TY01和O02两种海面空气动力粗糙度方案的比较-海洋预报

TY01和O02两种海面空气动力粗糙度方案的比较

单位：解放军理工大学气象学院军事海洋系江苏南京 211101

分类号：P731

出版年·卷·期（页码）：2004·2004·第一期（56-64）

摘要：

本文采用美国国家浮标站(44008)2003年1~3月的资料,通过COARE算法版本((2.6b),比较了O02和TY01这两种海面空气动力粗糙度长度的参数化方案。通过对摩擦速度、拖曳系数、海面粗糙度及风应力等物理因子的计算得出:在粗糙的海面上,TY01和O02两种参数化方案的计算结果是比较一致的。在考虑浪的信息方面,TY01和O02都是很好的参数化方案。它们都可以适用于不同的风速条件,适用于各种尺度的海洋及湖泊。但是这两种方案在处理幼波时存在不连续的缺点。并且,对于风速较小的光滑海面,尽管它们计算的结果较一致,但是仍然存在偏差。据此,本文的结果对于理论分析和数值计算如何正确使用上述两种海面空气动力粗糙度参数化方案,可提供必要的参考价值。

The data, collected at the American National Data Buoy 44008 from January 1 through March 31, 2003, are used to test sea surface roughness schemes by using the COARE bulk parameterization scheme. The aim of this study is to better understand the sensitively of the buoy-derived surface momentum fluxes to choices of surface roughness parameterization and the range of applicability of the two schemes (TY01 and O02). Because the stability dependence scheme is fixed in our calculation of the surface stress, the differences in the modeled results of surface stress should be caused by different determination of roughness length. Our results show that the similarity between TY01 and O02 for this particularly measurements as a result of strong correlation between the wave steepness and the wave age. We also found that O02 scheme may experience numerical problems in case of extremely young waves while the YT01 scheme frequently resulted in discontinuity in the neutral drag coefficients for young waves.

参考文献：

[1] Chamock H.Wind Stress on Water Surface,Quart [J].Roy Meteorol.Soc.1955,81 :639～640.
[2] Donelan M A,et al.On the dependence of sea surface roughness on wave development[J].Phs.Oceanogr,1993,23:2143～2149.
[3] ECMWF,Parameterization of fluxes over land surfaces.Workshop Proc,ECMWF,Reading,England,392.
[4] Fairall C W,E F Bradley,et al.Bulk parameterization of air-sea fluxes for TOGA COARE [J].Geophys.Res.1996,101:3747～3764.
[5] Fairall C W,J E Hare,et al.Preliminary results from the ETL open ocean air-sea flux database.Proc.11 th Conference on Interaction of the Sea and Atmosphere,AMS,14～18 May 2001,San Diego CA,2001,5～8.
[6] Merzi N and W H Graf.Evaluation of the drag coefficient considering the effects of mobility of the roughness elements.Ann.Geophys.1985,3:473～478.
[7] Oncley,S.P and Dudhia,J; Evaluation of Surface Fluxes from MM5 Using Observations,Mon.Wes.Rev.1995,123:3344～3357.
[8] Oost W A,et al.New evidence for a relation between wind stress and wave age from measurements during ASGAMAGE.Tech.Report 2001-5,Royal Dutch Meteorological Institnte (KNMI),De Bilt,The Netherlands,2001,30.
[9] Smith.Coefficients for sea surface wind stress,heat flux,and wind profiles as a function of wind speed and temperature[J].Geophys.Res.1988,93:15467～15472.
[10] Taylor P K and M J Yelland.The dependence of sea surface roughness on the height and steepness of the waves [J].Phys.Oceanography,2001,31:572～590.
[11] Toba,et al.Wave dependence on sea-surface wind stress [J].Phys.Oceanogr.1990,20:705～721.
[12] Wang Q and D P Eleuterio.A Comparison of Bulk Aerodynamic Methods for Calculating Air-Sea Fluxes.The Proceedings of Ninth Conference on Mesoscale Processes,Fortlauderdale,F L,American Meteorological Society,55～58.
[13] Yelland M.and P K.Taylor,Wind stress measurements from the open ocean [J].Phys.Oceanography,1996,26,541～558.
[14] Zeng X,et al.Comparison of bulk aerodynamic algorithms for the computation of sea surface fluxes using the TOGA COARE and TAO data [J].Clim,1998,11,2628～2644.

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【发表评论】【查看评论】【加入收藏】