An inter-comparison of tidal solutions computed with a range of unstructured grid models of the Irish and Celtic Sea Regions

Three finite element codes, namely TELEMAC, ADCIRC and QUODDY, are used to compute the spatial distributions of the M₂, M₄ and M₆ components of the tide in the sea region off the west coast of Britain. This region is chosen because there is an accurate topographic dataset in the area and detailed open boundary M₂ tidal forcing for driving the model. In addition, accurate solutions (based upon comparisons with extensive observations) using uniform grid finite difference models forced with these open boundary data exist for comparison purposes. By using boundary forcing, bottom topography and bottom drag coefficients identical to those used in an earlier finite difference model, there is no danger of comparing finite element solutions for “untuned unoptimised solutions” with those from a “tuned optimised solution”. In addition, by placing the open boundary in all finite element calculations at the same location as that used in a previous finite difference model and using the same M₂ tidal boundary forcing and water depths, a like with like comparison of solutions derived with the various finite element models was possible. In addition, this open boundary was well removed from the shallow water region, namely the eastern Irish Sea where the higher harmonics were generated. Since these are not included in the open boundary, forcing their generation was determined by physical processes within the models. Consequently, an inter-comparison of these higher harmonics generated by the various finite element codes gives some indication of the degree of variability in the solution particularly in coastal regions from one finite element model to another. Initial calculations using high-resolution near-shore topography in the eastern Irish Sea and including “wetting and drying” showed that M₂ tidal amplitudes and phases in the region computed with TELEMAC were in good agreement with observations. The ADCIRC code gave amplitudes about 30 cm lower and phases about 8° higher. For the M₄ tide, in the eastern Irish Sea amplitudes computed with TELEMAC were about 4 cm higher than ADCIRC on average, with phase differences of order 5°. For the M₆ component, amplitudes and phases showed significant small-scale variability in the eastern Irish Sea, and no clear bias between the models could be found. Although setting a minimum water depth of 5 m in the near-shore region, hence removing wetting and drying, reduced the small-scale variability in the models, the differences in M₂ and M₄ tide between models remained. For M₆, a significant reduction in variability occurred in the eastern Irish Sea when a minimum 5-m water depth was specified. In this case, TELEMAC gave amplitudes that were 1 cm higher and phases 30° lower than ADCIRC on average. For QUODDY in the eastern Irish Sea, average M₂ tidal amplitudes were about 10 cm higher and phase 8° higher than those computed with TELEMAC. For M₄, amplitudes were approximately 2 cm higher with phases of order 15° higher in the northern part of the region and 15° lower in the southern part. For M₆ in the north of the region, amplitudes were 2 cm higher and about 2 cm lower in the south. Very rapid M₆ tidal-phase changes occurred in the near-shore regions. The lessons learned from this model inter-comparison study are summarised in the final section of the paper. In addition, the problems of performing a detailed model–model inter-comparison are discussed, as are the enormous difficulties of conducting a true model skill assessment that would require detailed measurements of tidal boundary forcing, near-shore topography and precise knowledge of bed types and bed forms. Such data are at present not available.     

Amplitudes of long-period PcP and the core-mantle boundary

The amplitudes of the core reflection PcP are sensitive to the wave velocities and densities in the neighborhood of the core-mantle boundary (CMB). We study the amplitude ratio of the long-period phases PcP and P from two South American deep-focus earthquakes with favorable fault-plane solution, depth and magnitude, as recorded by WWNSS and CSN stations in North America.Comparison is made with long-period PcP/P amplitude ratios, derived from theoretical seismograms for a variety of CMB models. Models from previous studies, which were mainly derived from short-period PcP observations and which are characterized by discrete layers above the CMB, are almost all inconsistent with the long-period data. The data also discriminate against low nonzero S velocities below the CMB. Simple first-order-discontinuity models of the CMB, for instance according to the Jeffreys-Bullen earth model or according to recent models based mainly on free oscillations, explain the data reasonably well.Model improvements are attempted by varying the P-velocity gradient above the CMB. The best amplitude fit is obtained for a rather strong decrease in P velocity with depth in this zone which, however, gives no acceptable traveltime fit for PcP. The scatter in body-wave amplitudes is considerable even for long-period waves and may prevent the correct assessment of that part of the amplitude variation of a phase with distance that is due to the variation of velocities and densities with depth alone.     

Evolution and observational signature of diffused antiworld

The existence of macroscopic regions with antibaryon excess in the baryon asymmetric Universe with general baryon excess is the possible consequence of practically all models of baryosynthesis. Diffusion of matter and antimatter to the border of antimatter domains defines the minimal scale of the antimatter domains surviving to the present time. A model of diffused antiworld is considered, in which the density within the surviving antimatter domains is too low to form gravitationally bound objects. The possibility to test this model by measurements of cosmic gamma ray fluxes is discussed. The expected gamma ray flux is found to be acceptable for modern cosmic gamma ray detectors and for those planned for the near future.     

N and O isotope effects during nitrate assimilation by unicellular prokaryotic and eukaryotic plankton cultures

In order to provide biological systematics from which to interpret nitrogen (N) and oxygen (O) isotope ratios of nitrate (¹⁵N/¹⁴N, ¹⁸O/¹⁶O, respectively) in the environment, we previously investigated the isotopic fractionation of nitrate during its assimilation by mono-cultures of eukaryotic algae (Granger et al., 2004). In this study, we extended our analysis to investigate nitrate assimilation by strains of prokaryotic plankton. We measured the N and O isotope effects, ¹⁵ε and ¹⁸ε, during nitrate consumption by cultures of prokaryotic strains and by additional eukaryotic phytoplankton strains (where ε is the ratio of reaction rate constants of the light vs. heavy isotopologues, ^lightk and ^heavyk; ε = ^lightk/^heavyk − 1 × 1000, expressed in per mil). The observed ¹⁵ε ranged from 5‰ to 8‰ among eukaryotes, whereas it did not exceed 5‰ for three cyanobacterial strains, and was as low as 0.4‰ for a heterotrophic α-protoeobacterium. Eukaryotic phytoplankton fractionated the N and O isotopes of nitrate to the same extent (i.e., ¹⁸ε ∼ ¹⁵ε). The ¹⁸ε:¹⁵ε among the cyanobacteria was also ∼1, whereas the heterotrophic α-proteobacterial strain, which showed the lowest ¹⁵ε, between 0.4‰ and 1‰, had a distinct ¹⁸ε:¹⁵ε of ∼2, unlike any plankton strain observed previously. Equivalent N vs. O isotope discrimination is thought to occur during internal nitrate reduction by nitrate reductase, such that the cellular efflux of the fractionated nitrate into the medium drives the typically observed ¹⁸ε:¹⁵ε of ∼1. We hypothesize that the higher in the ¹⁸ε:¹⁵ε of the α-proteobacterium may result from isotope discrimination by nitrate transport, which is evident only at low amplitude of ε. These observations warrant investigating whether heterotrophic bacterial assimilation of nitrate decreases the community isotope effects at the surface ocean.     

Integration of reflection seismic and sediment grain-size data from Lake Khubsugul (Northern Mongolia): a reply to Prokopenko and Kendall

Prokopenko and Kendall (J Paleolimnol doi:, 2008) criticise the work presented in Fedotov et al. (J Paleolimnol 39:335–348, 2008), and instead propose an alternative interpretation for the grain-size evolution recorded in the KDP-01 core, retrieved from the central part of Lake Khubsugul. Their interpretation is based (i) on a seismic-stratigraphic re-interpretation of sparker seismic profile khub012 (which they copied from Fedotov et al. (EOS Trans 87:246–250, 2006)), (ii) on the presupposition that changes in lake level are the dominant control on facies distribution in Lake Khubsugul, and (iii) on the invalidation of our age-depth model. In this reply to their comment, we demonstrate that they interpreted seismic artefacts and geometries caused by changes in profile orientation as true stratigraphic features and that the lake-level reconstruction they derive from this interpretation is therefore incorrect. We also demonstrate that their grain-size predictions, which they consider to be predominantly driven by changes in lake level, are inconsistent with the measured sulphate concentration, which is a demonstrated proxy of lake level in Lake Khubsugul, and with the measured grain-size record. Finally, we point out that even if there would be a problem with the age-depth model, this problem would not affect the part of the sedimentary sequence discussed in Fedotov et al. (J Paleolimnol 39:335–348, 2008).