VERIFICATION OF MAZEIKA'S METHOD 0£ THERMOCUNE DEPTH PREDICTION FOR THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN JOHN WILLIAM CIBOCI LIBRARY MAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL iONTEREY, CALIF. 93940 DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY U '^JSTGRAOUATE SCHOOl MQNT£KEY CA 93943-5101 This document has been approved for publio release and sale; its distribution is unlimited. / 2 VERIFICATION OF MAZEIKA'S METHOD OF THERMOCLINE DEPTH PREDICTION FOR THE NORTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN by John William Ciboci Lieutenant, United/States Navy B. S., University of Idaho, 1959 Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OCEANOGRAPHY from the UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL October 1966 HU c Ms* ABSTRACT Mazeika's method for forecasting mixed-layer (thermocline) depth of the upper ocean layers is discussed along with a newer version of this method developed by James. Using Mazeika's method primarily, a verification for the Northeast Pacific Ocean was completed with data from Ocean Weather Stations PAPA (50N, 145W) and NOVEMBER (30N, 140W) and a point named MIDPOINT (40N, 140W) . The results indicate Mazeika's method is successful at Station PAPA more than seventy-five percent of the time during the heating season followed by a rapid decline as the cooling season begins. The method should be useful in the entire Central Subarctic Domain as described by John P. Tully. The method fails at NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT producing less than thirty percent success in prediction. James' version did not improve the results obtained at Station NOVEMBER. This failure appears to be due to the controlling parameters for processes in the Subtropic or Transitional oceanographic regions (which include NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT); these differ from para- meters controlling oceanic processes in the Pacific Subarctic region (Station PAPA) , which resemble those involved in the Atlantic region for which Mazeika's method was developed. Climatology data which can be used to obtain surface and 400-foot level temperature are also tested. The results indicate these data are very useful and accurate in determining the stability index required of Mazeika's method. ■ NAVAL POS R HON! , CALIF. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 . Background 8 2. Introduction 9 3. Mazeika's Method 11 4. Mazeika's Prediction Procedure 16 5. Verification Procedure 19 6. Verification Results 23 7. Verification of Climatology Results 28 8. Conclusions and Recommendations 30 9. Acknowledgements 32 10. Bibliography 33 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 34 AT = 0° to 4°F 2. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 35 AT « 4° to 6°F 3. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 36 AT = 6° to 8°F 4. Parameters t\ and h versus k for Stability Index 37 AT = 8° to 10°F 5. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 38 AT = 10° to 12°F 6. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 39 AT = 12° to 14°F 7. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 40 AT = 14° to 16°F 8. Parameters T\ and h versus k for Stability Index 41 AT = 16° to 18°F 9. Sea State Parameter Graph 42 10. Salinity Corrections for Convective Mixing 43 11. Layer Depth As A Function Of Turbulent Mixing 9 44 12. Relationships of Typical Assumed Convergent And 45 Divergent Fields to Pressure Systems for Choice of T^Curves 13. Relationships of Typical Assumed Convergent And 46 Divergent Fields to Pressure Systems for Choice of T\Curves 14. Verification Form 47 15. Amplitudes of Internal Waves: Frequency Distribution, 48 Mean, and Standard Deviation 16. Mean Depth of Mixed Layer as a Function of Mean 49 Wind Speed List of Illustrations (Cont'd) Figure Page 17. Subarctic Pacific Ocean Schematic Diagram of 50 Upper Zone Domains 18. Average Temperature May, Surface 51 19. Average Temperature May, 400 feet 52 20. Graphical Summary of Bathythermograph (BT) 53 Temperature Data at Weather Station 49N, 148W LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Correction of Stability Indexes for Salinity 54 Difference in the The rmoc line II. Duration for Wind Mixing to Stabilize 55 III. Wind and Sea Scale for Fully Developed Sea 56 IV. Frequency of Prediction Errors of Thermocline 57 Depth at Stations CHARLIE (52N, 35. 5W) and NOVEMBER (30N, 140W) V. Frequency of Prediction Errors of Thermocline 58 Depth at Stations PAPA (50N, 145W), NOVEMBER (30N, 140W), and MIDPOINT (40N, 140W) VI. Mean Values of Prediction Errors 59 VII. Frequency of Prediction Errors of Thermocline 60 Depth at Station PAPA for May, June, and July VIII. Frequency of Prediction Errors of Thermocline 61 Depth at Station PAPA for August, September, and October IX. Mean Values of Prediction Errors for Station PAPA 62 X. Climatology Results Verification for the Gulf of 63 Alaska Area 1. Background. The United States Navy is expending much effort in the direction of anti-submarine warfare. The proper use of anti-submarine detection devices hinges on the capability of correctly predicting the thermo- cline depth in the various oceans. Any reliable method which can be easily and properly used by the men and equipment of the anti-submarine forces would add to the overall defense capability of our country. To this end, the testing of one particular method of thermocline depth prediction was undertaken. 2. Introduction. Mazeika's method utilizes a subjective but realistic approach to the thermocline depth prediction problem. The thermocline depth pre- dicted by this procedure is the mean depth of the interface between the mixed layer and the thermocline. The method requires the. use of easily obtainable inputs such as forecast wind speed, fetch, wind duration and the synoptic weather picture. Subjective aspects of this method come to light in certain choices which are made by the user of the prediction technique, as will be explained later. Various types of vertical mixing are included in Mazeika's method. They are mechanical mixing, which is due to the combined effect of wind waves and associated wind currents; instability mixing due to advection and density changes; and mixing due to vertical convergence -divergence caused by changes in the overlying atmospheric pressure field, or by convergence -divergence in the surface current field. Mechanical mix- ing is introduced into the method by use of a sea state parameter which is based on the wind wave characteristics of the area under investiga- tion. The use of a stability index and corrections for the salinity gradient were chosen to satisfy the requirements of instability mix- ing. Finally, convergence -divergence is accounted for in the construc- tion of graphs used to determine the mixed-layer depth. Mazeika combined the use of these mixing parameters with the study of BT data, weather charts and simultaneous weather and wave observa- tions from the Atlantic Ocean Weather Station (OWS) CHARLIE (52N, 35W) to develop his prediction procedure empirically. After development was completed, data from Atlantic OWS BRAVO (56. 5N, 51W) , ECHO (35N, 48W) , 9 and DELTA (44N, 41W) were used to test the method. No data from the Pacific ocean weather stations were used for the empirical develop- ment of the method or for its testing. Mazeika has stated that his prediction method can generally be used anywhere in the ocean without previous information on the mixed layer and thermocline; the only requirement is knowledge of the surface wind waves and the stability index. The testing of Mazeika' s method in the Pacific Ocean would serve to substantiate this claim by Mazeika or possibly bring to light weaknesses in the method which may be present. 10 3. Mazeika's Method. Mazeika (1960) considered the mixed-layer thickness, h, to be a function of wave amplitude A, wavelength ?\t and a mixing parameter k, which is valid at the interface between the mixed layer and the thermo- cline. The mixing parameter cannot be expected to remain constant. Since it applies to the bottom of the mixed layer, it must be dependent on mixed-layer thickness and on the wave parameters. In addition, its value depends on the stability in the thermocline. The relation describing orbital motion in trochoid waves includes most of the parameters, if h is considered to be a fixed value under given surface conditions and if stability in the thermocline is constant. The above function, k(A,h, ?0 , was adopted by Mazeika in view of the generally accepted theory that orbital motion of particles due to waves decreases exponentially with depth and is proportional to the wave parameters. Solving (1) for h, fc-&M#)- <2> Equation (2) can be used to compute h, if the wave parameters and the corresponding value of k for existing stability in the thermocline are known. In the above equations the amplitude (A) is one-half of the sig- nificant wave height (H. ._) ; wave length (/*\) was computed by the re- o lation ^= 3.41T , where T is the period of maximum energy of the max max w spectrum for a fully-developed sea. 11 On the assumption that vertical temperature difference is propor- tional to the mean temperature gradient in the upper part of the thermo- cline, Mazeika adopted the difference in the entire thermocline as the index of stability (a salinity correction could be added, see Table I). Since most BT data usually reach a depth of 400 feet, Mazeika selected the difference between the surface and the 400 foot level as the stabil- ity index 25 - t0 - t400. A deeper layer (e.g., 600 feet) could be taken if data were available. A certain initial stability exists with a given AT in the absence of a mixed layer. If the mean stability index remains constant, stabil- ity increases from the initial value with increasing mixed-layer thick- ness. Increase of stability is slow when the mixed layer begins to form and gradually becomes greater as the mixed-layer thickness and AT increase. To connect mixing parameter values with stability and wave para- meters, another parameter (sea state parameter) was introduced by Mazeika T\ " Hi/3T, max fl is used as a measure of sea state for wind waves, k values deter- mined from equation (1) with known wave parameters and mean mixed-layer thickness (h) values were plotted against T\ values computed with corresponding wave parameters for eight groups of AT. Curves which fit the distribution of points for each AT group were computed and resulted in the solid-line curves of figures 1-8. h values which were related 12 to the k(T\) curves were then computed and plotted as the dashed-line curves on figures 1-8. The central h curve applies to normal mixing, the upper h curve applies to convergent situations with horizontal convergence occurring in the upper ocean layers adjacent to the point of interest, while the lower h curve applies to situations with hori- zontal divergence. A later discussion covers procedures used in deter- mining which h curves apply for a particular location. The h curve is used to determine the mixed-layer thickness in feet from the h scale on the left margin of figures 1-8. Richard W. James (1966) of the Naval Oceanographic Office has de- veloped a new version of thermocline depth prediction based entirely on Mazeika's method. This author had completed most of the Pacific verification data before James' version was published so that only lim- ited testing of it was introduced in this report. James believes Mazeika's model to be the most realistic approach to wind mixing to date, but points out that no account is taken of the demonstrated time lag between onset of wind and the mixing subsequently generated, and also that it is overly sensitive to low wave conditions. James has corrected these deficiencies in new figures which are described below, and has redefined the stability index to what he believes is a more realistic parameter. James retained the sea state parameter, TV, as defined by Mazeika, but he replaced its determination method by developing a new graph (figure 9) which is based on wave forecasting procedures of Pierson, Neumann, and James (1955). This can be used in all cases of fully- or non-fully-developed sea. 13 To account for the time lag between occurrence of wind and subse- quent mixing James developed Table II. This table gives approximate time periods for a given 1\ value to stabilize, since a certain wind re- quires a given time to develop a maximum 1\ value. If this time require- ment is not met then a lower 1\ value must be considered. James also believed that Mazeika's stability index, AT, is a fair- ly conservative factor and that it may not be representative of the re- sistance to mixing in many cases. Thus, he redefined the stability index (AT..) as the temperature gradient, in °F/100 feet, at the most shallow thermocline. The thermal gradient does not have to extend through 100 feet since only the rate of change is desired. Salinity corrections for this method are obtained from figure 10. The correction is given in °F/100 feet and is added to the previously determined stability index (AT ). The amount of correction is propor- tional to the salinity gradient, water temperature, and the mixing fac- tors. James also developed new mixed-layer depth forecasting curves from the formula: LD=^(i-tr^AT^ where K and K are constants. These new curves are depicted in figure 11. Convergence and divergence was accounted for in this figure by using the next AT. curve above the normal AT- curve for convergence , and the AT. curve below the proper value for divergence. The effects of swell on the mixing of water was also considered by James, who states that a much reduced value of T\ should be used for swell. The reduction of the mixing force with swell is due to the 14 narrowness of the period band, lack of breaking crests, and reduced angular spreading. He also states that swell caused from decaying wind waves in a fetch still possesses some of the characteristics of sea and should represent about 50 percent of f\ while swell arriving from a distant storm would represent approximately 25 percent of T\. This re- duction is strictly a subjective estimate. 15 4. Mazeika's Prediction Procedure. To use the method properly, the stability index must be determined first and corrected for salinity gradient if possible. This determina- tion can be accomplished in various ways based on: (1) averaging temperature differences between the surface and the 400-foot level for four to six bathythermograph (BT) observations taken within the time interval of 24 hours, preferably; the time inter- val could be longer, however, up to a maximum of ten days. (2) climatology data records (monthly or seasonal) which give sea surface temperature and the temperature at 400 feet. (The accuracy of these data will be discussed later.) (3) synoptic sea surface chart and climatological data for 400 feet. After AT has been determined, the salinity gradient correction can be applied if such data are available. The salinity correction is found by entering Table I with the mean temperature in the mixed layer and the salinity difference ( /oo) in the mixed layer and coming out with a value AT'. This value is then used to determine the correction C = -ST'-l* for negative salinity gradients or C =2ST,-1° for positive salinity gradients, since k(f\) curves actually correspond to 1°F high- er stability indexes. This C correction is then applied to the origi- nal ZJf value to determine the proper graph for the mixed layer predic- tion. The next step in the prediction procedure is to determine the sea state parameter 1\. This can be done by the use of Table III which lists values of wave parameters and minimum fetch and duration for various 16 windspeeds for a fully-developed sea. For application in a non-fully- developed sea, H. /0 and T are taken from graphs in H.O. 603 and is l/J max then computed with the equation T\ = H. ._T The forecast windspeed can be a critical factor in determining an accurate X\ • The error in mixed-layer depth prediction caused by erro- neous windspeed is greater with a small stability index than with a larger one. To illustrate, an error of 1 knot in windspeed could pro- duce a difference of 16 feet in the predicted mixed-layer depth using a stability index of 2° while this same error would produce a differ- ence of 6 feet using a stability index of 13°. The accurate forecast of windspeed is imperative to an accurate mixed- layer prediction. Finally, a decision must be made as to whether an area is under- going horizontal divergence or convergence which may influence the ef- fectiveness of the mixing processes. This is a difficult problem which is approached subjectively through a study of the forecast area. Some areas may be under the influence of permanent convergent or divergent systems which may preclude conventional mixing processes. To aid in this determination Mazeika has illustrated in figures 12 and 13 what he believes to be areas of strong convergence and divergence. Figures 12 and 13 were used as guide lines by this author in the verification procedure and they seemed to work quite well. Laevastu and Hubert (1965) note that convergence and divergence usually depend on a subjective estimation and they recommend the alternative of calculation of diver- gence and convergence from surface current fields. After the required parameters have been determined and the appro- priate graph selected the thermocline depth can be determined. The fl value is found on the far left margin of the graph (figures 1-8) . 17 From the horizontal intersection of this value with the proper k( f\) solid-line curve (normal, convergent or divergent), proceed vertically to intersect the corresponding dashed curve, h(k). Then proceed hori- zontally to the h scale on the left margin to determine the thermocline depth. 18 5. Verification Procedure. The requirements for the use of Mazeika's method are explicit. To meet these requirements a search for data was initiated and led im- mediately to the elimination of all data which included only one BT per day. These sources were mainly commercial and military ship reports. Since data from Ocean Weather Stations PAPA (50N, 145W) and NOVEMBER (30N, 140W) were readily available at the Naval Postgraduate School, a decision was made to limit the verification to the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Also, the difference in geographical location of these two stations in the Northeast Pacific Ocean area would serve to test the procedure in perhaps different ocean regions within this broad area. Data for Station PAPA were taken from booklets prepared by the Canadian Oceanographic Data Center. This source is considered excel- lent as all parameters were included in it except the synoptic weather picture. Ocean Station NOVEMBER BT data were obtained from the Navy Fleet Numerical Weather Facility (FNWF) at Monterey9 California. These data were in the form of daily reports which normally included from two to ten BT observations. A point between these two ocean weather stations, which will be referred to as MIDPOINT (40N, 140W) , was also included. Information for MIDPOINT, furnished by FNWF, was available for only one month. The synoptic weather charts which were needed to estimate conver- gent, divergent or normal synoptic situations were obtained from records kept in the meteorology storeroom at the Naval Postgraduate School and also from the Synoptic Weather Maps (Daily Series) available through the U. S. Government Printing Office. Most of the charts used were 19 facsimile charts sent from the National Meteorological Center at Washington, D. C. The particular synoptic chart used included surface pressure and 1000-500 MB thickness analysis for the Northern Hemisphere. All data collected for the verification were selected from months during which the seasonal thermocline is a prominent feature. May through August was considered the best period for this to occur at all three locations. Station PAPA data included continuous observations from May 1964 through October 1964. September and October were included to determine the method's effectiveness after the seasonal thermocline period has ended. A limited amount of observations for June 1966 were included also. The data periods for Station NOVEMBER included the fol- lowing: July 1957, July through September 1958, May and June 1964, June 1965 and April through June 1966. Data for MIDPOINT were available for May 1965. As Mazeika points out in his report, a large amount of continuous data (which must include all necessary parameters) from the same observa- tion point is not easy to obtain. The data gathered for this verifica- tion were found in many different places and brought together so that all requirements were met. Numerous other continuous data sources had to be discarded as one or two parameters could not be located for the time period involved. After all available data had been collected, a verification form was developed to include all the required information necessary to make proper hindcasts. This form is presented in figure 14. Most of the column headings are self-explanatory, but explanations for a few are required. When available, windspeed was obtained from weather observations 20 taken concurrently with the BT observations; otherwise, it was esti- mated from the daily synoptic weather charts and entered on the form. Much effort was expended in making correct windspeed estimates as large errors could develop. The magnitude of this type of error was brought out earlier in this report. After windspeed was determined, Table III was entered to obtain the value T\ . Next, observed mixed- layer depth was entered as the average obtain- ed from all BT observations for that day. Since Mazeika's method pre- dicts the mean mixed- layer depth it must be compared with an average value (since individual BT observations may differ greatly). Tempera- tures at the surface and 400 feet were averaged and then compared to obtain an accurate stability index. After all parameters were obtained, the proper AT graph was used in selecting the mixed-layer thickness (thermocline depth). This value was then compared with the observed mixed- layer depth. If the observed value were larger than the predicted one, the difference between the two was entered as a negative number in the Difference column. If the predicted value were the larger of the two values, a positive number was entered in the Difference column. This was done to determine if Mazeika's method was over- or under-predicting the mixed-layer thick- ness in the Pacific Ocean. When the proper criteria have been met, a check mark is placed in the column labelled Verification. In this study a tolerance of +20 feet from the observed value is considered to have verified. The tolerance limits were chosen after considering the factors described in the following paragraph. First, Mazeika has shown in figure 15 that the average amplitude 21 of internal waves is 17.85 feet. This is interpreted to indicate that internal waves alone could provide a variation of thermocline depth of this size about its mean value. Second, Tabata and Giovando (1962) have shown this same magnitude in figure 16. They also concluded that this variation was due to internal waves. Finally, any method which can correctly predict within 20 feet of the established thermocline depth is certainly a valuable tool for the operating ASW forces. 22 6. Verification Results. To insure that Mazeika's method was being applied correctly so that the results obtained would be useful, a trial run on Atlantic OWS CHARLIE was initiated. A period of one month was tested with the results presented in Table IV. The method predicted within 20 feet of the ob- served mixed-layer depth 63.6% of the time. This was considered accept- able, since the hindcasts were made with no previous experience on new data, although in the ocean region for which the method was developed. After this trial run, it was believed the method was being applied cor- rectly. Station PAPA had a total of 106 hindcasts performed during the heat- ing period May through August. Of these, 82 were verified by the ob- served layer depth to show 77.4% of the hindcasts verified within 20 feet of the observed average layer depth of that day (Table V). In- cluding those hindcasts which verified within 30 feet of the observed value increased the verification to 85%. Since the mean observed thermo- cline depth was approximately 100 feet (Table VI), the above percentages can be directly related to verification data presented by Mazeika (1960). These percentages are slightly higher than those which Mazeika observed on data from Stations BRAVO and DELTA in the Atlantic. However, all results obtained from Station PAPA compared favorably with what Mazeika had presented. A monthly analysis of Station PAPA verification results presented in Tables VII, VIII, and IX shows the high success of the method during the heating season. Also shown is a rapid decline in the method's ef- fectiveness as the cooling season begins. Table VIII indicates 46% suc- cess of prediction was experienced during the month of September and 23 only 21% during October. The period of seasonal or "transient" thermo- cline has ended and the mixed layer begins to extend to its permanent thermocline depth; this prediction method, which depends on wind and mechanical mixing, ceases to be effective since it does not include a way of accounting for convective instability in the ocean mixed layer. Station PAPA is located in a position similar in some respects to the position of Station CHARLIE, at which Mazeika originally developed his method. The weather is quite similar in that many pressure systems, which normally consist of high winds and associated moderate to severe storms, travel eastward through this area. The mixing of the upper lay- ers of water due to these disturbances is probably very similar at both locations. Also, the latitude of Stations CHARLIE and PAPA is very nearly the same. This would indicate that the temperature and radia- tion conditions are similar. Acknowledging the fact that water masses do vary greatly, the above similarities would lead one to a general ac- ceptance that Mazeika' s method should be expected to work quite well at Station PAPA. Returning to Table V, it can be seen that Station NOVEMBER dis- plays a completely different set of results than that of Station PAPA. NOVEMBER verified only 52 out of 191 attempts for a verification score of 27.2%. Table VI displays a mean negative value of error much higher than the mean positive value. This indicates that the method was pre- dicting a mixed-layer depth much too shallow for the NOVEMBER area. Station NOVEMBER is in a semi -convergent mixing zone, so that the area is normally, but not continually, subjected to convergent mixing pro- cesses. The NOVEMBER area is usually under the influence of high pres- sure systems which move eastward. The isobar spacing in these pressure 24 systems is usually quite large resulting in low windspeeds. The low windspeed produces a reduced value of sea state parameter which ulti- mately leads to a shallower forecast of mixed-layer thickness, using Mazeika's method. Thus the NOVEMBER area is quite different from the development area of Mazeika's method in many respects. The temperature and radia- tion conditions differ as well as the windspeed regimes and the overall weather patterns. These differences are believed to be the reasons for the failure of Mazeika's method in this area. With the failure of Mazeika's method clearly evident, it was thought a test using James' version would be in order to see if the new stability index and forecasting curves might improi^e the results at OWS NOVEMBER. As seen in Table IV the results were also very poor. Only one month's data, previously tested using Mazeika's method, were used for this trial run. Even with the poor results displayed, two interesting side effects were noted. First of all, obtaining the temperature gradient of the shallowest thermocline did not prove to be an easy task. From the data given in various BT reports, the gradient is determined as only a sub- jective estimate at best. There were some times, however, when fairly accurate gradients could be determined. These occurred when sufficient information was reported in the thermocline gradient zone. Secondly, the forecast curves of James are a much improved version compared to those of Mazeika. They are very easy to interpolate, especially at low sea state parameter values. Since both Mazeika's method and James" version did not prove to be successful at Station NOVEMBER, one might attempt to improve the forecasting there through a new set of curves empirically developed as was done at Station CHARLIE. This could also lead to a set of curves which would be useful at lower latitudes in general where similar condi- tions prevail. In the hope of locating a transition area where the method works somewhat better than at NOVEMBER, a point approximately half-way be- tween NOVEMBER and PAPA was tested. MIDPOINT had 27 hindcasts perform- ed with 8 verifications for a 29.6% predictability figure (Table V). This figure indicated that one must be somewhere above 40N latitude in order for the method to work more effectively. MIDPOINT also had a large negative error value indicating that the method was still not forecasting deep enough thermocline depths. Tully (1964) describes the behavior of the Northeast Pacific Ocean and suggests through his description where the transition between the NOVEMBER regime and PAPA regime may occur. In his paper, Tully des- cribed various domains or regions which require various models for determination of temperature structure and behavior. These domains are shown in figure 17. As can be seen MIDPOINT lies in the lower part of the Transitional Domain and Station PAPA lies in the center of the Central Subarctic Domain. Each domain is considered to have in- dividually appropriate meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms working within it. If this is true and the study by Tully indicates this to be so, then it can be assumed that Mazeika's method should work effectively within the Central Subarctic Domain. This is not meant to limit the use of Mazeika's method but only to point out an area where high predictability reasonably may be expected. 26 In summary, Mazeika's method does produce effective results in the Station PAPA area and perhaps these results may be extrapolated to include the whole Central Subarctic Domain. At about 45N the method's forecast ability may begin to lessen. At MIDPOINT and Station NOVEMBER the method is less than 30% reliable, indicating the need for another consideration of the forecasting problem in this area; James' version of the forecast method did not improve results at NOVEMBER. Mazeika's method was easy to apply in most respects except for low values of T\^ where curves are difficult to interpolate accurately. Some errors in forecast mixed-layer thickness may have occurred due to this problem. James' version uses a stability index which may be difficult to determine in some cases. The thermocline gradient is not always clear- ly reported and thus must be estimated. The overall procedure is easy to use, especially with regard to James' forecasting curves which offer many improvements over the earlier Mazeika version. 27 7. Verification of Climatology Results. For the determination of stability index Mazeika suggested as a source climatology data (monthly or seasonal) which gives the tempera- ture at the surface and 400 feet. Since actual BT data were used for the determination of stability index in this report, a comparison of the two was considered for a reliability check of the climatology data. Only certain areas have been studied thoroughly enough to pro- duce such data. One of these areas is the Gulf of Alaska in the North- east Pacific Ocean. Margaret K. Robinson (1957) of Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted a study of sea temperature for this area. Robinson analyzed 16,103 individual BT observations from the period 1941 to 1952. The BT data were subjected to extrapolation, interpola- tion and visual smoothing to obtain the various monthly averages. Figures 18 and 19 show one version of the temperature averaging results. These charts can be used to obtain a monthly average stabil- ity index. However, a different version may be more accurate for deter- mining temperature from a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. This version is displayed in figure 20. This graphical summary was used to obtain the temperature data for the comparison. Temperatures for the surface and 400 feet were taken from figure 20 for the months of May through October. These were compared against BT observation averages which resulted from this verification report. The results have been tabulated and are presented in Table X. It must be pointed out that figure 20 is a summary of data for 49N, 148W which is slightly southwest of Station PAPA. All temperatures taken from figure 20 were slightly higher than those which might be expected at PAPA, but a comparison should still prove valuable. 28 Since data from Station PAPA were available for the last half of May only, Table X includes the averages for this period only. It can be seen that the averages compare quite well and in most cases would result in using the same forecasting curve for Mazeika's method. These averages ought to be even closer if both were done for the same observa- tion point. From this comparison it is evident that climatology data can be used effectively in determining accurate stability indexes in Mazeika's thermocline depth forecasts. 29 8. Conclusions and Recommendations. Mazeika's method of thermocline depth prediction does work ef- fectively at Station PAPA. The method predicted within 20 feet of the observed mixed-layer depth 77.47. of the time. This is considered to be a good prediction percentage. From the study conducted by Tully, it can be assumed the same success experienced at Station PAPA may be realized for the entire Central Subarctic Domain. This is due to the consistent meteorologi- cal and oceanographic properties of this area. Station NOVEMBER offered little success with either the Mazeika or James version. Both predicted within 20 feet of the thermocline depth less than 307. of the time. The verification attempt at MIDPOINT resulted in less than 307. prediction success also. The success of Mazeika's method at PAPA and the failure of it at NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT is primarily due to weather and environmental conditions. The temperature, radiation conditions, wind regime and weather similarities with regard to Station PAPA and the development area of Mazeika's method leads one to believe the method should work under these similar conditions. At Station NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT the conditions are not the same thus causing the method to fail. It is believed that forecasting curves could be developed for this area which would make the method useful here. During the verification process it was found that Mazeika's fore- casting curves were difficult to interpolate at low sea state para- meter values. This difficulty may lead to errors in mixed-layer depth prediction. All other parameters and procedures were considered very easy to use. This method should be adaptable to fleet-wide distribu- tion for use in anti-submarine operations. 30 James9 version of Mazeika's method was also easy to use, with the exception of the stability index. James" thermocline gradient is more difficult to determine than the temperature difference which Mazeika uses. The forecasting curves developed by James are much easier to use and provide for a more accurate mixed-layer forecast. Climatology data which may be used to determine the stability index for Mazeika's procedure were also tested. The results indicated that climatology data supply accurate information for this determina- tion. 31 9. Acknowledgements. I am grateful for the help in obtaining data to Dr. T. Laevastu and Mr. H. P. Parks of the Fleet Numerical Weather Facility. I am further indebted for assistance, encouragement, and advice to Professor Glenn H. Jung, my faculty advisor. To my wife, Lynda, my appreciation and gratitude for both moral and practical support. 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Hubert, W. E. and T. Laevastu. Analysis and Prediction of the Depth of the Thermocline and Near-Surface Thermal Structure. Fleet Numerical Weather Facility, Monterey, California. Technical Note No. 10, August, 1965. 2. James, R. W. Ocean Thermal Structure Forecasting. SP-105 ASWEPS Manual Series, Volume 5, U, S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 1966. 3. Mazeika, P. A. Prediction of the Thermocline Depth. U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office. Technical Report 104, ASWEPS Report No. 5, June, 1960. 4. Pierson, W. J., Neumann, G. , and James, R. W. Practical Methods for Observing and Forecasting Ocean Waves by Means of Wave Spectra and Statistics, U. S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publica- tion No. 603, 1955. 5. Robinson, M. K. Sea Temperature in the Gulf of Alaska and in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, 1941-1952. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, LaJolla, California. Volume 7, No. 1, 1957. 6. Tabata, S. and L. F. Giovando. Prediction of Transient Tempera- ture Structure in the Surface Layers of the Ocean. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Manuscript Report Series No. 132, June 1962. 7. Tully, J. P. Oceanographic Regions and Assessment of Tempera- ture Structure in the Seasonal Zone of the North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Volume 21, No. 5, 1964. 33 T) [FEETI 1000 - 490 - 480 950 - 470 - 460 - 450 900 - 440 - 430 8S0 - 420 u - 410 - 400 800 - 390 - 380 750 - 370 - 360 700 - 330 - 340 -3 30 6S0 - 320 -310 600 - 300 j- 290 - 280 550 - 270 — - 260 500 - 250 — - 240 • - 230 450 f 220 - 210 400 - 200 - 190 - - 180 350 - - 170 - 160 300 - 150 - - 140 - 130 250 - - 120 - -110 - 20 0 - 100 - 90 - - 80 ISO - - 70 - 60 100 - 50 - 40 - 30 50 - - 20 - 10 0 0 AM 2° F - " ^- „-- ■"" """ "/* . ,- - : / ^ - / / / - / / / i rr— . . ... .. l / -» - - • c' o, of '*/ 4 J **«' — — i_ | -TT-- . X,— J~~ - . / / / - | / / 1 %/ I 1 1 i - — — h idiver gence) — —^ | / " 1 ' " 1 ' S ** / c> / / 1 ' 1 / / / / / / til f 1 / 1 1 1 -1 1/ r / / / -1 '/ J 1/ / / / / -1 i / 1 /I 1 -1/' 1 l/l / !/ ' n '/ ' /l -1 l/i -1 '/I - 1/ I f V 1 . 2.7 Figure 1 PARAMETERS r, AND h VERSUS k FOR STABILITY INDEX Af = 0° TO 4» F (Mazeika9 1960} 34 35 36 ] I I •»! |\ 1 o\ 1 \ 1 c\ I \ 1 X* 1 \ ®\ I 'Sx ?\ i>\ ■OI <,y 1 ■— 't *>\ F\ 1 % n A < 1 , ;- -— "i*. iii. ,1,1 i.i, ' ' ■ '< i,i, iii 1,1, ,1,1 i,i, o o oo x a z CD f* o (0 vD ON cc i-l o u. <* .* «3 en co tr uj > 4rf N < CO a. 2 < or < 3 00 •H I , I , 1 . I . I , I . 1 . , . I . I I , I , I , I , I , I , I . I , I , I i I , , . , , l , I , I , , , , . I , I , I , 1 , I , 1 . I ■ I 1,1,1,1.1,1,1 1,1 II I I L I ' I l.l.l I L_J I I I I I I l.l.i I I I 37 y * \ 0)1 u. c O.I Cl fc- 1 •1 >' <- \— i Til \ '^l ii \ \ \ 'v '^s.\. ^W ,1.1 1,1, ,1,1 1 1 1 1 ,i,i 1,1. ,i,i 1,1, ii- o\ in IX Q Z < cr 2 2 m CO 0) N CCJ ■ i . i . i . i . i . i , i , i ,1,1.1,1.1,1,1,1 i , hoooooooooooo g«l . — —— — — — - - , i , i, i , i . i , i . i . i . i . i . i . i , i . i . i , i , i ,i , i . i , i ■ i . i . i . i , i , i , i , i , i . o o o o o o 38 \ \ 1 l \ 1 a>\ 0) 1 o 1 c I O) | o>| w 1 f\ 1 ®\ It I \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ , \ IV \ » \ \ \ \\ X V v»\ — -*iSb^» III. .1.1 Ill, .i.i i,i ,1.1 1 1 1 1 5 o »- e CM X UJ Q z CO < H CO cc o o vT> u. CT> JC t-H CO 3 CO tr in > cu N JS « Q s Z >»• < e- CO CC UJ h- UJ 2 < oc < a vO 0) 3 60 •H to H . i . i . i . I . i , I , i . I . I , 1,1 1.1111.1,1,1.1 I.I I 1 1 1 I I 1 , 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 . I . I , I . I 1,1.1,1,1,1,1 I . I . I . I . I i I . I . I -L. J UJ I I i-U.LJ._L-J 39 40 \ I \ . \ V \ IV i > \ \ i i i I i A \\ \ I \ 1 ■ •?\ \ °l i i \ s' \ ?l 0)\ 81 o\ 1 \ > \ T3- 1 II SA 1 V" 0>\ w ' -o\ El ° 1 *\ or \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 A \ \ \ \\ v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V \ \ \ > ^\ \ k ..-N, %->V v» ^^ "™ ^., "***—. -Z>w ,i,i i,!, ,i,i i,l, ,1,1 i,i, o Q z < a: 2 < a. I oo 0) •rl O CO N 2 1,1,1, 1,1 1,1,1,1.1,1 II 1,1,1,1 1,1,1.1,1 ' ■ I I I . I ' ■ ' ■ 1,1,1.1 I , I , I ,T, I , I . I . I , I l.l.l 1,1,1.1,1, I . I . I ■ I , I , I , I , I . I . I . I . O O 1.1,1 41 #*$*' (S31IIM "lVOIinVN) H013J o ^ <■ m ~ cvj i 1 1 i i O m o o o m i i o o cvj o 0 rQ o o o o O o (0 T CM 1 1 i_Li _M_LL 1 \ \ \ m O . f:Pvv If) CO _ . p J ' \ V o T _ lvf\ . \ \\ \ CM K \ \ 1 \ i\ ^ \ \\\ NT o . i|\\l\KN x rS.\ CO _ S1\\\K\ 11 \v \\ |\ |\ \. \ \ \ \ i \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ° to Sv \ 1 \^ \ U\\N\\ N in o l\\\\ \ i \ \\ \ 1 V «5 r o "" w _ \ \ \ l\ \! \ \ \ i ro >- ro V O Q O jj > "} ... 1 \ \ I 1\ I o CVJ O CVJ 1 \ \ , V o — ■■ ' Z v : Iwo I 5 to o £ C\J [ 1 10 T i c C\ 1 > "■ CVJ i V " O N _4 d - cvj || I. 1 1 CT> i O °r-4 ^_1 .... 1 a • 1 i | 1 1 - n. ■■■ ~ 1 1 CVJ 1 l| s O 1 , co — L i 1 ! 1 1 1 ad ■ (0 |\ \ o V. i | ^ r<- o ^ 1 ... ._.,.. — i r cvj 5 v z «* > o o - m Z G > < s , «/».. ... . 0) a fa fefl-K' 12 15 i;8 21 24 27f30 33 36 39 42 45 43 54 57 60 63 66 6S AMPLITUDES (FEET) Figure 15 6+ 9 _7.3 X = I7.85 28.4 AMPLITUDES OF INTERNAL WAVES: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION. (03S. 300) (Mazeika, I960) 48 0$8Q&*>**'* • *■■■ : (poj) ySAVT G3XM £0 HJLcEO 8 3 8 § 8 •'» S (MJjaw) U3AV1 03XIW JO KJtdSQ iytfvrt 3 M 3 60 50 CO Id cr D »- < cr J »' 0) 0> o» o» o o k_ w > > o o i/> 3 3 cr (A t > J o 0 to T r ■I I I n o CD 52 60 _ • Mean of all observations in given yeor, gi ven month 49 57 _ o Mean, weighting each year equally • 45 • Q49 •45 -4^43 ^49 \ 77 — J/1 •4* - — Smoothed onnual cycle curve BOX Ronge of individual observations NO Number of observations 40 •4VJ £/49 j»45 / / r > • 48 \ \ \ Q£43 4|43 • 48 88 - 49 „,- - 48 31 66 49 •4» 44o 46%49 74 491/ ^•44 •'45 V^45 44*^46 .49 47.Q,-'' ^?>44 •45 67 5/ 50 • 43 • 48 ^ £*49 S ! .-- c 66 57 •45 • 49 • 48" 65 _ 45 30 12 62 •47 39 *J 36 .46 V •49~ ~ .46 as 49^44"N G8*44 ■^^46 • 47 ■Js. 41 .49 „^»44 • 45 <*4t ^49 ' #45 —•OJ©-. 45 ,49 -^|45_ •43 • 45 ^-ar9G ■43 458-" ■"'0 •49 •45 45««*4* 48 \ 40 : d 59, 55 _ 63 • 48 - 24 12 •47 ■^ f . 0) ■SO +j O (0 *H « O .. -C f ■«-> OJ a) a> 4) «»-i * O crj • ^ TJ rt . ■y 4_i - v $> c r. 0) n 0 JO O Sh O Ct, O «H >> • Sh jd rt S « a ^ 3 «r « a p CO CJ . •d cd X Q. CO U CJ a - 0 o VO »r- T— *— sr— T— P y— CA lA CO CO A p CO rt o CO vO vO 55 f TABLE III WIND AND £ ;ea scale for FULLY DF^TELOPED SEA Mazeika , 1960) Beaufort Wind Significant Period of Wave Length Minimum Minimum Force Speed Height Maximum V Fetch Duration h/3 Energy of / — »* Spectrum (nautical (knots) (feet) ^max (feet) miles) (hours) 3 8.5 1.0 3.4 40 3.4 9.8 1.7 10 1.4 1.8 4.0 4.4 55 66 c 0 8 10 14 2.4 n 3.1 12 2.2 4.8 79 11 18 3.8 4 13 2.7 5.2 92 14 23 4.5 14 3.3 5.6 107 19 28 5.2 15 4.1 6.1 125 23 34 5.9 16 4.6 5.4 6.5 6.9 144 162 30 37 40 48 o.6 17 7.5 5 18 6.1 7.2 176 44 55 8.3 19 6.9 7.7 202 53 65 9.2 20 8.0 9.0 8.1 8.5 224 246 65 77 75 88 10.0 21 11.0 22 10.0 8.9 270 89 100 12.0 6 23 11.0 9.3 295 102 115 13.0 24 12.0 9.7 320 116 130 14.0 25 13.7 10.2 355 140 155 15.5 26 15.0 l6.o 10.5 10.9 376 405 157 180 180 205 17.0 I8.5 27 28 i8.o 11.3 436 203 230 20.0 29 20.0 11.7 467 236 255 21.5 7 30 22.0 12.1 499 266 280 23.0 31 23.7 12.6 542 298 310 25.0 32 26.0 12.9 567 336 34o 380 27.0 28.5 33 28.0 13.3 6o4 372 34 30.0 13.6 631 4o8 420 30.0 35 32.5 14.1 679 458 460 32.0 8 36 35.0 14.5 718 508 500 34.0 37 37.0 14. 9 758 551 530 37.0 38 40.0 15.4 810 615 600 33.0 39 42.5 15.8 850 671 655 40.0 4o 45.0 16.1 885 ' 725 788 710 770 42.0 44.5 41 42 43 44 45 46 47.5 16.6 94o 50.0 17.0 986 S50 830 47.0 i-*V 54.0 17.4 1030 940 895 49.5 9 58.O 17.7 1070 1027 960 52.0 61.0 18.2 1130 1110 1035 54.5 64.0 18.6 1180 1190 1110 57.0 56 U»»>sV -. ■ c 1 CD <-H NO NO V— NO J- » o o CD S P CO ^ o-d a) CO 0) -H C O r« T— CM C"""^ £h O O JL( ..-) +3 (X, £ M O O ^A O o o CD c O S X v— ^__ CM O-N CN. w S P g •H J5 C£ fl) p R h3 o Q p a p xi g~ <-„-j 3 g p PQ 5 c o\ ON o NO no J* ■a; •* r— 1 CD iH • • • • • &H E-» o H C O OS ON t- ^ J- 00 CM a ,Q T5 rt X) <^ T— CN1 c§ 3 Bo C 3 SU -H EDIG and § s p, js w o T< r ^ 1 o O P ^ O'S •"*■"< « •H CD O Oirt (DtJ > C^"^ c> O O U -H P JH G f-t 0) r-! «m o „ ! O p, CO o P? z < U ,0 0^0 o tA o o o — 00 o £ o s -c ft, 1 57 -p c 00 •o vO a\ ▼— CD i—l • • • • • O «H Cfi J- o O T— 00 !U O -P CO C\2 >^\ ■3- CD O Pm -P to C «M O W O -H -P -p CO EH ^ OT) fl) s CD -H $3 O -cj- 00 00 Jt r^ /••» XI "O dJT) ^—« s O so) q 3 J-. -H co «* Q 25 ft .S3 i-H •1 TJ 25 J CD O 0) +>1j CO m X O CO fl >«•• CO T3 Jh r- 1 -P < o a C as vO CO as T— 23 CD iH • • • • • E^O 0 4-5 CO V-3 _ CD -H 5 O co vn CO as CO ta o *2 o g | E CD $3 ^N v> (^ ►j S « pp ?3 J-t -H n S § 23 ft Xi T— < ta-r^ M E-« ORS OF TH 30N, 140W 23 nee be- redicted served ocline (ft) QJ ^^ CD ft,0 E o vr>! O O o Cd P^ f-t O f-. X ^ — ^ — CO o> o 0 J3 CD -P Vi CD TS .S3 ft V V >J1 V \ cm CD S3 -P CD •H ^£ <0 T5 o 2 Q -P H 2= -P P £3 W CD f-( C^ VTN c> -^" as •r— a O «M ctJ • • • • • • Pi U O -P *- CO CO O- ^ vn CD O CO -zr \o o- T— u.- CU -P o M CO o S3 § «M O CO O -H -P !^> -P CO C? U O T* rt w CO-H C O C\ vo, vO co o sO 03 < X) T3 OJ 'd CO J- \o 00 ON T— fe 0-, E CD C NO o ■< 3 Sh -H ex, 23 ft X n 1 CD CD -P T5 CD j3 O O C •H > •H'-^ CD T5 SU rH -P O CD CD O S >-TN o ^r> o o o ^ O Sh xi v CD S3 CD -P ' Cm CD Xl ,53 ft T— t— Cv! cs c^ V Y V! V A «M CD S3 -P CD £5 * * 58 3 w Eh «M CO o • u 03 o SO CO *— CM v» . o J* O 0.h O VO CM S3 03 u vO CM CM CM O c u *— 3 03 T* O >*-"* U U -P 0 0 c S-, 03 -' CD Jh £3 «H 03 3 fl H O rt •H"-^ > +J -p 0 <^» • .Hv^ 03 T3 00 VO 0 ON O O 03 U • • • • • ft ^ O O O 0 0 VO ft J-. T- CO T— .SF T" c fc cr5 > p +» 0 -P -P >» > O «H $ ■P • -Hv 03 ■• MTJ ov CM VO 0 0 d 03 d) 0 h • • • * 0 5b 03 c u O 00 CM 00 0 • •p d E ft J-. *r* ON CM CM 3 CQ -3; Co C J-» pj "o t\5 «h 03 1 0 -> 03 O 9 >» bp a ■ q •3 •S tJ ^ 03 T3* S 3 03 03 cd M El? sS g O H «H ■a 3 0 03 Ow jj- T- CO T"" VO •T) T3 ,Q O • • • • • i-a OT CO °g^ v^ O •Os ON ON « 3 h ON CM CO VO CM •* s 0 Cj 03 ft *-• SP" Q3 ■S X a & 03 § #*i< >» C3 4£ 03 -P 73 pH «H (3 £ >-3 n H •H a p 0 O £ S ,£> . CJ T) « ,. >> ^ Sri 0) Pi E-< Crf ft rd P C Js2 < 6 c w s M ly-* *j; 0 as § H M PQ CO •H CO O ►J X CO CO xi U T3 0) P < &J H ct! P-. ?> Q S P 3 0 HH O "-3 CO (X, » rZ 0 S3 w 59 :=> •-5 >H s <»: A, o M £h Eh CO Eh <»; W Q W H ft -3 o o w Eh o CO oi O as 1 o H E-< O (H a w as a. o o W o> 1 -P q © «h on o- on en iA ^n O «M ffl • • • • • • *-t O -P A Cn Os NO cn -p v > q >.H C In BO'-' r-{ O cu q CD -P N «m CD 73 X O. o VN. o CM R Q cn cS^ V V Vf V A Y"» QV • • • • « U O P «^ «A vrv. ^i™ T— 00 (D O »~ CVJ CVJ o- CU -»-> CO c cm o (0 O -ri P 4-> CO f-i O TJ rt pd CD «H q O «- 43 TJ rt TS IT" CA -=r -3- UN ON w T— T— CQ o so) q 3 u i-i H a ft X O O nee be- redicted served ocline (ft) Q) Q«43 E *A o *n o o o u o £ 43 v . ^t UN. UN CU P CO c «H O W O -H P P to t< oi) rt | to -h q O CA (V o CVJ CA FN vO 43 TJ rt TJ T- w T™ ir- CVJ § e © q 3 >-« -H w SO. 43 Eh CU w TJ to e be- dicte rved line t) O © CD O CH q *h w o^ >t © CX43 E *n o vn o o CD 43 o. ▼— v— CVJ CA E £3 * ^ a ( 43 p O (3 P - co CVI «M a. p o cm CO rH a rt Cm O co 43 O iH P p CO P M o T> rt CO 0) -H C O CA vO vO CNJ ^J- vO o rt 43 T5 rt TJ ▼- CVJ CVJ cn rH Eh E Q) {3 en 3 U r* to CD s a 43 -P O S3 CD CD **; TJ 1 0) .H '-» to C a> p V Cm CD TJ 43 O. o VA o o o p 1— <— CVJ cv CN cS V N/ N» V A Cm Q> C P CD •H 3: <6 TJ * 61 X 3 U & o DOM 0 C E ft (0 O 0) Ou u (X C CO «M 0 O as o P P O «H •H w O rH > w a I ° C o P P CD u u o a. u © H O ctj .H*~* > P P o «H • «H ^-^ O CD Pi G go o u u T3 O > S-i o w -8 o E X M -P CQ Pi O -P TJ s p g O nO ON u^ 1- <*> CM *- nO CM nO O On CM •- ON CM VA *A O CM O t- NO CM VTk *- C\ r- «r- eS .^ o no • • NO -* v- CM •■- CO • • oo o CM u^ CO e> t- *- CO o o- *- CM *- *- ON CM ON CO ON cv co *- v> k s? £ * On ft w- - On CO NO ON CM ON o CO W 3 H CO o o ON OS 1 w Eh cu w co C^ NO OS PQ o en o o rH G O ,C cO P P G rt O T3 E NO «M V£) O ON cfl x: p W T5 cO G rH CO >> rH G •H cO E CO X> O P 0 ONO rH U ON CO «H r- X CO P cO 'O 0) P C w ^ cO -3 rH WWW O O 62 1 PQ Eh 1 CO g o § o o M Eh o M 53 O O M O H 4J- O $ o- ■d" VO ON <«: h oo UN ON o o • • • • • • Hi 1 c^ VO o en ■* o k< T~ ^— T» V" M O g H CO Eh i to w o 03 O -d- MEh O ON V— CM *A ^ CN. O 1 • • • • • • 2 <*% cv CM v>. WN. *— ' o o ^— » 0 +> o SB •§ 1 1 a, CO ■p s 63 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST No. Copies 1. LT John W. Ciboci, USN 2 TRARON THREE NAAS Whiting Field Milton, Florida 2. Prof. Glenn H. Jung 2 U. S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93940 3. Library 2 U. S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93940 4. Department of Meteorology & Oceanography 1 U. S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93940 5. Defense Documentation Center 20 Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22314 6. Office of the U. S. Naval Weather Service 1 U. S. Naval Station (Washington Navy Yard Annex) Washington, D. C. 20390 7. Commanding Officer 1 FWC/JTWC COMNAVMAR FPO San Francisco, Calif. 96630 8. Commanding Officer 1 U. S. Fleet Weather Central FPO Seattle, Washington 98790 9. Commanding Officer 1 U. S. Fleet Weather Central FPO San Francisco, California 96610 10. Officer in Charge 1 Fleet Numerical Weather Facility U. S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93940 64 No. Copies 11. U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office 1 Attn: R. James Oceanographic Prediction Division Washington, D. C. 20390 12. Executive Officer 1 Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98105 13. Director, Biological Laboratory 1 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service 450-B Jordan Hall Stanfofd, California 94305 14. Mission Bay Research Foundation 1 7730 Herschel Avenue La Jolla, California Attn: Editor, Oceanic Coordinate Index 15. Director 1 Pacific Oceanographic Group Nanaimo, British Columbia Canada 16. Secretary *■ Canadian Committee on Oceanography Ottawa, Canada Unclassified Security Classification DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D (Security claeeitication ot title, body of abstract and indexing annotation muat be entered iWian the oretall report ie claaailied) I. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY (Corporate author) U. S. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 2a. REPORT SECURITY C L ASS I F I C * T ION Unclassified 2 6 CROUP 3. REPORT TITLE Verification of Mazeika's Method of Thermocline Depth Prediction for the Northeast Pacific Ocean 4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type ot report and inchieive datee) 5. AUTHORi'S.) (Laat name, ft rat name, initial) CIBOCI, John William 6. REPORT DATE October 1966 la. TOTAL NO. OF PASES 66 7b. NO. OF REFS 8a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 6. PROJECT NO. N/A N/A 9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBERfSj N/A 9b. OTHER REPORT NOfSJ (A ny other numbera mat may be meelgned thia report) N/A d. 10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES us document 'lias been approved for publio release and sale; its distribution is unlimited^ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES None 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY Naval Oceanographic Office 13. ABSTRACT Mazeika's method for forecasting mixed-layer (thermocline) depth of the up- per ocean layers is discussed along with a newer version of this method develop- ed by James. Using Mazeika's method primarily, a verification for the North- east Pacific Ocean was completed with data from Ocean Weather Stations PAPA (50N, 145W) and NOVEMBER (30N, 140W) and a point named MIDPOINT (40N, 140W) . The results indicate Mazeika's method is successful at Station PAPA more than seventy five percent of the time during the heating season followed by a rapid decline as the cooling season begins. The method should be useful in the entire Central Subarctic Domain as described by John P. Tully. The method fails at NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT producing less than thirty percent success in prediction. James' version did not improve the results obtained at Station NOVEMBER. This failure appears to be due to the controlling parameters for processes in the Subtropic or Transitional oceanographic regions (which indlude NOVEMBER and MIDPOINT); these differ from parameters controlling oceanic processes in the Pacific Sub- arctic region (Station PAPA), which resemble those involved in the Atlantic region for which Mazeika's method was developed. Climatology data which can be used to obtain surface and 400-foot level temperature are also tested. The results indicate these data are very useful and accurate in determining the stability index required of Mazeika's method. *— i DD MSI. 1473 67 Unclassified Security Classification Unclassified Security Classification 14- KEY WORDS LINK A ROLE LINK B ROLE LINK C Mazeika, Thermocline Depth Prediction Verification, James1 Version Northeast Pacific INSTRUCTIONS 1. ORIGINATING ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee, Department of De- fense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing the report. 2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Enter the over- all security classification of the report. Indicate whether "Restricted Data" is included. Marking is to be in accord- ance with appropriate security regulations. 26. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Di- rective 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enter the group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional markings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- ized. 3. REPORT TITLE: Enter the complete report title in all capital letters. Titles in all cases should be unclassified. If a meaningful title cannot be selected without classifica- tion, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis immediately following the title. 4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered. 5. AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of authors) as shown on or in the report. Enter last name, first name, middle initial. If military, show rank and branch of service. The name of the principal author is an absolute minimum requirement 6. REPORT DATE: Enter the date of the report as day, month, year, or month, year. If more than one date appears on the report, use date of publication. 7a. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The total page count should follow normal pagination procedures, i. e. , enter the number of pages containing information. 76. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total number of references cited in the report. 8a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter the applicable number of the contract or grant under which the report was written. 8b, 8c, & 8d. PROJECT NUMBER: Enter the appropriate military department identification, such as project number, subproject number, system numbers, task number, etc. 9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- cial report number by which the document will be identified and controlled by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this report. 96. OTHER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator or by the sponsor), also enter this number(s). 10. AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lim- itations on further dissemination of the report, other than those imposed by security classification, using standard statements such as: (1) "Qualified requesters may obtain copies of this report from DDC" (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of this report by DDC is not authorized." (3) "U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDC users shall request through (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of this report directly from DDC Other qualified users shall request through (S) "All distribution of this report is controlled. Qual- ified DDC users shall request through If the report has been furnished to the Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indi- cate this fact and enter the price, if known. 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explana- tory notes. 12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Enter the name of the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay ing for) the research and development Include address. 13. ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual summary of the document indicative of the report, even though it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical re- port. If additional space is required, a continuation sheet shall be attached. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified reports be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall end with an indication of the military security classification of the in- formation in the paragraph, represented as (TS), (S), (C), or (U). There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. How- ever, the suggested length is from 150 to 225 words. 14. KEY WORDS: Key words are technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used as index entries for cataloging the report. Key words must be selected so that no security classification is required. Identi- fiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location, may be used as key words but will be followed by an indication of technical con- text. The assignment of links, rales, and weights is optional. DPV FORM LS 1 JAN 64 1473 (BACK) 68 Unclassified Security Classification thesC4788 Verification of Mazeikas method of ther 3 2768 002 10433 3 DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY WW MB mBBBt « , ■[■■': \ fi -<■■ u£*E SB*