Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Strength of the M2 Tide at the Chesapeake Bay Mouth

Lynn K. Shay Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Lynn K. Shay in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Thomas M. Cook Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Thomas M. Cook in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Zachariah R. Hallock Naval Research Laboratory, Division of Physical Oceanography, Stennis Science Center, Mississippi

Search for other papers by Zachariah R. Hallock in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Brian K. Haus Applied Marine Physics, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Brian K. Haus in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Hans C. Graber Applied Marine Physics, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Hans C. Graber in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Jorge Martinez Applied Marine Physics, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Search for other papers by Jorge Martinez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Feb 2001
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2001)031<0427:TSOTMT>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
427–449
Restricted access

Abstract

As part of the Naval Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research sponsored Physics of Coastal Remote Sensing Research Program, an experiment was conducted in September–October 1996 off Virginia Beach. Ocean surface currents were measured using the high-frequency (25.4 MHz) mode of the Ocean Surface Current Radar at 20-min intervals at a horizontal resolution of 1 km over an approximate 30 km × 44 km domain. Comparisons to subsurface current measurements at 1–2 m beneath the surface from two broadband acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) revealed good agreement to the surface currents. Regression analyses indicated biases of 4 and −3 cm s−1 for cross-shelf and along-shelf currents, respectively, where slopes were O(1) with correlation coefficients of 0.8.

Nine months of sea level heights from the NOAA National Ocean Survey Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel tidal station revealed an energetic M2 tidal component having an amplitude of 37.5 cm and a phase of 357°. The S2 tidal constituent had an amplitude of 7 cm and a phase of 49°. By contrast, the diurnal band (K1, O1) tidal constituents were considerably weaker with amplitudes of 1–5 cm. From 19 days of HF-derived surface currents, the M2 and S2 tidal current amplitudes had a maximum of about 50 and 8 cm s−1 at the Chesapeake Bay mouth, respectively. Explained variances associated with these four tidal current constituents were a maximum of 60% at the mouth and decreased southward. Analyses at the ADCP moorings indicated that the semidiurnal tidal currents were predominantly barotropic with cross-shelf and along-shelf currents of 18 and 10 cm s−1. Energetic semidiurnal tidal currents were highly correlated over the HF-radar domain, and the phase angles indicated a consistent anticyclonic veering of the M2 tidal current with along-shelf distance from the mouth. Normalized tidal current vorticities by the local Coriolis parameter (f), which represent a proxy for the Rossby number, were ±0.25f near the mouth and ±0.05f in the southern part of the domain for the M2 constituent. Simulations from a linear, barotropic model were highly correlated with observed M2 tidal currents at 85 points within the HF-radar domain, consistent with the premise of weakly nonlinear flows.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Lynn K. Shay, Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149-1098.

Email: nick@erg.rsmas.miami.edu

Abstract

As part of the Naval Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research sponsored Physics of Coastal Remote Sensing Research Program, an experiment was conducted in September–October 1996 off Virginia Beach. Ocean surface currents were measured using the high-frequency (25.4 MHz) mode of the Ocean Surface Current Radar at 20-min intervals at a horizontal resolution of 1 km over an approximate 30 km × 44 km domain. Comparisons to subsurface current measurements at 1–2 m beneath the surface from two broadband acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) revealed good agreement to the surface currents. Regression analyses indicated biases of 4 and −3 cm s−1 for cross-shelf and along-shelf currents, respectively, where slopes were O(1) with correlation coefficients of 0.8.

Nine months of sea level heights from the NOAA National Ocean Survey Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel tidal station revealed an energetic M2 tidal component having an amplitude of 37.5 cm and a phase of 357°. The S2 tidal constituent had an amplitude of 7 cm and a phase of 49°. By contrast, the diurnal band (K1, O1) tidal constituents were considerably weaker with amplitudes of 1–5 cm. From 19 days of HF-derived surface currents, the M2 and S2 tidal current amplitudes had a maximum of about 50 and 8 cm s−1 at the Chesapeake Bay mouth, respectively. Explained variances associated with these four tidal current constituents were a maximum of 60% at the mouth and decreased southward. Analyses at the ADCP moorings indicated that the semidiurnal tidal currents were predominantly barotropic with cross-shelf and along-shelf currents of 18 and 10 cm s−1. Energetic semidiurnal tidal currents were highly correlated over the HF-radar domain, and the phase angles indicated a consistent anticyclonic veering of the M2 tidal current with along-shelf distance from the mouth. Normalized tidal current vorticities by the local Coriolis parameter (f), which represent a proxy for the Rossby number, were ±0.25f near the mouth and ±0.05f in the southern part of the domain for the M2 constituent. Simulations from a linear, barotropic model were highly correlated with observed M2 tidal currents at 85 points within the HF-radar domain, consistent with the premise of weakly nonlinear flows.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Lynn K. Shay, Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149-1098.

Email: nick@erg.rsmas.miami.edu

Save
Cover Journal of Physical Oceanography
Journal of Physical Oceanography

  • Austin, J. A., and S. J. Lentz, 1999: The relationship between synoptic weather systems and meteorological forcing on the North Carolina inner shelf. J. Geophys. Res.,104, 18 159–18 185.

  • Beardsley, R. C., J. Candela, R. Limeburner, W. R. Geyer, S. J. Lentz, B. M. Castro, D. Cacchione, and N. Carniero, 1995: The M2 tide on the Amazon Shelf. J. Geophys. Res.,100, 2283–2319.

  • Boicourt, W. C., 1981: Circulation in the Chesapeake Bay entrance:Estuary-shelf interactions. Proc. Chesapeake Bay Plume Study, NASA Conf. Publication 2188, 61–78. [Available from NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Washington, DC 20546.].

  • Butman, C. A., 1994: CoOP coastal ocean processes. Sea. Technol.,35, 44–49.

  • Chao, S. Y., 1990: Tidal modulation of estuarine plumes. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,20, 1115–1123.

  • Chapman, R. D., L. K. Shay, H. C. Graber, J. B. Edson, A. Karachintsev, C. L. Trump, and D. B. Ross, 1997: On the accuracy of HF radar surface current measurements: Intercomparisons with ship-based sensors. J. Geophys. Res.,102, 18737–18748.

  • Clarke, A. J., 1991: The dynamics of barotropic tides over the continental shelf and slope. Tidal Hydrodynamics, B. Parker, Ed., John Wiley and Sons, 79–108.

  • Cook, T. M., and L. K. Shay, 1998: Tidal variability observed with high frequency radar. Preprints, Second Conf. on Coastal Atmospheric and Oceanic Prediction and Processes, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 287–292.

  • Daifuku, P. R., and R. C. Beardsley, 1983: The K1 tide on the continental shelf from Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,13, 3–17.

  • Foreman, M. G. G., 1977: Manual for tidal currents analysis and prediction. Pacific Marine Science Report 78-6, Institute of Ocean Sciences, 57 pp. [Available from Institute of Ocean Sciences, P.O. Box 6000, Sidney, BC V8L 4B2, Canada.].

  • Garvine, R. W., 1987: Estuary plumes and fronts in shelf waters: A layer model. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,17, 1877–1896.

  • Godin, G., 1972: The Analysis of Tides. Liverpool University Press, 264 pp.

  • Goodrich, D. M., W. C. Boicourt, P. Hamilton, and D. W. Prichard, 1987: Wind-induced destratification in Cheasapeake Bay. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,17, 2232–2240.

  • Graber, H. C., B. K. Haus, R. D. Chapman, and L. K. Shay, 1997: HF radar comparisons with moored estimates of current speed and direction: Expected differences and implications. J. Geophys. Res.,102, 18 749–18 766.

  • Griffin, D. A., and K. R. Thompson, 1996: The adjoint method of data assimilation used operationally for shelf circulation. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 3457–3478.

  • Harrison, W., M. L. Brehmer, and R. B. Stone, 1964: Nearshore tidal and nontidal currents, Virginia Beach, Virginia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tech. Rep. No. 5, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Washington, DC, 20 pp. [Available from U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 5201 Little Falls Road, Washington, DC 20016.].

  • Haus, B. K., H. C. Graber, L. K. Shay, S. Nikolic, and J. Martinez, 1998: Ocean surface current observations with HF Doppler radar during the Cope-1 experiment. RSMAS Tech. Report 95-010, University of Miami. Miami, FL, 104 pp.

  • Imasato, N., 1983: What is a tide-induced residual eddy? J. Phys. Oceanogr.,13, 1307–1317.

  • Kundu, P. K., 1976: Ekman veering observed near the ocean bottom. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,6, 238–242.

  • Lentz, S. J., M. Carr, and T. H. C. Herbers, 2001: Barotropic tides on the North Carolina Shelf. J. Phys. Oceanogr., in press.

  • Marks, F. D., L. K. Shay, and PDT-5, 1998: Landfalling tropical cyclones: Forecast problems and associated research opportunities. Bull Amer. Meteor. Soc.,79, 305–323.

  • Marmorino, G., L. K. Shay, B. K. Haus, R. A. Handler, H. C. Graber, and M. P. Horne, 1999: An EOF analysis of HF Doppler radar current measurements of the Chesapeake Bay outflow. Contin. Shelf Res.,19, 271–288.

  • Miller, J. L., Z. Hallock, L. K. Shay, and J. Zaitzeff, 1998: Tidal and subtidal surface salinity advection in a coastal plume: Estimates from remotely sensed fields. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union,79, 168.

  • Mooers, C. N. K., 1973: A technique for the cross-spectrum analysis of complex valued time series with emphasis on properties of polarized components and rotational invariants. Deep-Sea Res.,20, 1129–1141.

  • Munchow, A., and R. W. Garvine, 1993: Dynamical properties of a buoyancy-driven coastal current. J. Geophys. Res.,98, 20 063–20 077.

  • ——, A. K. Masse, and R. W. Garvine, 1992: Astronomical and nonlinear tidal currents in a coupled estuary shelf system. Contin. Shelf. Res.,12, 471–487.

  • Officer, C. B., 1976: Physical Oceanography of Estuaries and Associated Coastal Waters. Wiley and Sons, 465 pp.

  • Otnes, R. K., and L. Enochson, 1978: Applied Time Series Analysis. Vol. 1. Basic Techniques. Wiley and Sons., 449 pp.

  • Pietrafesa, L. J., J. O. Blanton, J. D. Wang, V. Kourafalou, T. N. Lee, and K. A. Bush, 1985: The tidal regime in the South Atlantic Bight. Oceanography of the Southeastern U.S. Continental Shelf, L. P. Atkinson, D. W. Menzel, and K. A. Bush, Eds., Amer. Geophys. Union, 63–76.

  • Prandle, D., 1982: The vertical structure of tidal currents. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.,22, 29–49.

  • Redfield, A. C., 1958: The influence of the continental shelf on the tides of the Atlantic Coast of the United States. J. Mar. Res.,17, 432–448.

  • Rennie, S. E., J. L. Largier, and S. J. Lentz, 1999: Observations of a pulsed buoyancy current downstream of Chesapeake Bay. J. Geophys. Res.,104, 18 227–18 240.

  • Rosenfeld, L. K., and R. C. Beardsley, 1987: Barotropic semidiurnal tidal currents off Northern California during the Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment (CODE). J. Geophys. Res.,92, 1721–1732.

  • Shay, L. K., H. C. Graber, D. B. Ross, and R. D. Chapman, 1995: Mesoscale ocean surface current structure detected by HF radar. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,12, 881–900.

  • ——, T. N. Lee, E. J. Williams, H. C. Graber, and C. G. H. Rooth, 1998a: Effects of low frequency current variability on near-inertial submesoscale vortices. J. Geophys. Res.,103, 18 691–18 714.

  • ——, S. J. Lentz, H. C. Graber, and B. K. Haus, 1998b: Current structure variations detected by HF radar and vector measuring current meters. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.,15, 237–256.

  • Simpson, J. H., and J. R. Hunter, 1974: Fronts in the Irish Sea. Nature,250, 404–406.

  • Teague, C. C., J. F. Vesecky, P. E. Hansen, N. G. Schwepf, J. M. Daidu, R. G. Orstott, K. Fisher, and D. M. Fernandez, 1997: Initital observations of ocean current and current shears, wind direction using multifrequency HF radar. Proc. Int. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symp., Vol. 4, Singapore, IEEE, 1808–1810.

  • Weller, R. A., and J. F. Price, 1988: Langmuir circulation within the oceanic mixed layer. Deep-Sea Res.,35, 711–747.

  • Wheless, G. H., and A. Valle-Levinson, 1996: A modeling study of tidally driven estuarine exchange through a narrow inlet on a sloping shelf. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 25 675–25 687.

  • Zimmerman, J. T. F., 1978: Topographic generation of residual circulation by oscillatory (tidal) currents. Geophys. Fluid Dyn.,11, 35–47.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 249 71 1
PDF Downloads 96 47 1