ALBERT

Description: In this study, effects of basin morphology are shown to affect density current hydrodynamics of a large reservoir using a three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model that is validated (but not calibrated) with in situ observational data. The AEM3D hydrodynamic model was applied for 5-month simulations during winter and spring flooding for the Maroon reservoir in southwest Iran, where available observations indicated that large-scale density currents had previously occurred. The model results were validated with near-bottom water temperature measurements that were previously collected at five locations in the reservoir. The Maroon reservoir consists of upper and lower basins that are connected by a deep and narrow canyon. Analyses of simulations show that the canyon strongly affects density current propagation and the resulting differing limnological characteristics of the two basins. The evolution of the Wedderburn Number, Lake Number, and Schmidt stability number are shown to be different in the two basins, and the difference is attributable to the morphological separation by the canyon. Investigation of the background potential energy (BPE) changes along the length of the canyon indicated that a density front passes through the upper section of the canyon but is smoothed into simple filling of the lower basin. The separable dynamics of the basins has implications for the complexity of models needed for representing both water quality and sedimentation.

Description: Two 3D hydrodynamic models, AEM3D and MIKE3, are compared in simulating hydrodynamics of the Maroon Reservoir in southwest Iran. The reservoir has a complex bathymetry with steep walls, which makes it a good case for studying the performance of hydrodynamic models. The models were compared together and with measured water temperatures from different locations of the reservoir in a five-month period between December 2011 and April 2012. The results indicated that the AEM3D model, which uses a finite difference scheme with a purely z-level vertical discretization, showed better consistency with observations so that the AME and RMSE of the model remain below 1 °C. The MIKE3 model showed overall higher errors from 56% to 130% larger than AEM3D and the level of error strongly depends on its vertical discretization method and the turbulence model. The lowest errors by MIKE3 were seen by the k-ε turbulence model with a hybrid z-sigma discretization, while the highest errors were generated by using the sigma vertical discretization. The vertical mixing model in AEM3D model, used instead of the constant eddy viscosity or k-ε formulation, showed a better performance in modeling vertical mixing and wind mixed layer, which is another reason of observing better results by this model than MIKE3. Overall, this study shows AEM3D as a more appropriate model for simulating deep and complex reservoirs with steep slopes and walls.

Description: Variability and trends of Fram Strait sea ice area and volume exports are examined for the period of 1990–2010. Simulations from a high-resolution version of the MPIOM model (STORM project) reproduce area and volume export well when compared with NSIDC and ICESat satellite data and in-situ ice thickness observations. The fluxes derived from ice thickness and drift satellite products vary considerably, indicating a high uncertainty in these estimates which we mostly assign to the drift observations. The model captures the observed average seasonal cycles and interannual variability of ice export. The simulated mean annual sea ice area export is 860 × 103 km2 a− 1 (1990–2010), and the correlation with the NSIDC-based area fluxes is r = 0.67. The simulated mean annual volume export is 3.3 × 103 km3 a− 1 (1990–2010), close to the ICESat/ULS values, with a correlation of r = 0.58. The simulated monthly area export has a significant positive trend of + 10% per decade, explained by wind forcing. The major contribution to the robust trend in area export between June and September. Fram Strait ice volume export variability is mainly controlled by ice drift with a dominant role of the Transpolar Drift and, to a lesser extent thickness variability. The area export increase reflects increasing ice-drift speed, but is balanced with a reduced thickness over time when it comes to volume export, giving no significant trend in volume export. The spatial variability of ice drift indicates that the export influences a large area upstream in the Trans-Polar Drift stream, and that high volume export events lead to a thinner thickness there. The central Arctic is well connected drift-wise to the Fram Strait via the Transpolar Drift while for thickness, the region north of Greenland is dominated and controlled by the Fram Strait ice export.