Ocean Turbulence: Two-Point Closure Model Momentum, Heat and Salt Vertical Diffusivities in the Presence of Shear - Paper 3
In papers 1 and 2 we have presented the results of the most updated 1-point closure model for the turbulent vertical diffusivities of momentum, heat and salt, K(sub m,h,s). In this paper, we derive the analytic expressions for K(sub m,h,s) using a new 2-point closure model that has recently been developed and successfully tested against some approx. 80 turbulence statistics for different flows. The new model has no free parameters. The expressions for K(sub m, h. s) are analytical functions of two stability parameters: the Turner number R(sub rho) (salinity gradient/temperature gradient) and the Richardson number R(sub i) (temperature gradient/shear). The turbulent kinetic energy K and its rate of dissipation may be taken local or non-local (K-epsilon model). Contrary to all previous models that to describe turbulent mixing below the mixed layer (ML) have adopted three adjustable "background diffusivities" for momentum. heat and salt, we propose a model that avoids such adjustable diffusivities. We assume that below the ML, K(sub m,h,s) have the same functional dependence on R(sub i) and R(sub rho) derived from the turbulence model. However, in order to compute R(sub i) below the ML, we use data of vertical shear due to wave-breaking measured by Gargett et al. (1981). The procedure frees the model from adjustable background diffusivities and indeed we use the same model throughout the entire vertical extent of the ocean. Using the new K(sub m,h, s), we run an O-GCM and present a variety of results that we compare with Levitus and the KPP model. Since the traditional 1-point (used in papers 1 and 2) and the new 2-point closure models used here represent different modeling philosophies and procedures, testing them in an O-GCM is indispensable. The basic motivation is to show that the new 2-point closure model gives results that are overall superior to the 1-point closure in spite of the fact that the latter rely on several adjustable parameters while the new 2-point closure has none. After the extensive comparisons presented in papers 1 and 2, we conclude that the new model presented here is overall superior for it not only is parameter free but also 2 because is part of a more general turbulence model that has been previously successfully tested on a wide variety of other types of turbulent flows.