Re: Upper-layer depth

Subject:

Comments:
: Dr. Isobe, : Thanks for clarifying the model (and thanks, Kathy, : for fixing the Table). All is clear now! : Mark : : Prof. Mark Winmbush : : Thank you very much for your concern with our work. : : : : Yes, the depth of 600 m is a mean upper-layer thickness. : : As shown on the right-hand side of eq. (1) in 'physical interpretation', anomalies of the upper-layer thickness are generated by the lower-layer flow impinging on the bottom slope. These anomalies carry the volume transport anomalies to the west beyond the ridge. : : Right-hand side of eq (1) states that, the generation rate of the anomaly of the upper-layer thickness depends on the ratio, (upper-layer thickness/depth). Thus, as you pointed out, our results depend on the choice of that ratio. However, dependency is not so strong because of the large depth (-3000 m; anomaly of the upper-layer thickness is generated around the edge of the ridge). Also, we consider that our choice is appropriate in the North Pacific. : : I also found the lack of numbers in the table. I am very sorry for that mistake. I will repair it ASAP. : : Complete form of the table is as follows; : : table. parameters used in this study : : (unit is in CGS system except where otherwise stated) : : reduced gravity 2.0 : : planetary beta 2.0 x 10^-13 : : Coriolis parameter at southern sidewall : : 4.97 x 10^-5 : : horizontal viscosity coefficient 2 x 10^7 : : amplitude of the wind stress 0.656 : : depth in the flat region 3000 m : : maximum height of the ridge 1500 m : : width of the ridge 500 km : : undisturbed upper-layer thickness 600 m : : : : : : : How sensitive are the results to the choice of : : : upper-layer depth? Is 600 meters the MEAN : : : upper-layer depth? : : : [Note: on my Netscape browser, the "Parameters : : : used in this study" does not show any values : : : for any of the parameters.]