 -46.44 48.22 61368 -40.22 41.57 61368 -46.11 44.29 61368 -40.64 40.40 61368
Alongshore VMCMs: 1996/08/03 21:30 to 1997/06/10 09:52,59620 Records Velocity East (cmlsecond) Depth End Date Mean StdDev 4.55 1996/12/2500:00 -13.12 19.43 2 15.00 1996/11/12 00:00 -6.99 16.08 3 50.0 1997/06/1009:52 -7.24 16.72 4 65.0 1997/06/1009:52 -5.14 14.83
Bin 1
Min Max NPts -85.22 59.93 22666 -78.71 39.55 14410 -71.99 45.33 59620 -73.01 40.59 59620
Velocity Nort (cmlsecond) Depth 1 4.5 2 15.0 3 50.0 4 65.0
Bin
Mean StdDev 1996/12/2500:00 -2.06 15.44 1996/11/1200:00 0.04 12.11 1997/06/1 0 09:52 1.89 12.48 1997/06/1009:52 0.33 10.29
End Date
Min Max I NPts -56.4 55.01 22666 -36.67 53.47 14410 -45.05 49.90 59620 -50.49 37.81 59620
Table 4.5.2. VMCM Water Velocity Statistics at Offshore and Alongshore sites
122
ADCP Velocity Statistics WorkHorse 100 at Inshore Site 1996/08/02 20:26 to 1996/11/27 01:56, 55791 records
Velocity East (cmlsecond)
Bin 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 91
10 11
Depth(m) 9.0 13.0 17.0
21.0 25.0 29.0 33.0 37.0 41.0 45.0
Mean -11.35 -11.11 -10.77 -10.33 -9.87 -9.36 -8.72 -5.76 -7.13 -6.95
StdDev 17.95 17.19 16.54
Mean
StdDev 16.02
16.11 15.85 15.75 15.66 11.86 15.10 15.59
Min -99.77 -99.98 -99.49 -95.20 -89.32 -80.85 -70.81 -63.82 -64.61 -61.75
Max 93.63 60.22 39.35 35.86
Min -99.56 -99.28 -81.97 -60.61 -39.54 -40.05 -42.69 -38.90 -40.93 -44.07
Max 98.20 85.80 79.08
37.91 35.86 37.40 29.69 43.83 48.85
Velocity North (cmlsecond) Bin 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 91
10 11
Depth(m) 9.0 13.0 17.0
21.0 25.0 29.0 33.0 37.0 41.0 45.0
1.90
2.34 2.77 2.96 3.01 3.03
3.00 2.01 2.36 1.89
14.83 13.90 13.35 13.16 13.16 13.12 9.51 12.46 12.71
64.71 58.36 53.86 51.36
45.42 45.76 42.38
Table 4.5.3. ADCP Water Velocity Statistics at Inshore site
1 Bin 9 data were corrupted by the presence of the steel sphere at 38m depth on the Inshore subsurface moonng.
123
NarowBand 593 at Offshore Site 1996/07/31 19:12 to 1996/11/2401:39,55330 records Velocity East (cmlsecond)
Bin
Depth(m) 5 6 7 8
9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
15.6 19.6
23.6 27.7 31.7 35.7 39.7 43.8 47.8 51.8 55.9 59.9 63.9 68.0
Mean -17.99 -17.60 -17.06 -16.49 -15.91 -15.28 -14.49 -13.61 -12.77 -11.93 -11.06 -10.27 -9.60 -8.88
StdDev 17.84
Mean
StdDev
17.43 17.04 16.71 16.48 16.32 16.25 16.33 16.51 16.66 16.68 16.49 16.22 15.91
Min -106.97 -98.32 -91.63 -80.64 -73.55 -71.33 -70.69 -68.52 -68.95 -70.94 -69.00 -65.47 -66.26 -65.48
Max 43.66 37.35 38.75 40.12 40.99 39.88 38.01 35.71 36.60 38.65 37.36 39.64 39.45 40.97
Min -47.01 -50.52 -49.39 -46.22 -41.52 -37.49 -36.72 -43.63 -47.86 -49.72 -51.22 -50.75 -48.43 -51.59
Max 52.94 50.67 50.23 47.43 45.84 47.16 48.34 47.60 52.16 56.80 54.70 51.27 47.59 42.87
Velocity Nort (cmlsecond)
Depth(m)
Bin 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
15.6 19.6
1.28 1.71
23.6 27.7 31.7 35.7 39.7 43.8 47.8 51.8 55.9 59.9 63.9 68.0
2.08 2.41 2.63 2.73 2.69 2.56 2.27 1.84 1.41
0.99 0.52 -0.07
14.05 13.05 12.42 12.05 11.80 11.54 11.32 11.30 11.52 11.89 12.28 12.56 12.63 12.43
Table 4.5.4. ADCP Water Velocity Statistics at Offshore sites
124
~ ~ -; ~ -= 1- 1 -
III~IIIIIII~IIIIIII~IIII
Ji
..ZJ
J
~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ -: ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~Ã ~:' ~ ~ \ ~
/0
--j
J
"/
- ~
~='~
2§
"2
~
j
~
~
~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~---:-: ~
~
~
~-= ~~ ~
~~
~
-A
~
0
0
~~ ~ ~~ = ~-.
=" -
~
-s ~~
~~
~
E
a..
I
0
0
(f
G
=:
..
--
0N 0N
0
0N aN i
a
J
=:
N
I
I
w
E
Ii ..
0 0 N N
D-
~a ~
E
i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I
0 0N N
OJ
~
~
0 N i
(s/w:)) Ál!:)OI8¡\ pJDMlS8M
Figure 4.5.3. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Central Site, August - December, shalow instrments. Data is filtered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
125
0 L +-
u
~
~
?
c
~~
~
J..
in
0N
=
~
E
~~--~
~ ~
7!
~ i
(f
:2 U i- :2 u
~
~ ~ ~ ~
?0 z
~ .~ ~
~-.
.-J
~':~
u w 0
~~
I I i I I I I
~-
IIIIIIIII
I I I
IIII
I I
I I
Z :J -:
".
-=;; ~
.: .: ~
~
~~
~
""
~
~ ~~~
~
~~'~
~~
A
)
~ ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~\ .~--\ ~ , ~~~ ~ - ~~J ; -i ~j-: ~--~~ ,.
==
-'
a
~
~
~
i ~ ~~~~ ~
~
.. ~ ~-
~~
~~
~\
-:\~
~
u 2::
-:::
~
j;: ~ ~ ~ ~,;
0
L 0: -.: c(J
:2
~~ -~~ '-
~~ "§
CD
w L.
J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
== ==
~-:
z.:
-:
~
1.
0N
0
"'~" "j,~,,, ,J,~, 0000000000 N I
N
N
N
I
N
N
I
N I
0 N
0
0 N i
(sjw:)) ¡(l!:)olaA pJDMlSaM
Figure 4.5.4. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Central Site, August - December, deep instrments. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
126
(j
.: 2
-
~
~
0: 0.
~ '-""
-i~
~ ~ -~
~
~
~
~-: ~ ~
-:
--~
~
7-
~
.: :2
~
""
~
)-
U
I~I -,
j
~, ~~
~
0w 0
.:
~~~ --~ .. "
"'
~~
-=
~ ~ -= ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~--
~ ~~
¡.
~
~,
-:
-~ ~
~ I I
a
0 L
:: -§
~-=
~
~
I I
I
I
C)
:: ..
1 ~ ~
-=
E
-i
:: ~
Lí Lí
aN aN
0
if
i:'~
;¡
IIII IIII IIII IIIII
(L
w
..--'~~
~~~~ aLí
a--
CJ
U
=
": ~ ~
E
E
I I I
0
?-
-lC
~
~~
~ ~
0
~~
-; ~
~~ ~ a 0 N N
- ~-
U
~ ~ -~ ~
~
~ ::
~
~
i0 :2
-;
=--~ ~1
::~
~..
:2
l
~ ~~~ -=
~ ~ ~
(f
~
-=~
d~
1i
?0 z
.: ~ ~
~~
~
aN
..~
~
j
I I I
Z
l
I I
I I I
aN aN I
a
0 N i
(s/w~) Ál!~OlaA pJDMlSaM
Figure 4.5.5. VMCM Water Velocity tie series, Central Site, Januar - June, shalow instrments. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
127
§~
~
~-=s
-= -¡::
~~
§;
~~
~..
'l
~
~
~
.)
l
~
~ ~
.)
..~
--~
-..
--
""
~--
~-.~
~
~
,;~
l ~ ~~-.~
~~ ~-:
~.f
~~~ -.
'~
~~f
-i E
~~~~
N I
N
~~
~~
/,
~~
N
i~ ~ i~iiiri
0
N
I
0
G)
CD
W
L.
~-~
~ E
r~iiiri i 0ii,j,~, 0 0 0 0 0
U
,.
::..~
~" ~
~o
2
c
"\~
~
E
0:
's
!.
~~~
::
~ ~~
if
2U 2 ? 0 !. +-
-:
~-;~
-.~
~~
~ :~
~:SJ
~~ ~
~
~
':
""
~..'\
~
'-
-~ ~ ~
~
~
~
-:
~r
,l
~
0-
,¡
~
¡
-l.
0:
~
~
-=
N
~ ~
~
..r -=
2-:
t
-.-~
-~
)-
'"~"
k ~
~ ..
.)
~
r~
~ ""
~..
~~~
~ ~
':-~
J
~
==
~~
~ ~
z::
--~ -
0 N0
N I
="' :: ~
~~
z-:
J
E
~o ~~~CD 0
0 N i
(sjw:)) Ál!:)018/\ p.JDMlS8M
Figure 4.5.6. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Central Site, Januar - June, deep instruments. Data is filtered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
128
III~IIIIIII~IIIIIII~IIII
i ~ J ~ ' ~
~~-
~ ~ 7i
.,
~~~
A
~
J~
~
,
~
~.:
::
:; ~~
~
~~
~~
~
,g1
~
~
E
E
0 N
a
~ ~ ~
0
.£ (f C
0. w
if
~
1
~
'i
c. :J -c
;i
E
al'
L(
..
~'1 E
L
~
~'1
.:~:;
Q)
L l =-~~ ~
--
~
0 ~
~"\
~~
..
U f- :2 U
==
~ ~~ ~
::4
:2
~
'~-l
~
(f
~
~~:i
""
--
~~J
..~~~
~
..
~
~~
~ ,. ---f'
~~
~ ==
1 -d
~.~
~k
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
?0 z
'\.l
~
""
~
-~~ ~
J. ""
j~
~
0
~~~
~~~
j
W
~
~
~~
U
~
~~ ~
"
J -c
~
~ ~ 1\ í\ A ~~ ~- ~
~
Z
-'~
-:J
N
..
i I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 a N N I
0
0 a N N
a
I
0 0 N N I
0
0N 0N I
a
aN
J
i
(sjw:i) Ál!:lOI8A p.lDMlS8M
Figure 4.5.7. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Inshore Site, August - December. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
129
IIIIIIIIII
I I I I I l I I I
~
i~
~
~
,I
~ ~
~
2
-c
i
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
)-
':
i
l
~~
~
~
~'"
~=~ ~ -~~
~
~
0:
""
~J-..
1
~
~~ ~
~
~
"'
J-~
~/i
~
-:~
~/~
~l ~
E lC
..
~,
a 0N
N I
0
a
N
z-c ~
( E
,
I
Li
r
,J:~ a 0 0 N
IT W
~'-
J. E
J E
c
-",
~
..
..0(j
~ ~
~~
~
2
~~r ~~~
~ ~
l~
0: -c
~ ~
~~
~. ~~
L
~~~ ~~!
r
..~
(j
2U 2? Q)
~
~~
~,J
~~~
~~ if T ~-~
l
::
""
'--~-
~ ~
~~~,
.1 ~
-M
;-
J
A
\ ~
~
1 ~""7.
0-c
-I:
~
==
J
aN
~~ ~,
~~
1
~~~..
1
-=
~~
~"§
i ~ l~
~~ --
~~
~
~~-;~
Z
:: ~
""
..
~
N I
~~ ~ lC
'"~
0 N
0
0N i
(s/w:)) Ãl!:lOI8/\ p.JDMlS8M
Figure 4.5.8. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Inshore Site, Januar - June. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
130
z-c
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
--
uw o
~~~
--
~-=
~ ~
--
~ "'
~~
~Æ
~~
J
~\
~-=
l "'::
0. U
~
~-;
~-;
:? 0Z
0 .. fu0 :: 5
~
-.
~~
sI ~ ~
Q)
L
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ "l~ -, , , ~. ~À ~~ -:~-= ~ ~ ~ - -i ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ --
""
..0(J
:1 ~
Cl
w
~
~1
-= -=..
s
~
d
~
:0
~ ?
~-: -.
~ ~
~ -;
~
E
E
~
~ ~~
E
"
0
0
0 Na
N I
0
a C'a
0
I
0 0 C' C' I
0
-1\ ~' ,
~
0 0 N N I
-i
E
~ --
.. 0
0N I
(sjw::) Ál!::oie¡\ pJDMlSeM
Figure 4.5.9. ADCP Water Velocity time senes, Inshore Site, August - December.
131
-c
"1
LO
N
,:fi¡
~
E
t
C)
õ€
n Q) N i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I InI I N
(f
~ J
-i
c
"
i I
I I
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
I~III ~\
~
~
~
~:4 ~~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ':~
E
0
0 N0
N I
0
IIIIIIIIII
0 0 N N I
~~
E
0I"
..
I I I I I I
0
E LO
.q N
~~
I I
0
I
I I
I I I
0 0 N N I
I I I
0
""
~
0. w
if
..~
~~
-=
~g;
C)
::~
~ -:
-:
~~
1
0
-~~~
~
~
,:
U
~
~
;;
f-
-=:i
-=
~~ ~":
~ 1~
~~
-
~ ~ -
~ .~~~
¿ã
~ ~~~
~
~
~~
~
_ ::
~~¥
~~
~
~
:.
~..
?0 z
==~
~=: =::"~ ~-J~
~~ -:~ ~ ~, ~ ~--~ =-~ ~ :
::-=~ ~~..~
~~~ ~~~~ ~
1
-: :.,..4
uw 0
~.:
.:
~--
-:~ ~
~ ~ ~ -- i. -l
~
'"~f''''' l'
Z -: ~
/~
~
~1
E
E
.q to
(J
~ ~ ~
f'
I I
0 0 N N I
0
0N I
(S/W:J) Ál!:JOI8¡\ pJDMlS8M
Figure 4.5.10. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Offshore Site, August - December. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours). 132
¿U(f ¿? Q)
L
..0(f '+ '+ 0
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII
~
~
tí~
::
1t lP~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ""
y
-=~ A
-a
I I I
~
~
~J ~
==o
\~~
-=
I I
IIIIIIII
~-= ~~ ~;;
~ ~".
~
-~
~::
;&
~
~
-=~ -=
..:2
~ ~ = ~:: ~~ --
0:
~~
~ ""
'L
--J
~
~ == -~=-
-=-
=.
~ ;:
4
~J "e
J
d ~ ..~
~~~
~
'"
"
-~ =
..
-~
J~::
~
-=
== -=--
~~
~
-~:;
..-
~¡;
~-
-= ~~
~ ~
L
0: ..:2
-.k-
~
'-
~
:: ;¡
..-
~
~
-~ ~
".". -~ --
in
w
~~
----
LL
-:
~-'E¿ = ~
'",.~
..7~
-~ ~in .. I 1~ I \;' ;; I I I ~IIII \~,
'" 0000000 o 0N 0 NN NN N N I I i
z..
-. ~E --;;~(J l"
- E
oN
Q)
=.r
, ~ ~~-i ~~ --
oN
I
o
--
o N I
(s/w~) ÁlpOla¡\ pJDMlSaM
Figure 4.5.1 1. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Offshore Site, Januar - June. Data is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
133
if
.. 2 U 2 ? CL
~ç
~ ~ ~
~~-;
)-
1; i§
':""~
-l-
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
:J --
-= ~=
1
~~
~ ß~
-=..~
::
§.
Z
h
~
..oif '+ '+ o
zoe
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
J uw o
~
:?
~~l
oz
~--~
D-
U
i-
o~
uo Z
~ ~
~~
.: -.
-'~
~~
~~~
~~- -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ----~
'-- ~'"
-~
~""
~
s: ;S
~,1
,J
~~
E
I
I
0
N
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0 N N I
Q. W
~ ~-~~-
(f
-.
~~
C)
::
:\ ~
-.'i
~,,~
oe
=
~
E
tI ..
L
~
~~~ ~
~ --~ E ~~E ex 0 tI N N "' 0000000 NIN I N N J
.:
Q)
..""~
~
E
-i
"' to
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o N 0 N I
o
o N
:: J
I
(sjw:i) Ál!:ioleA p.JoMlseM
Figure 4.5.12. ADCP Water Velocity time series, Offshore Site, August - November.
134
CD
..oif '+ '+ o
IIIIIIIIIIIII~I
~--
Z
I I
'!~
-c
~
""
~ ~~
::?
~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~, ~~ J ~ ~ ~~ ~~..
~
":
~~
uw 0
-!0
~-~
-:
:?
0 z
r -~ ==
-~
f-
(f 2 U 2?
0
OJ L
-:
~
~
~~~ ~~
.J
J ~ ~ .ß -?
~ -:;~
~
~~
== -G
~~
~
0. w (J
~,,
.-= ~~
.A
0 -c
C)
:: -c
"'
~ ';
~
~ E
i. 0 .. -. i. IIIIIIII IIIIIII a N0 Na 0 aN aN 0 N0 Na i
C
;;
~~ E
I I
Oì
j
~ E
..0(f
~
~~~
1
U
~
-=
~ a N
~ -~-
E
--
:: ~
i. il
I I I I
I
I
0
0 N i
(s/w:)) ,\l!:)Olo3/\ pJDMlS03M
Figure 4.5.13. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Alongshore Site, August - December. Data is filtered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours).
135
IIII
z::
--~
J
-:
~~~
~ :§ ~ ~
..
~ e:
~-~
)-
~~
~~ ~ ~
-c :2
~~
1
~
k r ~ =
t~ ~ '"
0: 0. -c
~
~;; ~
% ~
,.-~
(f
:2
U
?:2 Q)
L-
a
~ ~~
-~
~~-;
~
0: -c :2
f ~ ---10
~~
-.~ -=
~~L
~
~
..(f
01
C
a -c
§;
if;;
~ :s
m
w LL
~
-~
~.s
11
¡s
§g -: = ==
~ I~~ o N aN0 N0 E
I
z-c
J
~
~, E ~LO
~t.
o
o
N I
(sjw:i) "i!:ioia¡\ pJDMisaM
Figure 4.5.14. VMCM Water Velocity time series, Alongshore Site, Januar - June. Data
is fitered over 576 points (3 days) and decimated over 96 points (12 hours). 136
1000
5 m
o
'B 15 m
..E
30 m
.:
'- -1 000
z
40 m
~~---x--~x--x""-&-
I
(f
'--x-.._--.
ø ~ 18 ~ 18 ~ 18 1860 m
- 2000
-3000 -3000
......z--.x 50 m
-2000
-1 000
a
W-E (km)
Progressive Vectors, Central Site Figure 4.5.15. Progressive vectors from selected curent meters at Central Site. 137
1000
Df,
OfM,
ill
106
5m
104
.:c.
u
'",
u "" '",
102
E
102
E
~ 10°
10.2
10-4
'-u
~ 10-3
10°
10-2
10-2
10-1
10°
101
10-4
~ 10.3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
ill
106
10°
101
OfM,
30m
ill
106
104
40m
104
.:c.
.:c.
u
u
-'",
102
E
~ 10°
10-2
10-4
~
210°
10-2
10.2
10-3
102
E
10-1
10°
101
10-4
~ 10-3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
ill
106
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
OfM,
OfM,
50m
ill
106
104
60m
104
.:c.
.:c.
u
,-'",
10-1
Frequency (cph)
OfM,
,-'",
15m
104
.:c.
,-
ill
106
u
-'",
102
E
210°
10.2
10-4
~ 10-3
102
E
210°
10-2
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph) Figure 4.5.16. Rotar autospectra of
10-4
~ 10.3
10-2
10.1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
water velocity measured by VMCMs at Central Site
at varous depths. Clockwise (solid) and counter-clockwise (dotted) spetras are shown.
Diurnal (D), semi-diurnal (M2), and inertal (f) frequencies are indicated with arows. 138
Df,
ill
106
DfM,
9m
.:c.
.:c.
'"
'"
,-'",
102
102
E
E
~
~ 10°
10°
10-2
10.2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
10-4
101
10.3
10.2
ill
10°
101
DfM,
DfM, 106
10-1
Frequency (cph)
Frequency (cph)
25m
ill
106
33m
l(f
104
.:c. '" ,'",
.:c. '"
,'",
17m
104
104
,-'",
ill
106
102
102
E
E
~
~ 10°
10°
10-2
10-2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
Frequency (cph)
Frequency (cph) DfM,
ill
106
41m
104
.:c. '" ,-'",
102
E
~ 10°
10-2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10'1
ioe
101
Frequency (cph) Figure 4.5.17. Rotar auto
spectra of water velocity measured by WorkHorse ADCP at
Inshore Site at varous depths. Clockwise (solid) and counter-clockwise (dotted) spectras
are shown. Diurnal (D), semi-diural (M2), and inertial (f) frequencies are indicated with
arows. 139
DfM,
ill
106
DfM,
15m
104
-",
.:c.
,.u
102
-",
E
102
E
~
~ 100
100
10.2
10-2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
101
10-4
10-3
Frequency (cph)
10-2
ill
106
100
101
DfM,
40m
ill
106
104
52m
104
.:c. -",
10-1
Frequency (cph)
DfM,
,.u
28m
104
.:c.
,.u
ill
106
.:c.
,.u
102
'"
E
102
E
~
~ 100
100
10-2
10-2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10.1
100
101
Frequency (cph)
10-4
103
10.2
10.1
100
101
Frequency (cph)
DfM,
ill
106
64m
104
.:c.
,.u -",
102
E
~ 100
10.2
10-4
10-3
10-2
10.1
100
101
Frequency (cph) Figure 4.5.18. Rotar auto
spectra of water velocity measured by Narowband ADCP at
Offshore Site at varous depths. Clockwise (solid) and counter-clockwise (dotted) spectras
are shown. Diurnal (D), semi-diural (M2), and inertial (f) frequencies are indicated with
arows.
140
5. CMO Mooring Recoveries Rf Oceanus Voyage #305, June 9-17, 1997, Steve Anderson, Chief Scientist We had a very successful mooring recovery cruise and all instrments were recovered. The
weather was calm and recoveries went smoothly thanks to the helpful crew of the Oceanus and the many cruise paricipants. The whole operation took place during three legs. In addition to the recoveries, we were able to occupy the CMO across shelf hydrographic transect twice,
separated by 9 days. During this time we observed the formation of a war surface mixed layer in response to strong solar heating during the long days and clear skies. We thank Derek Manov and Rocky Geyer for the loan of their CTD's during this cruise. At the end of the cruise we redeployed Sandy Wiliams' Tripod and a guard mooring to support Jim Ledwell's dye injection cruise in July. The moored aray group had over 80 scientific instruments deployed for over 10 months, with most recording several varables. Our most notable problem was wind sensor failures due,
presumably, to large waves associated with several very strong storms (including Hurrcane Edouard). Fortunately, Jim Edson's sonic anemometer worked the entire time and is consequently critical to our interpretation of both the meteorological and oceanographic observations. Fouling by fishing gear was limited to the top two current meters at the Alongshore site and the top curent meter at the Inshore site. Although biofouling was heavy on some of the moorings, our antifouling worked well on the current meters and most of the conductivity sensors. Weare very excited about the good data return and about the fact that the deployment spanned the breakdown of stratification in the fall and its re-establishment in the spring. The breakdown of stratification in the fall primarly occurred during several strong storm events, including Edouard. Our concentration of instrments in the surface and bottom boundar layers appears to have been a wise choice, as both layers show significant varability during these strong forcing events. Indeed, the data set appears well suited to exploring our hypothesis that the evolution of stratification is principally controlled by processes in the surface and bottom
boundares. Primary objective: To recover all moorings and tripods deployed for the Coastal Mixing and Optics Program. Secondary objectives:
To obtain hydrographic data across the shelf in the region and to redeploy the BASS-Tripod in support of the upcoming purposeful tracer studies.
141
Leg 1: June 9-12 Alongshore site: recovered subsurface, 2 guards, toroid. Central site: recovered Dickey (UCSB) mooring Agrawal tripod
guard with wind Wiliams trpod Completed CMO hydrographic transect stations 1-23 Leg 2: June 12-15
First 14 CTD stations completed Inshore site: recovered subsurface, 2 guards, toroid. Central site: recovered Fan Beam ADCP mooring 2 guard moorings and guard with wind
sensors
subsurface and Central discus Completed Pickar's Shelf Break Front hydrographic transect with 20 CTD stations Leg 3: June 15-16
Central site: Deployed Wiliams trpod and guard mooring Offshore site: recovered 2 guard moorings, subsurface and toroid 23 CMO hydrographic stations Reoccupied all
Cruise Chronology Leg 1: June 9 1997.
1445 Woods Hole. We hold safety meeting in main lab prior to deparure from the dock
1645 Woods Hole. Finishing up lashing and securing. Lentz is preparng the wetlab to use as a staging area for the CTD. First station wil be the Inshore side of the across shelf CTD transect. 1735 Underway to first CTD station 1758 Science meeting held in main lab to review objectives for Leg 1.
2215 At station for first CTD cast. After first profile with the UOP SBE 19, we notice that the profies are noisy and steppy. We suspect the pressure resolution. The strain gauge pressure gauge is rated for 10,000 psi with a resolution of 0.015% of full scale. This translates to a 1.07m, resolution which is confirmed by looking at the ASCn file. 2342 At station #2. We take another cast with the SBE19 and are stil not satisfied with the results. Derik and Dave offer to deploy the UCSB SBE 25 CTD to compare with the SBE19 data. June 10 1997
0040 Station #3. We take 1 cast with the UCSB SBE25 and a second with the UOP SBE19. 0320 Station #7. We have given up on the SBE19. Derek and Dave are installng new
batteries into the SBE25. We plan to continue with transect with SBE25. Hill and Lentz wil continue with CTD survey. The plan is to break off the surface in time to be at the Alongshore site by first light. 142
0800 Station 14. Last CTD station. Have completed section past the Offshore site. Breakng off to go to Alongshore site. 1016 Alongshore site. Took 2 CTD casts to 64m (water depth 70m). Ostrom, Trask and Way have staged deck for subsurface mooring recovery. Winds moderate at 6.5 mls from 239=BO. SST at 1O.5=BOC.
1223 Alongshore site. Subsurface mooring has been recovered. All instrments look good.
Next we recovered the Guard "0". Trask noted that the Alongshore south guard had maximum wear from 14m above the anchor to 3m below the swiveL.
Alongshore site. All moorings recovered from this site. The toroid was last to come on board. We needed to back of about half a mile to fire the release. The top 2 VMCMs were fouled by half inch nylon line. The line was tangled on top 15m of the mooring. All instruments were recovered, logged and photographed prior to washing. One shackle had a significantly enlarged cotter pin hole. 1812 Central site. UCSB group has taken a CTD cast is currently firing the release on their
mooring.
1827 UCSB sphere sighted 1919 UCSB mooring on deck. 2007 Agrawal tripod float is spotted after release was fired.
2105 Agrawal trpod on deck. There was some trouble with the mooring line getting fouled on the stem but Horace and Wil were able to grapple the line and continue with the recovery. Slightly ahead of schedule. We decide to recover the guard with winds prior to dinner. The buoy and mooring hardware looks like new since the mooring was only deployed 7 weeks ago. We noticed that SeaCat sIn 142 has a broken glass tip. June 11, 1997
0029 Central Site. Wiliams' SuperBass Tripod is now on deck and being secured. One of the top supports is broken. This is noticed as it comes out of the water and we do not know when it occurred. Sonteks look in good condition (we find out later that they did not work do to faulty cabling.) Lentz and Hill continue with CTD survey and finish off the transect using the UCSB SBE25 completing the CTD line at the Offshore end at 0800. Then we head straight for Woods Hole. 1630 Woods Hole. Just arved at the dock. Unloading stars immediately. The large trpod comes off first followed by everyhing else. The toroid with WeatherPak is left on the dock, all other instruments are trcked up to the high bay. Lentz and Anderson go in search of a CTD to use for the rest of the cruise. Rocky Geyer offers his OS200 which is accepted and mounted to a piece of pipe with hose clamps. Also, some lead weight is clamped to the pipe. After unloading, the science pary is given leave for a few hours and we plan an early evening deparure from Woods Hole. Leg
2:
June 12 1997
0045 Depar Woods Hole.
0950 Inshore site. We conduct 2 CTD casts with CRC OS200 CTD. Then star recovery of
subsurface mooring. One of the CTD casts stopped at 10m, the first looks good. Lentz going to review CTD setup. 143
L
;'J-
L
hi :-t ~\
1112 Inshore site. Subsurface mooring on deck and instruments have been photographed and are now being cleaned. All looks good, props spinning and poison plugs in place. Note: We saw a large container ship go north of the Inshore mooring site. This is clearly outside of the designated trans-Atlantic shipping lanes. This may be a regular occurence. 1319 Inshore site. First guard recovered. This one was really stuck in the mud and the
crane had a hard time pullng it out. 1.5 ft of mud on the anchor when put on the deck. 1618. Inshore site. Toroid now on deck. Washing of the toroid has begun. Line around the bridle and top current meter. We plan to do a depth surey going toward the Central site to
make sure the bottom is really as flat as we think. The survey confirms the flat slopping bottom. 1805 Central Site. Takng 2 CTD casts with OS200. The Fan Beam wil be the first recovery. 1903 Central Site. Fan Beam mooring recovered. The CTD casts look better than those taken at the Inshore site. We suspect that the conductivity probe is takng a long time to "wet" as Rocky suggested. We should have put the probe in water before we left the dock but failed to do so.
2058 Central Site. The subsurface mooring is on deck and we are cleaning up. All looks
pretty good and no surprises. June 13
0000 Central Site. Lentz and Plueddemann do a pair of CTD casts at Central site. They put both SBE-19 and OS 200 on the same line. The OS 200 data has much less salinity spiking.
There is a salinity offset between the two. 0955 Central Site. On deck ready to recover a guard mooring. 1050 Central Site. Northern Guard on deck. This one has been out since Levine set it 12 months ago. It clearly has the largest mussel population with almost no anti-fouling paint left on haul or bridle. 1306 Central Site. Guard with t-pod MTR is now on the deck. Cleaning up to get ready to recover discus.
1410. Central Site. Discus recovery stared. 1750 Staring to rain. We are finishing up the last bit of clean up on deck. All instrument
photographed and logged. Rick labeled and collected all hardware on discus mooring. We stared Pickar's Shelf break front hydrographic Transect at 1545. Currently at station #6. We
plan to continue the line until the 500m isobath and then return to WHO!. June 15
1300 At WHOI dock. We wil offload and stay in port overnight. We completed 20 CTD station in under 10 hours. Leg 3: June 15
0100 At Dock. Put Sandy's tripod over the side to get zero offset. 0200 Left dock for Central site.
0955 At Central site. Clear day flat seas. Best morning we have had yet for mooring operations. We deploy tripod first.
1003 Tripod set and guard "T" set. now heading off to Offshore Site. 1245 Offshore Site. Took 2 CTD casts and recovered Offshore subsurface mooring. 144
1453 Offshore Site. Recovered first guard mooring. Lage goose necks now cleaning up. 1645 Offshore Site. Second guard is no on deck and cleaned up. Getting in position to pick up toroid.
1724 Offshore Site. Toroid release not responding at 0.1 and 0.25 miles. Moving off to 0.4 miles. Water depth is 84m. 1925 Toroid is now on deck and being cleaned. The release never fired. We recovered the mooring until the release then cut the anchor letting it and the chain drop to the bottom. We are now heading towards the Offshore end of the CTD line. June 16
0800 Finished CTD line heading towards Woods Hole; expect to arve at 1300.
CMO Mooring Recovery Cruise Participant List Leg 1: 9-11 June
1. Steven Anderson 2. Nan Galbraith 3. Steven Lentz
4. Wil Ostrom 5. Rick Trask
6. Bryan Way 7. Derek Manov 8. Dave Sigurdson
9. Sandy Wiliam 10. Rebecca Latter
I 1. Paul Hil 12. Chuck Pottsmith
WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI UCSB UCSB WHOI WHOI Dalhousie University Sequoia Scientific, Inc.
Leg 2: 12-15 June
1. Steve Anderson 2. Jim Edson 3. Nan Galbraith
4. AI Hinton 5. Steven Lentz
6. Michiko Marn 7. Reina Nakamura 8. Wil Ostrom
9. Erica Rhude 10. AI Plueddemann
11. Rick Trask 12. Bryan Way
WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI-MIT Joint Program student WHOI Summer student fellow WHOI WHOI Sumer student employee WHOI WHOI WHOI
Leg 3: 16-18 June
1. Steve Anderson 2. Michele Berge
3. Jim Dunn 4. Jim Edson 5. Nan Galbraith
6. Michiko Marn 7. Reina Nakamura 8. Wil Ostrom
9. Erica Rhude 10. Rick Trask 11. Bryan Way
WHOI WHOI Sumer student employee WHOI WHOI WHOI WHOI-MIT Joint Program student WHO! Sumer student fellow WHOI WHO! Sumer student employee WHOI WHOI
145
6. The CTD Transects Shipboard CTD surveys were conducted during the mooring deployment and recovery cruises to characterize the spatial structure of the temperature, salinity and density fields. Surveys included an along-isobath radiator pattern and repeated cross-shelf section along the central mooring line (Figure 6.1). Cross-shelf transects of temperature, salinity, and density are shown in Figures 6.2-6.9. Besides the transects in August 1996 on the deployment cruise and June 1997 on the recovery cruise, CTD transects were also taken on September 5, 1996, by Jim Ledwell and on Februar 24, 1997, by Bob Pickar.
Acknowledgments The design and technical development of the Coastal Mixing and Optics (CMO) moored aray, the preparation of instrments, and the deployment and recovery of moorings were done by W.
Ostrom, R. Payne, R. Trask, J. Ware and B. Way of the WHOI Upper Ocean Processes Group (UOPG) with assistance from C. Marquette, N. McPhee, E. Terray and S. Worrlow. Moorings were designed by G. Tupper and fabricated by the WHOI Rigging Shop under the direction of D. Simoneau. The professionalism and expertise of the captain and crew of the RN Oceanus and RN Knorr contrbuted to successful deployment and recovery operations. We are indebted to Chief Scientists J. Ledwell, R. Pickar, M. Levine, and S. Chisholm, for their assistance with field operations.
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research, Code 322, under Grant Number N00014-95-1-0339.
146
42"N
41"N
.-.""
!
i
,.,/) ~. (. /'\ / (
,
40.N
j
-80
;j
~
./-/ //
.
1
. .
~ ("; '-~\.
i
¡ ,r',-.
.'~ ~ .r-
\i.; I¡ l
.
.1Q
--,
\ \,\ ,i ,.l
!\l
U~, J)¡ ) /Jí
\(6 i
-- "-
r'..
""" / .I
/~---_.
I/.-..~'/~I ,
/ f"V
¡
\, "
72.W
70.W
71"W
Figure 6.1. CTD Locations
147
69"W
Across Shelf CTD Section on 8/04/96 0
-.
50
'-S
..-
0. cu
100
Cl
150
200 20
0
40 60 80
100
40 60 80
100
Distance along transect (km)
0
-. '-S ..-
0. cu
¡-
50 100
Cl
150
200 0
20
Distance along transect (km) r
. ~si:)'~ .= ~L\)\)-..
0
. ~..".... .-, " G9~..O()"=: . ..
-. '-S ..-
0. cu
50
~;~b9 '1\)"
100
Cl
150
200 0
20
40 60 80
100
Distance along transect (km)
Figure 6.2. Cross-shelf CTD Section, deployment cruise, August 4, 1996 148
Across Shelf CTDSectIon on 8/07/96 0
,,E
50
õ. Q)
100
'-
..
Cl
150
200 0
20
40 60 80 Distance along transect (km)
100
~~~~~~&~~~ O~-2.U--' ,,E
50
'-
....
0. Q)
100
Cl
150
200 0
20
40 80 60 Distance along transect (km)
100
~
0
,,E
.~¡; i~
" n
50
'-
..
100 õ. Q)
Cl
150
200 0
20
40
60
80
100
Distance along transect (km) .
Figure 6.3. Cross-shelfCTD Section, deployment cruise, August 7,1996 149
Across Shelf CTD Section on 8/10/96 0
,'-E ....
0. Q)
50 100
Cl
150
200 0
20
40
60 80 Distance along transect (km)
100
0
20
40
60 80 Distance along transect (km)
100
0
20
40
100
0
,'-E .. õ. 0
50 100
Q)
150
200
0
,'-E ..
50
100 õ. Q)
Cl
150
200 60 80 Distance along transect (km)
Figure 6.4. Cross-shelfCTD Section, deployment cruise, August 10,1996
150
Across Shelf CTD Section on 2/24/97 o .c
..
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
~6'-
.c
.c
'.'" ., .c
.c
.c
.c
-
.c
.c
:- - "vb~ .......
8
50 10
'-E
....
0. cu
.c
......_, - -'-,
100
Cl
150
200
40
20
0
60
80
Distance along transect (la)
o .c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
';Q J "'
,1-.
..E
50
~,~)2.s0~.m .." '".,.,--' . '"",. ",. ,.' . .J'-', ...,.,...'.. .. , .." .,",-.,.~.. ", "~ ", . ", ...-.".. .c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
0. cu
.c
.c
.c
33.50
'33.GG
00
'-
....
--
m mm 33:00
-. C"
100
Cl
150
200
40
20
0
60
80
Distance along transect (la)
o .c
..E
.c
.c
.c
50
.c
.c
.c
~ ~ .c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c
.c ' .c
.c
26.00
'-
....
0. cu
100
Cl
150
200
40
20
0
60
Distance along transect (la) Figure 6.6
Cross-shelf CTD Section, J. Ledwell cruise, Februar 24. 1997. 152
80
Across Shelf CTD Section on 6/09/97
o å 10å ,-
'-E .i.. i: iu
å
å
å
å
50
-~8
å
å
å
å
å
å
100
Q
150
200 40
20
0
60
80
100
80
100
Distance along transect (la)
å
o ;.
,-
'-E .i.. i: iu
å
å
å
å
å
å
å °å å
50 100
Q
150
200
o.
40
20
0
60
Distance along transect (kI)
oå
,-
'-E .i.. i: iu
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
..
å
å
50 100
Q
150
200 0
20
40
60
80
100
Distance along transect (la)
Figure 6.7. Cross-shelf CTD Section, recovery cruise, June 9,1997 153
Across Shelf CTD Section on 6/13/97 II
Oll.... toII -.
II
~. 50 'D ~
?~~~-€:~~
II II II II II II II II II II II II II
'-E
-= 100
0.
oo
/...~... "
150
/
200
o
40 60
20
80
Distance along transect (km)
o II
-. '-E ..-'
0. 0
II
II
II II II A A
A II A
A
A
.h-... ......
5.~
50
100
0
150
200
-
40 60
20
0
80
Distance along transect (km)
o II
-.
A
A
24.50 25.00
A
~
A
A
A
A
A
A
II
II
A
A
II
A
II
A
i
:~
fi
50
~ 'vO i6.()().. .....
100
. .... ..... .... ... ... ... . .. ............... ......./..; .26..
150
200 0
II
L
.. ....... 25.00 --
'-E
..-' 0. 0 0
A
20
40 60
80
Distance along transect (km)
Figure 6.8. Cross-shelf CTD Section, recovery cruise, June 13, 1997 154
Across Shelf CTD Section on 6/17/97
l! l! A l! l! l! l! l!
..e
l! l!
'-8~8
50
'-
....
Q. 0 Cl
100
150
200 20
0
40 60 80 l! l! l! l! ~2.~~
.100
Distance along transect (km)
A
o ..
.,
A
l!
l! l!
l! A A l! A
.~.
..e
50
'-
....
Q. 0 Cl
100
150
200 0
20
40 60 80
100
Distance along transect (km)
oA
A
l! l! l!
A l! l! l!
.~.oo
l! l! l! A A24. l! A l! A
..J'
..S
50
'-
....
Q.
100
0
Cl
150
200 0
20
40 60 80 Distance along transect (la)
Figue 6.9. Cross-shelfCTD Section, recovery cruise, June 17, 1997 155
100
Bibliography Beardsley, R. c., and W. C. Boicourt, 1981. On estuarne and continental shelf circulation in
the Middle Atlantic Bight. In: Evolution of Physical Oceanography, ed. B. A. Waren and C. Wunsch, MI Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 198-234. Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, D. P. Rogers, J. B. Edson, and G. S. Young, 1996. Bulk parameterization of air-sea fluxes for Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere CoupledOcean Atmosphere Response Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(C2), 3747-3764. Fofonoff, N. P., and R. C. Millard, Jr., 1983. Algorithms for computations of fundamental properties of seawater. UNSCO Technical Papers in Marne Science, No. 44, 53 pp. Galbraith, N., W. Ostrom, B. Way, S. Lentz, S. Anderson, M. Baumgarner, A. Plueddemann, and J. Edson, 1997. Coastal Mixing and Optics mooring deployment cruise report. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Technical Report, WHOI-97-13, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 81 pp.
Marin, M. J., 1998. An investigation of momentum exchange parameterizations and atmospheric forcing for the Coastal Mixing and Optics program. Master's Thesis, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutionlassachusetts Institute of Technology, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 83 pp.
156
DOCUMENT LIBRAY Distrbution List/or Technical Report Exchange -July 1998
University of California, San Diego SIO Library 0175C 9500 Gilman Drive Jolla, CA 92093-0175 La
University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
Hancock Library of Biology & Oceanography
Library
Alan Hancock Laboratory University of Southern California University Park Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371
R.S.M.A.S.
Gifts & Exchanges Library Bedford Institute of Oceanography P.O. Box 1006
Maury Oceanographic Library Naval Oceanographic Office
Dartmouth, NS, B2Y 4A2, CANADA
IS Miami Library Center 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149
NOAA/ED
Research Library U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Marine Resources Information Center
Building E38-320 MIT
Cambridge, MA 02139 Library
Lamont-Dohert Geological Observatory Columbia University Palisades, NY 10964 Library
Serials Department Oregon State University Corvalls, OR 97331 Pell Marine Science Library University of Rhode Island
Fisheries-Oceanography Library 151 Oceanography Teaching Bldg.
University of Miami 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway Miami, FL 33149
Building 1003 South 1002 Balch Blvd. Stennis Space Center, MS, 39522-5001
Library
Institute of Ocean Sciences P.O. Box 6000 Sidney, B.C. V8L 4B2 CANADA
National Oceanographic Library
Southampton Oceanography Centre European Way Southampton S014 3ZH UK
The Librarian CSIRO Marine Laboratories G.P.O. Box 1538
Hobart, Tasmania AUSTRALIA 7001
Library Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory Bidston Observatory Birkenhead Merseyside L43 7 RA
UNITED KINGDOM
Narragansett Bay Campus
IFREMER Centre de Brest
Narragansett, RI 02882
Service Documentation - Publications
Working Collection Texas A&M University Dept. of Oceanography College Station, TX 77843
BP 70 29280 PLOUZANE FRANCE
~
:f.
Îi
r,
50272-101 2.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
UOP 99-03
3. Recipient's Accession No.
11. REPORT NO. WHOI-99-15
4. Title and Subtitle
Coastal Mixing and Optics Experiment Moored Array Data Report
5. Report Date December 1999 6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
Nancy Galbraith, Albert Plueddemann, Steven Lentz,
WHOI-99-15
Steven Anderson Mark Baum!1artner James Edson
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Projecask/ork Unit No.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
11. Contrct(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
N0001 4-95- 1 -0339
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Offce of Naval Research
Technical Report 14.
15. Supplementary Notes
This report should be cited as: Woods Hole Oceanog. Inst. Tech. Rept., WHOI-99-15.
16. Abstract (Umit: 200 words)
To investigate vertical mixing processes influencing the evolution of the stratification over continental shelves, a moored array was deployed on the New England shelf from August 1996 to June 1997 as part of the Office of Naval Research's Coastal Mixing and Optics program. The array consisted of four mid-shelf sites instrumented to measure oceanic (currents, temperature, salinity, pressure, and surface gravity wave spectra) and meteorological (winds, surface heat flux, precipitation) variables. This report presents a description of the moored array, a summary of the data processing, and statistics and time-series plots summariing the data. A report on the moorig recovery cruise and a summary of shipboard CI suiveys taken durig the mooring deployment are also included.
17. Document Analysis
a. Descriptors
Meteorology: North Atlantic Oceanography: North Atlantic Moored Instrument Measurements b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
-.c. COSATI Field/Group
19. Security Class (This Report)
18. Availabilty Statement
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
UNCLASSIFIED 20. Security Class (This Page)
See Instructions on Reverse
21. No. of Pages
162 22. Price OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77) (Formerly NTIS-35) Department of Commerce
