Inertial oscillations near the coast of Nova Scotia during CASP

Abstract

Analysis of current, temperature and salinity records in the nearshore region of the Scotian Shelf during the Canadian Atlantic Storms Program (CASP), reveals that the inertial wave field is highly intermittent, with comparable amplitudes in the surface and deep layers. Clockwise current energy in the surface layer is concentrated at a frequency slightly below inertial, consistent with Doppler shifting by the strong mean current and/or straining by the mean flow shear, whereas the spectral peak in deep water is at the local inertial frequency. Clockwise coherence is high (γ² ≥ 0.8) horizontally over the scale of the array (60 km × 120 km) and in the vertical, with upward phase propagation rates of 0.15–0.50 × 10^?12 ms^?1, inversely proportional to the local value of the Brunt Väisälä frequency. Clockwise current energy decreases in the onshore direction and appears to be completely inhibited on the 60‐m isobath.

A case study of the response to the CASP IOP 14 storm indicates that the inertial waves may be generated by a strong wind shift propagating onshore at a speed of 10 ms^?1. On the eastern side of the array (Liscomb line), clockwise current oscillations propagate onshore in the surface layer at a rate (8.1 ± 0.9 m s^?1) comparable with the speed of the atmospheric front, while waves in the pycnocline move offshore at a lower (internal wave) speed (1.8 m s^?1). Furthermore the temperature and salinity fluctuations are in (out) of phase with longshore current in the deep (surface) layer. However, on the western side of the array (Halifax line), the inertial waves are more complex. A sharp steepening of phase lines at the coast indicates that the phase speed of clockwise current oscillations is considerably reduced and the evidence for offshore propagation of internal waves is less clear. The discrepancies between observations on the two lines suggest that the internal wave field is three‐dimensional.

Results of simple mixed‐layer models indicate that the inertial response near the surface is sensitive to the accurate definition of the local wind field, but not to certain model physics, such as the form of the decay term. The observations also show some qualitative similarities with models for two‐dimensional response to a moving front (e.g. Kundu, 1986), but the actual forcing terms are more complicated, based on IOP 14 wind measurements.