DisclaimerInforma UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in our publications. However, Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

A month of microstructure measurements in the Southern California Bight allowed to confirm the hypothesis that in ocean pycnocline, below the surface mixed layer, the probability distribution of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate ε averaged over equal time segments (2 s with 512‐Hz sampling rate, corresponding to about 1.4‐m vertical averaging) follows the Burr distribution suggested by Lozovatsky, Fernando, et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013076). The bin‐median estimates of ε was well correlated with the medians of the Burr model. The parameters of the Burr distribution varied in time, but no relationship was found between these variations and the changes in wind patterns and phases of barotropic tide. In the range 10−9~ < ε < 10−8 W/kg, the dissipation rate could be related to internal wave activity in the region.