Extensive slope currents and the ocean-shelf boundary

Ocean‐to‐shelf signal transmission: A parameter study

“…[33] A reduced depth scale for the oceanic field p P does not generally favor signal transmission across the slope and shelf to the coast in the present calculations. This counters Huthnance's [1992] suggestion that previous work tended to show transmission if the signal is shallower than the shelf depth. The lack of transmission is more consistent with Chapman and Brink [1987]; they found only small interaction with the shelf, if the oceanic signal of depth scale D decayed before reaching water-depth < D. [34] The oceanic signal generally decays from the forcing region to the limit of the slope.…”

Ocean‐to‐shelf signal transmission: A parameter study

“…[33] A reduced depth scale for the oceanic field p P does not generally favor signal transmission across the slope and shelf to the coast in the present calculations. This counters Huthnance's [1992] suggestion that previous work tended to show transmission if the signal is shallower than the shelf depth. The lack of transmission is more consistent with Chapman and Brink [1987]; they found only small interaction with the shelf, if the oceanic signal of depth scale D decayed before reaching water-depth < D. [34] The oceanic signal generally decays from the forcing region to the limit of the slope.…”

Synoptic Flow and Density Observations near an Arctic Shelf Break

“…Property distributions (Hufford 1974) and direct velocity measurements (Aagaard 1989) indicate a subsurface eastward flow against the local winds over the slope of the Beaufort Sea. This current bears strong similarities to the subsurface slope currents found off California, Ireland, and northwest Africa (Huthnance 1992). The dynamics and spatial distribution of slope currents in the Arctic Ocean are largely unknown even though Aagaard (1989) postulates that they constitute the major circulation feature of this ocean.…”

Mechanisms of Eddy-Driven Variability of the Florida Current

“…Coastally trapped signals were more often traced to the proximity of Cape Hatteras, which is an area characterized by elevated levels of variability due to intense Gulf Stream meandering (e.g., Watts and Johns 1982). Huthnance (1992) suggested that coastally trapped waves can be generated by a large variety of mechanisms over the continental shelf and slope, including scattering by irregularities in the shelf, and generation by oceanic eddies offshore. The main mechanism triggering these signals consists of fluctuating offshore forcing in the form of pressure anomalies, from which waves will respond to the off-shelf forcing according to the similarities between the length and time scales in the forcing and the dispersion curve of free coastally trapped waves (Chapman and Brink 1987).…”

“…The transmission of offshore signals to the shelf is further affected by other parameters, such as the slope, shelf topography, stratification, and friction (e.g., Ezer 2016). The resulting response can be either mostly barotropic (Chapman and Brink 1987), or given by a hybrid baroclinic Kelvin wave/barotropic continental shelf wave, for which the structure depends on the steepness of the topography and strength of stratification (Huthnance 1978). Previous analysis along the southeast U.S. coast suggested that the Charleston Bump located at approximately 328N indeed plays an important role in driving the amplification of both barotropic and baroclinic instabilities leading to Gulf Stream meandering (Dewar and Bane 1985), and that further interaction between meanders and this topographic feature could trigger the southward propagating coastal signals (Oey et al 1992).…”

Ocean‐to‐shelf signal transmission: A parameter study

“…[33] A reduced depth scale for the oceanic field p P does not generally favor signal transmission across the slope and shelf to the coast in the present calculations. This counters Huthnance's [1992] suggestion that previous work tended to show transmission if the signal is shallower than the shelf depth. The lack of transmission is more consistent with Chapman and Brink [1987]; they found only small interaction with the shelf, if the oceanic signal of depth scale D decayed before reaching water-depth < D. [34] The oceanic signal generally decays from the forcing region to the limit of the slope.…”

Synoptic Flow and Density Observations near an Arctic Shelf Break

“…Property distributions (Hufford 1974) and direct velocity measurements (Aagaard 1989) indicate a subsurface eastward flow against the local winds over the slope of the Beaufort Sea. This current bears strong similarities to the subsurface slope currents found off California, Ireland, and northwest Africa (Huthnance 1992). The dynamics and spatial distribution of slope currents in the Arctic Ocean are largely unknown even though Aagaard (1989) postulates that they constitute the major circulation feature of this ocean.…”

Mechanisms of Eddy-Driven Variability of the Florida Current

“…Coastally trapped signals were more often traced to the proximity of Cape Hatteras, which is an area characterized by elevated levels of variability due to intense Gulf Stream meandering (e.g., Watts and Johns 1982). Huthnance (1992) suggested that coastally trapped waves can be generated by a large variety of mechanisms over the continental shelf and slope, including scattering by irregularities in the shelf, and generation by oceanic eddies offshore. The main mechanism triggering these signals consists of fluctuating offshore forcing in the form of pressure anomalies, from which waves will respond to the off-shelf forcing according to the similarities between the length and time scales in the forcing and the dispersion curve of free coastally trapped waves (Chapman and Brink 1987).…”

“…The transmission of offshore signals to the shelf is further affected by other parameters, such as the slope, shelf topography, stratification, and friction (e.g., Ezer 2016). The resulting response can be either mostly barotropic (Chapman and Brink 1987), or given by a hybrid baroclinic Kelvin wave/barotropic continental shelf wave, for which the structure depends on the steepness of the topography and strength of stratification (Huthnance 1978). Previous analysis along the southeast U.S. coast suggested that the Charleston Bump located at approximately 328N indeed plays an important role in driving the amplification of both barotropic and baroclinic instabilities leading to Gulf Stream meandering (Dewar and Bane 1985), and that further interaction between meanders and this topographic feature could trigger the southward propagating coastal signals (Oey et al 1992).…”

Ocean‐to‐shelf signal transmission: A parameter study

“…[33] A reduced depth scale for the oceanic field p P does not generally favor signal transmission across the slope and shelf to the coast in the present calculations. This counters Huthnance's [1992] suggestion that previous work tended to show transmission if the signal is shallower than the shelf depth. The lack of transmission is more consistent with Chapman and Brink [1987]; they found only small interaction with the shelf, if the oceanic signal of depth scale D decayed before reaching water-depth < D. [34] The oceanic signal generally decays from the forcing region to the limit of the slope.…”

Synoptic Flow and Density Observations near an Arctic Shelf Break

“…Property distributions (Hufford 1974) and direct velocity measurements (Aagaard 1989) indicate a subsurface eastward flow against the local winds over the slope of the Beaufort Sea. This current bears strong similarities to the subsurface slope currents found off California, Ireland, and northwest Africa (Huthnance 1992). The dynamics and spatial distribution of slope currents in the Arctic Ocean are largely unknown even though Aagaard (1989) postulates that they constitute the major circulation feature of this ocean.…”

Mechanisms of Eddy-Driven Variability of the Florida Current

“…Coastally trapped signals were more often traced to the proximity of Cape Hatteras, which is an area characterized by elevated levels of variability due to intense Gulf Stream meandering (e.g., Watts and Johns 1982). Huthnance (1992) suggested that coastally trapped waves can be generated by a large variety of mechanisms over the continental shelf and slope, including scattering by irregularities in the shelf, and generation by oceanic eddies offshore. The main mechanism triggering these signals consists of fluctuating offshore forcing in the form of pressure anomalies, from which waves will respond to the off-shelf forcing according to the similarities between the length and time scales in the forcing and the dispersion curve of free coastally trapped waves (Chapman and Brink 1987).…”

“…The transmission of offshore signals to the shelf is further affected by other parameters, such as the slope, shelf topography, stratification, and friction (e.g., Ezer 2016). The resulting response can be either mostly barotropic (Chapman and Brink 1987), or given by a hybrid baroclinic Kelvin wave/barotropic continental shelf wave, for which the structure depends on the steepness of the topography and strength of stratification (Huthnance 1978). Previous analysis along the southeast U.S. coast suggested that the Charleston Bump located at approximately 328N indeed plays an important role in driving the amplification of both barotropic and baroclinic instabilities leading to Gulf Stream meandering (Dewar and Bane 1985), and that further interaction between meanders and this topographic feature could trigger the southward propagating coastal signals (Oey et al 1992).…”