Posted by Atsuhiko Isobe on November 10, 2000 at 02:41:55:
In Reply to: Upper-layer depth posted by Mark Wimbush on November 09, 2000 at 09:58:12:
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.]