{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"A numerical modelling and observational effort to develop the capability to predict the currents in the Gulf of Mexico for use in pollutant trajectory computation","Authors":"","Publication date":"1976","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-17-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000218766"},"Pages":["C\nGC\n228,6\nm6\nM72\nA NUMERICAL MODELLING AND OBSERVATIONAL EFFORT TO DEVELOP\nTHE CAPABILITY TO PREDICT THE CURRENTS IN THE\nGULF OF MEXICO FOR USE IN POLLUTANT TRAJECTORY COMPUTATION\nA FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO\nTHE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT\nUNDER\nBLM INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT 08550-IA5-26 -\nMODEL STUDIES OF THE CIRCULATION\nIN THE GULF OF MEXICO\nProperty of\nMay 1976\nNOAA Miami Library\n4301 Rickenbacker Causeway\nMiami.,Elorida 33149\nRobert L. Molinari\nDavid W. Behringer\nJohn F. Festa\n005017\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\nAtlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories\nMiami, Florida","EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nThe Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Labor-\natories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-\ntration have completed the first year of a proposed two-\nyear study for the Bureau of Land Management \"to develop\nthe capability to predict the currents in the Gulf of\nMexico for use in pollutant trajectory computation\".\nThe objectives of the study were:\n(1) to modify an existing numerical model for\napplication in the Gulf of Mexico;\n(2) to evaluate the ability of the model to simu-\nlate the Gulf circulation using various types\nand distributions of data as input information;\nand\n(3) to describe the Gulf of Mexico circulation using\nthe results of the model.\nThe formulation of the numerical model and the\nmodifications made are given in the portion of this\nreport entitled \"A Guide to a General Circulation Model\nof the Gulf of Mexico\". The data used by the model as\ninterior and boundary conditions were obtained from the\nNational Oceanographic Data Center, and from cruises con-\nducted as part of the present study. The manipulations\nused to put the data into a form suitable for input to\nthe model are described in the section called \"Model\nStudies of the Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico\".\ni","The ability of the numerical model to simulate the\nobserved circulation is demonstrated through a series of\ncomparisons of its solutions with solutions from a\ngeostrophic model. These comparisons are made over a\nwide range of input and boundary conditions. Therefore,\nthe use of the numerical model results to describe the\ncurrents of the region is justified.\nThe circulation of the Gulf of Mexico at monthly\nincrements is simulated by both models. The solutions\nare consistent with the results of previous investigations\nin regard to such large-scale features as the Loop\nCurrent, and a gyre in the western Gulf. In addition,\nthe temporal variability of circulation features on the\nwest Florida, MAFLA, and Texas-Louisiana Shelfs are\ndescribed in detail for the first time.\nThe results of the monthly increment experiments\nsuggest that significant interactions may occur between\nthe sub-regions of the Gulf. The study of these interactions\nthrough the use of the model in a prognostic mode is\nplanned for the second year of the program. The effect of\nthe wind field, and other motion-inducing factors on the\ncirculation will also be evaluated. In addition, the abil-\nity of the numerical model to perform in a prognostic mode\nwith input of real-time data is to be tested. The refine-\nment of the data handling techniques is a necessary step\nin order to meet these objectives, and is planned for\nnext year's effort.\nii","TABLE OF CONTENTS\ni\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\niii\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nI. Introduction\n1\nII. Review of Historical Literature\n4\nIII. Description of the Models\n38\nIV. Data Preparation\n47\nV. Gulf of Mexico Circulation\n72\nVI. Second Year Program\n132\nVII. Acknowledgments\n138\nREFERENCES\n139\nAPPENDIX\nI Numerical Model Solutions\nfor Levels II to VII\nAPPENDIX II\nAdditional Geostrophic Data\nand Computations\niii","I. INTRODUCTION\nThis portion of the final report to the Bureau of\nLand Management, under BLM Interagency Agreement 08550- -\nIA5-26 with the Environmental Research Laboratories of\nNOAA, presents the results of \"Model Studies of\nthe Circulation : in the Gulf of Mexico\". The format of\nthis report is as follows.\nFirst, a review of the literature on the subject\nis presented to set the framework for the following\ndiscussions. The review will show that most of the\nexperiments to date have been descriptive studies of the\neastern Gulf of Mexico. The major current in this region,\nthe Loop Current, has been shown to possess, at least\nclimatologically, an annual cycle. The cycle is\ncharacterized by a variable intrusion of the Loop into\nthe Gulf, and eddy separations from this current.\nMost investigators have accepted the contention that\nthe flow in the eastern Gulf is driven by the mass trans-\nport through the Yucatan Straits. The flow in the western\nGulf was assumed to be driven by eddies which detached\nfrom the Loop Current and drifted towards the west. How-\never, recent studies of the Gulf circulation suggest that\nthe dynamics of the region are more complex, with local\nforcing effects, such as wind, as important as the","external forcing functions, such as the mass transport\nthrough the Yucatan Straits.\nThe assumptions used in the geostrophic model, and\nthe applicability of this approach are then considered.\nThe primitive equation model has been described in the\naccompanying Guide. However, the limitations of that\nmodel will be outlined here also.\nThe geostrophic and primitive equation models are\nlimited in their ability to reproduce the actual currents\nby the assumptions used in their derivation. In addition,\nthe quality and quantity of the data available, and the\ndata preparation techniques used are as important as the\nmodel assumptions in determining the usefulness of the\nresults. The data preparation methods will be described,\nas well as the weaknesses of these techniques.\nThe circulation patterns are presented next. Both\n\"models were used to calculate currents from climatological\n(annual, semi-annual, and monthly) and synoptic (February-\nMarch 1962; June- July 1967; August-September 1971; and\nJune 1975) data-sets of temperature and salinity. The\nresults of the two models will be compared, both to describe\nthe circulation and to examine the consistency of the two\napproaches. In addition drift bottle data available on\nthe MAFLA Shelf have been reanalyzed. These data also will\nbe used for circulation description, and for model veri-\nfication.\n-2-","The final section outlines the work to be done during\nthe second year of this program. The inadequacies of the\ndata preparation methods require that more refined tech-\nniques than those used in the diagnostic modelling runs\nbe developed to obtain initial and boundary conditions\nfor the prognostic modelling tests. The development of\nthese techniques will necessitate additional work during\nthe second year beyond that initially planned when the\noriginal proposal was written.\n-3-","II. REVIEW OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE\nHistorically the distribution of water masses and\ncurrents of the Gulf of Mexico has been studied in the\ncontext of regional experiments concerned with limited\nportions of the Gulf. Little consideration has\nbeen given to the interaction between regions in these\nstudies. The Yucatan Straits, the deep basin in the\neastern Gulf, and the Straits of Florida have been studied\nintensively because of the strong currents located in these\nregions. But, the effects of these currents on the cir-\nculation of the Florida Shelf or the western Gulf, have\nreceived little attention.\nThe following review of the historical literature will\nreflect the regional approach established by past inves-\ntigators. Those studies which attempt to describe the\nGulf as one system will be considered in a concluding\nsection.\nUsually, the eastern Gulf of Mexico is considered to\nbe the region east of 90°W longitude. The Yucatan Straits\nand the Straits of Florida both are located in the eastern\nGulf. A considerable portion of the eastern basin is\ncontinental shelf with depths less than 200m (see Figure 1)\nThe Campeche Bank, Florida Shelf, and Mississippi-Alabama-\nFlorida- (MAFLA) - -Louisiana Shelf are wide, and are rimmed\nby steep escarpments. The De Soto Canyon is located on\nthe MAFLA shelf.\n-4-","25°\n20°\n30°\nFigure 1. . The bottom topography of the Gulf of Mexico as given by Uchupi (1971). Depths are in meters.\nBAHAMAS\n1\n80°\n80°\n0\n0\nMIAMI\ntip\nBASIN\n85°\n85°\nCAMPEC\nCAMPECHE\n90°\n90°\nCAMPLINE\nSIGSBEE ABYSSAL PLAIN\n.. SIGSBEE\nKNOLLS\n8\n95°\n95°\n2\nTAMPICO\n25°\n20°\n30°","The Sigsbee Abyssal Plain, the deepest portion of\nthe Gulf, is found in the western Gulf. Wide shelves are\nfound off the coasts of Texas and the western Yucatan\nPeninsula, while a narrower shelf extends off the east\ncoast of Mexico. The Bay of Campeche is separated from\nthe eastern Gulf of Mexico by the Yucatan Peninsula.\nThe major currents of the Gulf of Mexico are shown\nin Figure 2. The surface geostrophic currents computed\nfrom 1° squares, annual averages of dynamic height are cal-\nculated relative to 1000 db. The Yucatan Current (denoted by\nthe letters YC on Figure 2) enters the eastern Gulf\nthrough the Yucatan Straits and follows the Campeche Bank\nuntil it separates at about 24°N. North of the Bank in\nthe central basin, the flow is called the Loop Current (LC).\nThe current along the western edge of the Florida Shelf\nhas been called the West Florida Current (WFC) by Cochrane\n(1972). Finally, the Florida Current (FC) transports mass\nout of the Gulf through the Straits of Florida.\nRecently, Sturges and Blaha (1976) have proposed that\nthe flow along the central east coast of Mexico be called\nthe Mexican Current (MC) . No other currents in the western\nGulf have been named, although there is evidence of addi-\ntional permanent circulation features. The anticyclonic\n(clockwise circulation) eddy centered at approximately\n23.5° N, and 96°W, and a cyclonic (counterclockwise cir-\nculation) gyre in the Bay of Campeche are two examples\nof such features (Nowlin, 1972).\n-6-","80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n88.5\n92.5\n90.5\n94.5\n96.5\n30.5\n28.5\nLC\n26.5\nWFC\n24.5\nFC\nMC\n22.5\nYC\n1\nANNUAL\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n=\n18.5\nGeostrophic surface currents of the Gulf of Mexico computed from 1°\nFigure 2.\nsquare, annual dynamic height averages computed relative to 1000 db.\nThe data have been interpolated to a 1/2° square grid. The abbreviations\ngiven on the figure represent the following currents: YC - the Yucatan\nCurrent; LC - the Loop Current; WFC - the west Florida Shelf Current;\nFC - the Florida Current; and MC - the Mexican Current. Lighter arrows\nindicate speeds computed from interpolated data.\n-7-","The distribution of water masses in the Gulf of\nMexico is a function of the distribution of currents.\nTherefore, in the following sections both water masses\nand circulation will be discussed. To illustrate the\nfindings of some investigators, figures showing the\ndistribution of the depth of the 20°C isotherm will be\nused. These figures are from a report submitted to BLM\nunder BLM Contract No. 08550-CT4-15 administered by the\nState University System of Florida Institute of Oceano-\ngraphy (SUSIO , 1975).\n1) Yucatan Straits\nCochrane (1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969) has\nreported extensively on the Yucatan Current. He suggested\nan annual cycle for the intensity of the flow through the\nStraits. The surface currents appear to be strongest in\nMay and June, and weakest in November. A sharp drop in\ncurrent speeds occurs in September and October on the\nclimatological current charts he considered. These charts\nare deduced from ship drift reports. When the current is\nstrong it may be topographically steered, in the sense\nthat the current axis is constrained to flow along a constant\nisobath (Molinari and Cochrane, 1972). This steering\nhas not been observed when the current is weakest.\nRecent observations suggest that beneath the north-\nward flowing surface current there is a southward flow out\n-8-","of the Gulf. The progressive vector diagram in Figure 3\nis based on the record from a current meter placed at\nthe bottom of the Yucatan Straits (Hansen, 1972). This\nrecord clearly shows a net flow to the south. Schlitz\n(1973) noted that the geostrophic flow below 700 m\n(computed relative to a level near the bottom) was directed\nout of the Gulf in April 1970. Molinari and Yager (1976)\nobserved a similar result in May 1972 for geostrophic\nflows computed relative to directly measured surface\ncurrents.\nThere are only a few reported transport measurements\nthrough the Straits. Schlitz (1973) found an average\ngeostrophic volume transport of 30x106m3, /sec, relative\nto the ocean bottom for three April 1970 transects. Molinari\nand Yager (1976) found the geostrophic transport above\n700 db, referenced to directly measured surface currents,\nto be 25x10 6 S/sec. 3\nThe water masses at the Yucatan Strait were identi-\nfied by Wust (1964) The average T-S relation for the\nStraits, shown in Figure 4, was obtained from historical\ndata on file at NODC. The T-S relation was calculated by\naveraging all salinity values for a particular tempera-\nture range, regardless of position within the Straits.\nBeneath the surface waters is found the Subtropical Underwater\n(SUW) which is characterized by an average salinity maxi-\nmum of approximately 36.63 o/oo at 22.5°c. The straight line\n-9-","|CUBA/\nCabo\nSan Antonio\nCURRENT\nMETER\nYUCATAN\nPENINSULA\n21\nIsla de Cozumel\n10\nPROGRESSIVE VECTOR DIAGRAM\n4\n0\nSTART\n-4\n-8\n-12\n-16\n-20\n-24\n-28\n-32\n-36\n-40\n-44\nEND\n-48\n-36\n-32\n-28\n-24\n-20\n-16\n-12\n-8\n-4\no\nEAST COMPONENT (NAUTICAL MILES)\nFigure 3. Upper panel. The location of a current meter\nplanted in the Yucatan Straits in October 2970.\nLower panel. A progressive vector diagram\ncomputed from the current meter record. The\ndots on the curve represent daily increments.\n-10-","1°C temperature range are averaged to obtain a mean salinity for the\non the figure are SUW, Subtropical Underwater; NACW, North Atlantic\ntemperature at the center of the interval. The water masses noted\ncollected at the Yucatan Straits. All satinity values within a\n30\nFigure 4. The average T-S relation computed from a historical data-set\nCentral Water, and AIW, Antarctic Intermediate Water.\n25\nSUW\n20\nTEMPERATURE (C)\n15\nNACW\n10\nAIW\n5\n34\n35\n36\n37\nALIMITY'S\n-\n1\n1\nI","portion of the curve between approximately 10° °c and 17°c\nis North Atlantic Central Water (NACW) . Although found\nover a large temperature range, this water normally is\nlimited to layers some 200 to 300 m thick. The salinity\nminimum at 6°C (34.86 0/00) is a remnant of the Antarctic\nIntermediate Water (AIW) formed at the Antarctic\nConvergence Zone. The higher salinity waters with\ntemperatures lower than 5°c could be remnants of Mediter-\nranean or North Atlantic Deep Water (Ichiye and Sudo, 1971).\n2) Central Eastern Gulf of Mexico\nThe northern extension of the Yucatan Current has been\nnamed the Loop Current, because of its loop-like path over\nthe eastern Gulf basin. Leipper's (1970) description\nof a sequence of current patterns in the eastern Gulf is\nthe basis for the hypothesis of an annual cycle for the\nintrusion of the Loop Current. Leipper characterized\nthe Loop Current cycle by a spring intrusion of the\ncurrent northward into the Gulf, and a fall spreading of\nthe current toward the west.\nA map of the distribution of the depth of the 20°c\nisotherm during 1965 and 1966, years considered by Leipper\nin his analysis, is presented in Figure 5. (Leipper used\nthe depth of the 22°C isotherm to portray surface features,\nbut as noted in SUSIO (1975) the 20°C topography also\ncorrelates well with the patterns of circulation.) The\nspring intrusion is observed from December 1965 to\nAugust 1966 as the maximum slope in the 20°c surface\n-12-","Figure 5. A portion of the data-set considered by Leipper (1970) to demonstrate the intrusion of the Loop Current\n32'\n30°\n29\"\n28'\n27\"\n26'\n25'\n24\"\n23\"\n22'\n31\"\n21\"\n321\n30°\n62'\n31\"\n29\"\n28\"\n27\"\n26\"\n80\n25*\n24\"\n23\"\n22\"\nso*\n21\"\nduring 1965-1966. The 1 50 m isopleth of the 200C topography coincides closely with both the core of\n80\n81\"\n8:\n91°\n81'\n82'\n62\n82'\nT\n100\n82'\n27 OCTOBER - 4 NOVEMEER 1966\nD\n83\"\n83'\nD\n8 FEBRUARY 20 FEBRUARY 1966\n83'\n800\n84\"\n84\n84\n84\nLEVEL 20°C\nLEVEL 20°C\n85\n85\n85\n85\n86\n86'\n861\n>100\n86\"\n30\n87\n100\n100\n8/*\n87\"\n87\n50\n88\"\n88*\n891\n88\"\n100\n89'\n250m\n89\"\n891\ngo\n130\n69\n100\n100\n90'\n90\n90\n90°\n26\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21\n32\n31\n30\n29\n281\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23'\n22\n21\n32\"\n30°\n29*\n28\"\n27'\n26°\n25\n24\"\n23\n22\"\n31\"\n21\"\n30'\n29\"\n80\n80\n32\n31'\n28\"\n27\n26'\n25\"\n24'\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\n60*\n80\n100f\n81\"\n81\"\n81\"\n81'\na\nthe Loop Current, and the detached eddies (SUSIO, 1975).\n82'\n82'\n821\n82'\nD\n83\n83\"\nD\n26 NOVEMBER 5DECEMBER 1965\n83\n83\"\nT\n1-18 AUGUST 1966\n100\n84\"\n84*\n150\n200\n85\n250\n84*\nLEVEL 20°C\n100\nLEVEL 20°C\n85*\n85\n85\n85\n86\n86\n86'\n87'\n87\"\n87'\n87\n88\"\n88\"\n88*\n88\"\nsoo\n130\n100\n150\nAg'\n89\"\n89\n89\n100\n200\n901\n90\n90\n90\n3\n31\n32\n30\n29\n28\n26\n25\n27\n24\n23\n22\n21\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n23\n24\n22\n21\n32\n30'\n3:\n29'\n26\n27\n26'\n25'\n24'\n23\n22\n\"\n32\"\n30\"\n31\"\n29'\n28\"\n27\n26'\n25\n24'\n23\"\n22\"\n80\nAO\"\n5\n80\n61'\n61\n81\"\n81\no\n82'\n82'\n82'\n82'\n13-20 SEPTEMBER 1965\n83\nD\n83\n83\nD\n83\n1 JUNE - 24 JUNE 1966\ne-\n8+\n64'\n84'\nLEVEL 20°C\nLEVEL 20°C\n85\n65\n85\n85\n>102\n100\n66*\n~100\n86'\n86'\n86'\n67\"\n87\n87\n87\n88\n88\"\n8A\n88\n69'\nI\n89\n891\n89\"\nT\n90\n90\n90'\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21","moves northward. Leipper found that the greatest rate of\nintrusion, 150 km/month, occured in late winter and early\nspring. The fall spreading is observed in August and\nOctober-November 1966 as the eddy-Loop system shifts\ntoward the west.\nWhitaker (1971), using monthly climatological\ntemperature data averaged over one-degree squares, found\nthat the 150 m isopleth of the 22° C surface progresses\nnorth into the Gulf from January to June, and recedes south\nfrom August to December. This cycle is evident in the\nclimatological temperature data presented by Robinson\n(1973). Maul (1975) obtained a fourteen month\ntime history of the Loop Current from August 1972 to\nSeptember 1973. His results are summarized in Figure 6\nwhich shows the 150 m isopleth of the 20° surface for\nthe months surveyed. The spring intrusion, as defined\nby Leipper, occurred from December 1972 to July 1973.\nThe fall spreading is not evident in this data-set. The\nyear-to-year variability in the position of the Loop'is\napparent in the comparison between the August isopleth\nfor 1972 and 1973.\nThe greatest variability in the surface circulation\nappears to occur in the summer; however, this may be a\nresult of the large number of Gulf cruises that occurred\nduring this season. A dramatic example of two different\nsummer patterns is given by Nowlin and Hubertz (1972) .\nIn June 1966 a well developed Loop extended far into the\nGulf (Figure 5) but in June 1967 an eddy had separated\n-14-","80°\n82°\n81\n90\n89\n88\n87\n66\n851\n84\n83\n32'\n32\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\n1972-1973\n31°\n31°\n30°\n30\n29°\n29°\n28°\n28\n27°\n27\nNINE\n26°\n26°\nJULY\nMART3\n25°\n25'\n100fm\nAUG12\nDEC 72\n24°\n24\nT3\nMAY\nNOV\nAUG72\nAUG73\nFEBT3\nJULY 73\n23°\n23\n22°\n22'\n21'\n21\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\n90°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\nFigure 6. e The 1972 - 1973 positions of the 150 m\nisopleth of the 20°C topography as observed\nby Maul (1975).\n-15-","from the main flow, and the Loop Current extended to only\n26.5°N (Figure 7).\nCochrane (1972) documented an eddy separation event\nwhich occurred in May 1969. He shows that the separation\napparently takes place when a meander ,formed on the west\nFlorida Shelf joins with a meander on the Campeche Bank\nto form a ridge between the main flow and the eddy. Figure\n8 demonstrates the evolution of the ridge between the two\ncirculation features. Cochrane (1972) noted that separa-\ntion also occurred in June 1967, and August 1965 near\nthe shortest distance between the 100 fm isobaths of the\nFlorida and Campeche Banks. Additional eddy separations\nwere observed in November 1970, July-August 1971, May 1972,\nand July 1973 (Maul, 1975). Leipper, Cochrane, and Hewitt\n(1972) described a bisection of the August 1965 eddy after\nthe passage of a hurricane through the region.\nDirect surface current measurements have been made\nin the central Gulf using the Geomagnetic Electrokineto-\ngraph (GEK) ,and surface drifters. The maximum GEK speeds\ngiven by Nowlin and Hubertz (1972) for the Loop Current\nare about 175 cm/sec, and for the detached eddy 125 cm/sec.\nSpeeds greater than 50 cm/sec exist in a band approximately\n80 km wide in the Loop Current, and 50 km wide in the\ndetached eddy.\nChew (1974) in a theoretical and observational study\nof turning currents found that surface speeds are reduced\n-16-","90°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\n32\n32°\nLEVEL 20° C\n5 JUNE - 2 JULY 1967\n31°\n31°\n30\n30°\n29\"\n29°\n28\n28\n>100\n27\n27°\n26'\n26°\n25'\n25°\n50\n24'\n24°\n100\n23\n23\n22\n22°\n21\n21°\n90°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84*\n83\n82°\n81\"\n80°\na The 20°C topography as determined from data\nFigure 7.\ncollected in June 1967, and used by Nowlin\nand Hubertz (1972) to contrast different\nsummer circulation patterns, i.e. June, 1966,\nFigure 5 and June 1967.\n-17","30'\n:2\n29\"\n27\n26\"\n25*\n24'\n23*\n22\"\n3:*\n21\"\n32'\n30\n31\"\n29\"\n28\"\n27\"\n26'\n25'\n24'\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\n80'\n80*\n80\n80\n91\n81\n81\"\n81\"\nThe 20°C topography obtained in 1969, and used by Cochrane (1972) to document an eddy separation\n821\n82\n82'\n82'\nbe\nD\nD\n83\"\n85\n83\"\n83\"\n19-28 SEPTEMBER 1969\n3 - 22 JUNE 1969\n84\"\n84*\n84\"\n84*\nLEVEL 20 C\nLEVEL 20° C\n85*\n85\n85'\n85\n86*\n86\"\n86'\n86'\n150\n<50\n87\"\n671\n87\n87\"\n88*\n88*\n89'\n88'\n89\"\n89\n89*\n89'\n90\n90\"\n90\n90'\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n261\n25\n24\n231\n27\n26\n25\n22\n21\n24\n23\n22\n21\n30'\n32\n31'\n29'\n28'\n27\"\n261\n25'\n24\"\n23\"\n22'\nRO\"\n21\"\n32\"\n30\"\n29*\n31\"\n28\"\n27\"\n26'\n25\n24\"\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\n80\n60\n90\n100\"\nAt\n81*\n81\n61\"\n62*\n82*\n82\"\n82'\n83\nD\nevent, and subsequent westward drift of the feature.\n83\n5\n831\nD\n83\"\n20°C TOPOGRAPHY\n8 21 SEPTEMBER 1969\n84*\n14-20 MAY 1969\n84\"\n84\n84\"\nLEVEL 20 C\n200\n225\n85\n150\n100\n85*\n95*\n85\"\n86°\n86'\n861\n861\n87'\n87'\n87\"\n67\n50\n88*\n88\"\n88*\n88'\n100\n100\n89\n89\"\n89\n150\n89'\n00\n90\n90\n90\n90\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n217\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21\n32\n30'\n26'\n25'\n27'\n26'\n34\n22\n30'\n29\"\n23\n31\n28\n2?'\n26'\n25'\n24\"\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\net\n901\n8:\n80\n91\n81\"\n8:\n81\no\n82'\n82'\n82'\n32\n5\nD\n83\n83\n83\n83\"\nT\n29 APRIL - 12 MAY 1969\n200\n150\n200\n120\n11-30 JULY 1969\n84\n84'\n84\n84'\nLEVEL 20 C\nLEVEL 20° C\n250\n100\n65\n85\n85\n85\n86'\n86'\n86'\n66\n<100\n33\n87*\n87\"\n87\n87*\nT\n68\n88\"\n86\n88\"\nFigure 8.\nT\n89\"\n89\n69\n89'\n90\n90\n90\n90'\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n23\n24\n22\n21\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21\n1\n8","considerably at the apex of an anticyclonic turn. Surface\ndrifter data obtained in October-November 1970 in the\ncurrent core (Figure 9) indicate a decrease in buoy speed\nfrom 200 cm/sec to 130 cm/sec as a buoy approached the apex\nof the Loop. Kirwan, McNally, Chang, and Molinari (1975)\nnoted a similar deceleration based on drifter data obtained\nin June 1973.\nNowlin and Hubertz (1972) computed the Loop Current\nand detached eddy transports above 1350 m for June 1966\nand June 1967. Both systems contain recirculating water;\nthe Loop Current transports exceed 40x10 6 m3/sec, and\nthe eddy 30x10 m³/sec.\nNowlin and McLellan (1967), and Nowlin (1972) reported\non the winter circulation in the eastern Gulf. Nowlin\n(1972) computed dynamic height topographies relative to\n1000 db for January to April 1932, February to April 1935,\nand February to March 1962. The three topographies are\nvery similar in the eastern Gulf, with the core of the\nLoop Current extending to approximately 26°N. SUSIO (1975)\npresented additional data which suggest that the penetration\nof the Loop Current does not exceed 26°N (Figure 10).\nThe maximum surface speeds in the central basin, as\nmeasured by GEK's, were approximately 150 cm/sec in February\nand March of 1962 (Nowlin 1972). Little organized\ngeostrophic motion existed between 1500 db and 2000 db\nover the deep basin, and most flows between 1000 db\n-19-","80°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n90°\n89°\n88°\n32\n32\nLEVEL 20° C\n17 OCTOBER - 30 OCTOBER 1970\n31°\n31\n30°\n30\n29°\n29\n28°\n28\nDROGUE\nTRAJECTORY\n27°\n27\n26°\n26°\n25°\n25°\n100\n24°\n24\n150\n200\n23°\n23°\n22\"\n22'\n21°\n21\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\n90°\n89°\n88°\n87°\nFigure 9. The 20°C topography observed during October\n1970. Superimposed on the topography are\nsurface drifter trajectories used by Chew\n(1974) to describe turning currents.\n-20-","90°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83\n82°\n81°\n80°\n32\n32°\n21\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\nJANUARY - FEBRUARY\n31\n31°\n30\n30\n29\n29°\n28\n28\n27\n27°\n26°\n26\nXBT-MBT\n2/73\nCLIMATOLOGICAL\n25\n25°\nCURVE\n1/73\n24\n24\"\n23\n23\"\n22°\n22°\n21\n21°\n88°\n90°\n89°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n80°\nFigure 10.\nThe penetration of the 150 m isopleth of the\n20° surface (an indicator of the current core)\nobserved during the months\nFebruary. The XET-MBT climatological curve is\nthe mean penetration of the 150 m isopleth\ndetermined for these months.\n-21 -","and 1500 db were less than 10 cm/sec. The Loop transport\nrelative to 1000 db was approximately 30x10 6 m 3 /sec.\nMany investigators, Wennekens (1959), Grose (1966)\n,\nNowlin (1972), Caruthers (1972), for example, have discussed\nT-S relations for the water masses of the eastern Gulf. The\nT-5 correlation for waters with temperatures less than\n17°C exhibits little spatial or temporal variability. The\nlack of data has hampered the study of the temporal vari-\nability of the upper layer T-S relation. However, important\nspatial variations have been noted.\nThe T-S relation of the Loop Current waters is identical\nto the T-S relation observed at the Yucatan Straits in-\ndicating the common origin of these waters. However, the\nmaximum salinity of the SUW (Figure 4) is eroded to the\nleft of the current axis looking downstream. This re-\nduction in maximum salinity is frequently used to identify\nnon-Loop waters. For instance, Cochrane (1972) noted\nthat the ridge separating the Loop Current and detached\neddy is characterized by these lower salinity values, of\nthe order 36.4 o/oo. Cochrane (1967) and Nowlin (1972)\nindicated that the erosion of the SUW salinity maximum may\nbe caused by vertical mixing which occurs as the Yucatan\nCurrent flows along the Campeche Bank.\n3) Straits of Florida\nMaul (1975) reported on temperature data which suggest\nthat the position of the Florida Current in the vicinity of\n-22-","the Marquesas (at 82.1 ow in the Straits) is a function of\nthe penetration of the Loop Current. The farther north the\nLoop is found in the Gulf, the farther south the Florida Current\nwas found at this section.\nThe surface drifter data given by Chew (1974) ,\ncollected in the Straits of Florida, in August 1971, show\na monotonic acceleration in the Florida Current from\n84 W to 82 OW . In the vicinity of Key West, the surface\nspeeds approach 200 cm/sec.\nMost other studies in the Straits of Florida were\nconducted further downstream in the vicinity of the\nMiami-Bimini Island transect, Wunsch, Hansen and\nZetler (1969) and Duing (1975). The results of Niiler\nand Richardson (1973) along this transect bear directly\non the present effort. Noting that little water enters\nthe Straits of Florida through the Bahama Channels, they\nfound that the transport out of the Gulf of Mexico has a\nstrong seasonal signal. The mean transport computed from\ndirect velocity measurements is 29.5x10 6m3 /sec, and the\namplitude of the annual harmonic fitted to the data is\n4x106m3/sec. The maximum transport occurs in early June.\nTheir results indicate further that the variability for\na particular season is as great as the season to season\nvariability.\nIn a synoptic survey conducted along the Key West-\nHavana transect, Brooks and Niiler (1975) found the average\n-23-","transport over a one-month period from the surface to the\n27.00 surface to be 20.2x106m3/sec. They also found con-\nt\nsiderable variability in the transport, + 2.3x10 6 m 3 /sec during\nthis period. The transport through the Yucatan Straits,\nreported by Molinari and Yager (1976) was obtained concur-\nrently for the same water column and is within 10% of this value.\nWennekens (1959) finds that the water masses of the\nStraits of Florida are very similar to those of the interior\nGulf and Yucatan Straits. He also observes that additional\nwater, with lower salinities than typically found in SUW,\nhas been entrained on the left hand side of the current\nfacing downstream.\n4) west Florida Shelf\nThe hydrology and currents on the west Florida Shelf\nare affected significantly by its boundaries: the Florida\nPanhandle to the north, the west coast of Florida to the\neast, the Florida Keys to the south, the Gulf of Mexico and\nfrequently the Loop Current to the west, and the sea-air\ninterface above.\nAlthough considerable data have been collected on this\nshelf on such field programs as the Hourglass Study (Florida\nDepartment of Natural Resources, 1969), the west Florida\nContinental Shelf Program (Rinkel, 1974), and the NSF Con-\ntinental Shelf Dynamics Program (Price and Mooers, 1974 a,\nb,c, 1975, and Plaisted, Waters, and Niiler, 1975), few\nscientific results have been reported in the literature.\n-24-","Jones (1973) in a discussion of drift bottles\nreleased during the Hourglass Study, suggested that recovery\nsites indicate a seasonal circulation pattern. For the\nregion west of the 10-meter and east of the 91-meter iso-\nbath, the January, February, and March recoveries indicate\na southerly flow. The May, June, July, August, and September\nrecoveries suggest north-northwest flow along 27°35'N and\nsoutherly flow along 26°30'N. The April, October, November,\nand December recoveries indicate transitional periods with\nflow both to the north and south observed. In the region\nshoreward of the 10-meter isobath, the predominant flow was\nto the north throughout the year. Jones further noted that\nthe observed circulation features are dependent on other\nfactors in addition to the wind stress field.\nMooers and Price (1975) presented some preliminary\nresults on spatial and temporal scales obtained during\nthe NSF Shelf Dynamics Program conducted on the west\nFlorida Shelf. The vertical motions are correlated over 50\nm intervals, the alongshore motions over 100 kilometers, and\nthe crossshelf motions over 20 kilometers. The motions are\ncorrelated in time. for periods of about 5 days. They\nsuggest that these correlations, indicative of slowly\nvarying flow, are directly related to particle displacements\nin the sense that high frequency motions, such as tides and\ninertial flows, do not produce large net particle displace-\nments. Their analysis does not permit identification of\n-25-","the forces which produce these low frequency motions;\nhowever, evidence exists suggesting the importance of the\nLoop Current and atmospheric disturbances as forcing\nmechanisms.\nSUSIO (1975) provides some additional evidence for\nthe importance of the Loop Current to shelf circulation.\nVertical sections show isolated cells of high salinity\nLoop Current water on the Shelf (Figure 11) . These features\ncan extend throughout the water column, or may be confined\nto the bottom layers. They range in size from 60 to 100\nkm. These eddies transfer momentum as well as water from\nthe Loop Current onto the Shelf. Maul (1975) observed\nLoop Current eddies approximately 20 km in diameter on\nthe west Florida Shelf.\nThe meander found off the west Florida Shelf has been\ndiscussed in relation to the eddy separation phenomenon\n(Figure 8) . In addition, the meander and the subsequent\neddy detachments tend to transport shelf water out into\nthe deep basin (Cochrane, 1972) .\n5) MAFLA SHELF\nHydrographic and circulation studies on the MAFLA\nShelf indicate that the circulation patterns on this shelf\nare also complicated by wind drift, geostrophic flow,\n-26-","82°W\n84°W\nO\no\n>35.4\n35.4\n36.0\n35.4\n25\n25\n36\n50\n50\n364\n75\n75\n364\n100 in\n100\n125\n125\n360\n150\n150\nSatinity %\n175\n175\nO:Ocean. Sio\nBottle Depth\n35.6\nStation No\n90-0\n88-0\n97-0\n96-0\n95-0\n94-0\n93-0\n92-0\nAICS\n700\nat\n200\nyour\n84\nLong\nAUGUST 21-22 .071\nAlong 27°32'N\n82°W\n84°W\nc\nO\n350\n<35.2\n364\n35.4\n360\n25\n25\n36.2\n>36.2\n>36.6\n36.2\n>366\n5C\n50\n36.2 <36.2\n75\n75\n100 in\n100\n125\n125\n150\n150\nSalinity %\n0=Ocean Ste.\n175\n175\nBottle Depth\nStation No.\n91-0\n90-0\n69-0\n88-0\n87-0\n86-0\n85-0\nA1C7\n220\n200\n62°WLC.\n84°W\nLong\nAlong 27°15'N\nAUGUST 20 12.1\n-\nUpper panel. Vertical section of salinity observed\nFigure 11.\nduring August, 1971 along 27032'N which shows a mid-\nlevel high salinity cell indicative of Loop Current\nwater. Lower panel. Vertical section of salinity\nobserved during August, 1971 along 27015'N which shows\na bottom high salinity cell.\n-27-","tidal currents, and motions induced by shelf waves and\neddies. Drift bottle data given by Gaul (1964, 1965, 1966,\n1967 ) ; Chew, Drennan, and Demoran (1962): Drennan (1963) ;\nand Tolbert and Salsman (1964) have been reanalyzed and\nwill be considered in a subsequent section.\nGaul (1964, 1965, 1966, 1967) and Drennan (1968)\nconsidered the hydrographic conditions on this shelf.\nMississippi river run-off and Loop Current waters have\nsignificant influence on the water mass distribution here.\nThese effects are superimposed on the seasonal variability\nassociated with atmospheric conditions, and therefore, these\nanomalies can be used to indicate circulation.\nIn the absence of Loop waters or river run-off, Gaul\n(1967) shows a smooth transition toward lower salinity\nvalues in the SUW as one proceeds north from the Loop\nCurrent. SUSIO (1975) presents annual salinity curves\nfor the area off the Mississippi Delta. Salinities in\nthis region depend directly on the phase of Mississippi\nrun-off with lowest salinities occuring in the spring\nduring time of maximum runoff.\nLow salinity surface water, originating from the\nMississippi River, moved east along the 100 fm curve from\nApril through July 1964 (Drennan, 1968). A lens of low\nsalinity water also has been observed, and tracked to\nthe Straits of Florida in the summer of 1973 (Maul, 1975).\nUnpublished data collected in the early summer of 1975,\n-28-","as part of the present BLM effort, show a similar feature.\nEddies with Loop Current water mass properties also\nhave been observed on the MAFLA Shelf. Gaul (1967) and\nSUSIO ( 1975) report on these features, which are similar to\nthe eddies found on the west Florida Shelf. The eddies\nobserved by Gaul have a horizontal scale of 100 km and\nappear to be in geostrophic balance.\nWinter conditions on the shelf are characterized by\nisothermal water columns, with winter extremes observed in\nFebruary. The summer conditions, as on most shelves, are\ncharacterized by a quasi-two-layer system with a strong\nthermocline. Gaul (1967 ) noted that extreme summer con-\nditions occur in August. Transitions from summer to winter\nconditions and vice versa appear to be dependent respect-\nively on the first and last occurance of cold fronts over\nthe shelf. To repeat, these climatological conditions are\nmodulated by intrusions of Loop water or river run-off. In\nparticular, the Loop waters possess temperature charac-\nteristics different than those normally found on the shelf.\nGaul (1967 ) also found evidence for a quasi-permanent\nanticyclonic circulation feature at the head of the De Soto\nCanyon, 87.5°W, 28.5°N ( Figure 1). This feature has a\nhorizontal scale of 100 km, and a vertical scale of 500 m.\nThe climatological geostrophic velocities given in Figure 2\nalso show an anticyclonic circulation feature centered at\napproximately 87.5°W and 28.50N.\n-29-","6) Central Gulf Basin\nAs one procedes west in the Gulf the amount of data\navailable is less. Most data collected in the coastal Gulf\nfrom 89°W to 92°W were obtained as investigators were in\ntransit to the eastern Gulf. Thus the distribution of data\nduring most cruises is insufficient to define circulation\nfeatures.\nThe climatological charts of Whitaker (1971) show a\ntrough of higher temperature water with a southwesterly\ntrend extending from the eastern to the western Gulf. In\nApril a low temperature ridge begins to penetrate north into\nthe trough from the Campeche Ridge. In August the trough no\nlonger appears as a continuous circulation feature, as the\nridge appears to separate the eastern and western Gulf. The\ntrough reappears as a continuous feature in September.\nIf the flow along the trough were in geostrophic\nbalance ,the circulation along the northern side would be to\nthe east, and along the southern side to the west. At 26°N,\nthe annual circulation is to the east between 92.5°W and\no\n90.5 W (Figure 2), but no corresponding westerly flow exists\nto the south of the trough. Grose (1966) and Nowlin ( 1972)\nfind indirect evidence for westerly flow along and over the\nCampeche Bank. However, Rossov (1966) proposed an easterly\nflow along this Bank.\n-30-","A 1966 eddy drifted to the west into the central Gulf\nafter separating from the Loop Current. Leipper (1970) called\nthis phenomenon \"fall spreading\" of the Loop. Nowlin\nand Hubertz (1972) found remnants of a detached eddy at 92°W\nduring June 1967. The eddy still retained a volume trans-\n63\nport of 10x10 m /sec. A 1969 eddy (Figure 8) moved rapidly\nto the west during July at 2 to 3 nautical miles per day\n(Cochrane, 1972). By early September the eddy had moved\nwest of 900W.\nThe 1966, 1967, and 1969 eddies were centered at\napproximately 26°N. However, in 1965 a detached eddy was\nfound considerably farther to the north. Remnants of the\nanticyclonic eddy which separated in July 1965 were found\noff the Mississippi Delta as late as February 1966 (Figure\n5)\nCochrane (1966, 1967, 1968) reported on the hydro-\ngraphic conditions over the eastern Campeche Bank. The\nspring and early summer temperatures and salinities of the\nshelf are determined by the intensity of the upwelling which\noccurs during this season. Upwelling occurred during all of\nCochrane's May cruises along two branches extending from the\nnortheastern corner of the Yucatan Peninsula. The May and\nJune bottom temperatures over the southeastern Campeche Bank\nare colder than the winter temperatures, this feature is a\npossible manifestation of the upwelling. Upwelling was not\nobserved during three years of data collected in October and\nNovember. The temperature structure over the Bank in February is\n-31-","isothermal, a condition similar to that observed on the\nnorthern Gulf shelves.\nThe water mass characteristics of the central basin are\nvery similar to those of the eastern basin. However, the\nextremes in the T-S relation are reduced due to mixing.\nThe salinity maximum of the SUW and the salinity minimum\nof the AIW are both eroded as distance from the Loop Current\nincreases. (Nowlin and McLellan, 1967)\nThe water mass characteristics of the north central\nGulf, particularly at the surface, are complicated by the\nintroduction of Mississippi River run-off. River run-off\nis found to the west as well as to the east of the Delta\n(Drennan, 1968) .\n7) Western Gulf of Mexico and Bay of Campeche\nNowlin and McLellan (1967) and Nowlin (1972) proposed\na winter circulation pattern for the central western Gulf\nof Mexico. An anticyclonic gyre is centered at 23.5°N,\nand 95.5 O W (Figure 2). South of the Texas shelf, at\napproximately 24°N and 25°N, eastward flow existed in\nFebruary 1962 and February 1964. The maximum velocities\nmeasured were 70 cm/sec. The current decelerates and\nbroadens from 95°W to 91°W (also seen in the climatological\ndata of Figure 2).\nA broader and weaker flow is found on the southern\nside of the gyre. This portion of the gyre may be a seg-\nment of the Yucatan Current which separates from the main\n-32-","flow and flows around the Campeche Bank (Nowlin, 1972) , .\nThere is no indication of a connection between the two\nsystems in Figure 2. Nowlin (1971) further hypothesized\nthat a northward flowing boundary current may exist along\nthe east coast of Mexico.\nThe climatological temperature distributions of Whitaker\n(1971) indicate that the western Gulf gyre is strongest in\nwinter, and weakest in the spring. According to Sturges and Blaha\n(1976) the western Gulf gyre is driven by the wind stress\nfield over the western Gulf, exactly analagous to the forc-\ning of the western Atlantic gyre by the overlying wind\nfield. Furthermore, a western boundary current along the\ncoast of Mexico is necessary to close the circulation, similar\nto the function of the Gulf Stream. The wind stress data\nconsidered by Sturges and Blaha, would produce the strongest\nboundary currents in December, January, and February, with\na. secondary maximum in June, July, and August. The gyre\nshould have transports of some 6x10 6 m 3 /sec during these\nperiods. The wind stress forcing function essentially\nvanishes during the spring and fall.\nRossov (1966) and Nowlin (1972) found evidence for\nthe existence of a cyclonic gyre in the Bay of Campeche.\nThere are indications of such an eddy in the climatological\nsurface velocities given in Figure 2.\nThe water mass properties for the western Gulf,\ngiven by Grose (1966), Nowlin and McLellan (1967) and\n-33-","Caruthers (1972), show further erosion of the extreme in the\nT-S relation noted in the central Gulf. Furthermore, the\noxygen data collected in winter 1962, suggest a longer\nresidence time in the Gulf for these waters than indicated\nfor the eastern Gulf waters (Nowlin, 1972)\n.\n8) Texas Shelf\nThe circulation and water mass distribution along the\nsouth and east Texas shelves appear to be strongly de-\npendent on river run-off from the Mississippi River and on\nmeteorological disturbances. Low salinity waters from the\nMississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers can be traced as far\nsouth as 26°N in the winter (Nowlin, 1972). The low sal-\ninity waters existed in a band some 75-110 km. wide in\nFebruary-March 1962, and January 1966, but were not found in\nJanuary-February 1964.\nA westward flowing counter-current located between the\nnorthern arm of the western Gulf gyre and the Texas Shelf\nhas been observed. However, this current is not a permanent\nwinter circulation feature, and its occurence may depend on\nthe existence of low-salinity water on the Texas Shelf\n(Nowlin, 1972). The countercurrent is not found in the\nannual circulation pattern shown in Figure 2.\nIchiye and Sudo (1971a) and Nowlin and Parker (1974)\nreported on the winter water mass characteristics of the\nShelf. During cold-air outbreaks water mass formation may\n-34-","occur on the shelf as the waters located below the core of\nSUW (see Figure 4) in offshore areas have the same T-S\ncharacteristics as waters found on the shelf after an out-\nbreak (Nowlin and Parker, 1974) .\n9) Abyssal circulation\nPequegnat (1972) presented the only current meter\nrecords obtained and analyzed from the deep basin. However,\nhis records are too short to establish meaningful average\nvelocities.\nThe majority of the information regarding deep currents\nhas been obtained from indirect current measurements. For\ninstance, the deep waters of the Gulf are neutrally stable\nwith no significant horizontal variations in temperature or\nsalinity below 2000 m (McLellan and Nowlin, 1963). However,\noxygen and phosphorous data in 'the western Gulf suggest the\nwest Gulf gyre to be a feature of the deep circulation.\nIchiye and Sudo (1971) traced saline deep water located at\n1500-1750 m clockwise around the Campeche Slope suggesting\nadvection at these depths. Finally, Betzer and Pilson\n( 1971), studying the nepheloid layer in the Gulf, hypothe-\nsized that the distribution of particulate iron indicates\nstronger bottom currents in the eastern than the western\nGulf.\n10) Model Studies And Summary\nThe few studies which consider the Gulf as one system\nhave been either analytical or numerical studies\n-35-","of the circulation. But, the results of these efforts\nhave been analyzed primarily in relation to the eastern\nGulf circulation. The driving mechanism for the circulation\nin most of these studies has been the mass transport\nthrough the Yucatan Straits. Paskausky and Reid (1972),\nin a barotropic numerical model, and Wert and Reid (1972)\nin a two-layer model, both varied the cross-stream velocity\nstructure at the Yucatan Straits while keeping the total\ntransport into the Gulf fixed. The effect of the boundary\ncondition is to vary with time the relative vorticity\ndistribution at the input boundary. Similarly Ichiye\n(1962) and Reid (1972) indicate in analytical studies\nthat the intrusion of the Loop is a function of the earth's\nrotation, and the relative vorticity at an initial point.\nBoth numerical studies are able to reproduce an annual\ncycle of Loop penetration which approximates the cycle\nsuggested by Leipper (1970). As part of the present study,\nan attempt was made to use the Wert and Reid model to test\nthe effect of various boundary conditions. However, a balance\nin the conservation of energy equation could not be obtained\nin the model runs. The validity of Wert and Reid's (1972)\nresults are therefore open to question, as it appears that\nspurious energy is entering the system. Because of time\nconstraints, work on the two-layer model was stopped before\nthe inconsistency in the energy balance was resolved.\n-36-","To summarize, although the Gulf in the past has been\nstudied as a series of isolated regions, new data suggest\nthat such a regional approach can not be successful. The\npenetration of the Loop Current has an effect on the MAFLA\nand Florida Shelf circulations. Eddies detached from the\nLoop Current migrate towards the western Gulf bringing water\nmass and momentum distributions not typically found in this\narea. Shelf circulations established and maintained by\nriver run-off advect shelf water out into the deep basin.\nLoop Current water drifts onto one area of the shelf dis-\nplacing shelf water in another. These phenomena and others\nhave been observed, and their importance stressed. However,\nto describe fully and to understand eventually these pro-\ncesses, a one-system approach to the Gulf circulation\nproblem must be adopted.\nFinally, the importance of the wind distribution to the\ncirculation in the Gulf has not been fully explored. Sturges\nand Blaha (1976) proposed one of the first hypothesis which\nattributes movement of waters in the deep basin of the Gulf\nto the wind field. However, he considers only the circulation\nin the western Gulf. Most studies of the eastern Gulf have\nassumed that the circulation here is not significantly affected\nby the wind. This assumption should be more closely inspected\nin view of the work of Sturges and Blaha.\n-37-","III. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS\n1) Geostrophic Model\nThe geostrophic approximation is used in physical\noceanography to permit computation of ocean currents from\nmeasurements of the density field. This \"indirect\" method\nof determining currents has provided much of the information\npresently available on ocean circulation.\nThe approximation states that the horizontal equations\nof motion are replaced by the geostrophic balance between\nthe pressure gradient term, and the Coriolis acceleration\nterm. As other accelerations, retarding forces, and driving\nforces are neglected, the approximation can introduce errors\nin areas of accelerating flow such as the Straits of Florida\nor Yucatan Straits, or in areas where bottom friction is\nimportant such as on the continental shelves. The errors are\na function of the magnitude of the accelerations or the\nmagnitude of the bottom friction.\nThe geostrophic equations of motion are:\n-fv + 1\nap\n= 0,\n(1)\ndx\np\nfu +\n1\nap\n= n,\n(?)\nay\np\nwhere (u, are the component (x,y) speeds, p is the density;\nf=2 So sin is the Coriolis parameter for the earth's\nangular velocity, So , and latitude, o; and p is the pressure.\n-38-","Following Fomin (1964), it is necessary to assume that\nthe hydrostatic equation is valid in the vertical, and that\na level of either zero horizontal velocity or known velocity\nexists. Equations (1) and (2) now become:\n-fv\n+\naD = 0,\n(3)\ndx\n+fu +\naD = 0.\n(4)\nay\nwhere the dynamic height, D, of surface p relative to\n1\nsurface p is:\n2\nP2\nD =\ndp\n(5)\np\nThe dynamic height values are computed by a numerical\nintegration of (5) after the density profile is determined\nfrom observed temperature and salinity values. As these\ncurrents are derived from the density distribution, they are\ninadequate for computing flow in homogeneous or weakly\nstratified flow such as often found on continental shelves\n(Neumann and Pierson, 1966). .\nEquations (3), (4) , and (5) imply that only relative\ncurrents, the current at level p relative to p , can be\n1\n2\ncomputed using the geostrophic approximation. This limita-\ntion has caused the evolution of many techniques to determine\n-39-","a true level of no-motion (see Neumann and Pierson (1966) ,\nfor instance); ; however, no satisfactory method has been\ndeveloped. Frequently, the choice of the reference level\nis based on the depth to which data are available. Therefore,\nit is necessary to remain cognizant of the fact that geo-\nstrophic currents are only relative currents. To convert\nthem to absolute currents requires knowledge of the absolute\nvelocity at some level.\nAnother difficulty associated with geostrophic compu-\ntations occurs when large depth changes occur. Various\ntechniques exist for extrapolating deep water dynamic\nheight data onto the shelf in order to compute realistic\ngeostrophic currents (Schlitz, 1973). However, as with\nmost geophysical extrapolation techniques, care must be\ntaken in applying these methods 'as well as in interpreting\nthe results from their application.\nThe limitations listed above are functions of the\nassumptions used in deriving the geostrophic equations.\nOther errors are introduced through inaccurate data collec-\ntion procedures. Erroneous ship positions, and inaccurate\ntemperature and salinity determinations can lead to un-\nreliable geostrophic velocities. Fomin (1964) discussed\nthe functional dependence of the geostrophic calculations\non some of these factors to indicate the measurement accuracy\nrequired to obtain meaningful results.\n-40-","Finally, data collection schemes which obtain infor-\nmation at discrete points are limited by the distance between\ndata points in the features which can be resolved. Thus,\ndensity stations placed 40 km apart in the Yucatan Straits\ncan not resolve the cross-stream velocity structure within\nthis band, nor will stations placed 50 km apart on the\nwest Florida Shelf provide data which can be used to\nrealistically map the distribution of high salinity cells.\nWhen considering circulation maps produced from geostrophic\ncomputations, it is important to know the station spacing,\nsince the details of the distributions presented are de-\npendent on this spacing.\n2) Numerical Model\nThe numerical model chosen to simulate the circulation\nof water in the Gulf of Mexico has been adapted from the\nmodel for the general oceanic circulation developed by\nBryan (1969) and his co-workers at the Geophysical Fluid\nDynamics Laboratory of NOAA. The model has been described\nin detail in the Guide. The development and limita-\ntions of the numerical model will be briefly repeated in\nthis section for those readers not concerned with the\ndetails given in the Guide. Knowledge of the model\nlimitations, in particular, is necessary for a meaningful\nevaluation of the model results.\nThe basis of the numerical model is the set of phy-\nsical laws governing the motion of fluid on the rotating\n-41-","spherical earth. For the ocean these laws represent the\nconservation of matter, the conservation of momentum (Newton's\nsecond law of motion), the conservation of heat energy (the\nsecond law of thermodynamics), the conservation of salinity,\nand an equation of state which relates the density to the\npressure, temperature, and salinity. The mathematical\nexpression of these laws is a set of partial differential\nequations which govern the temporal evolution of seven\nindependent field variables: three components of velocity\n(eastward, northward, vertical), temperature, salinity,\npressure, and density.\nIn order to construct the numerical version of these\nequations, the model region is first filled with a three-\ndimensional array of grid points. Then a set of finite\ndifference equations is constructed which approximate the\ndifferential equations at the grid points. The finite\ndifference equations are algebraic and can be solved by\ncomputer.\nThe equations which are used are not the most general\nform of the physical laws; they have been simplified by\ntaking advantage of certain characteristics of the ocean.\nThese simplifications are required to obtain solutions\nbecause of reasons discussed in the Users Guide. The most\nimportant approximations are the following.\n1) The ocean is assumed to be a Boussinesq Fluid. That\nis the density of the ocean differs only slightly from a\n-42-","reference state in which entropy and salinity are constant,\nand there is no motion. A simple formal analysis, based on\nthis assumption (Phillips 1969) shows that the ocean can be\nconsidered incompressible, and that variations of density are\nonly important when they affect the buoyancy of the water.\n2) The ocean is assumed to be in hydrostatic balance,\nThis means that the vertical balance of forces differs only\nslightly from a reference state of no motion. Thus, the\nconservation equation for the vertical component of momentum\nis replaced by the hydrostatic balance between the vertical\ngradient of pressure and the buoyancy force per unit volume.\nVertical accelerations of the water are neglected. Although\ndynamically driven upwelling and downwelling are not signi-\nficantly affected by the assumption, rapid convective\nsinking is made impossible. This difficulty is corrected by\nthe parameterization of convection (when dense water over-\nlies less dense water it is instantaneously mixed downward\nuntil neutral static stability is achieved). Fofonoff (1962)\ngave an analysis of the hydrostatic approximation.\n3) The surface of the ocean is not flat relative to the\ngeoid even if the wind waves are neglected. Variations in\nthe elevation of the surface are an important part of the\ndynamics of the circulation. However, the surface of the\nmodel ocean is fitted with a rigid lid. Under the rigid\n-43-","lid approximation, the relative elevation of the surface is\nreplaced by an equivalent surface pressure. The approxi-\nmation filters out surface gravity waves and slightly distorts\nother time-dependent motions. The mean circulation is not\nsignificantly affected. Clearly, this assumption should not\nbe used in studies in which surface gravity waves are important;\nthese would include tidal studies (Hendershott and Munk 1970),\nstorm surge problems (Reid and Bodine 1968), and estuarine\nstudies (Leendertse 1970) .\n4) The equations which are used govern only the large\nscale motion. Formally these equations are derived by an\naveraging procedure from the more general equations representing\nall scales of motion (Phillips 1969; Monin and Yaglom 1971) .\nIf each of the field variables is expressed as the sum of a\nlarge scale part and small scale part, then the averaged\nequations are written entirely in terms of the large scale\nvariables with the exception of a single term in each of the\nmomentum, heat, and salinity equations which represents the\neffect of all the small scale variability. In a numerical\nmodel, the small scale variations are those with amplitudes\nless than the distance between grid points. For convenience,\nall of the unresolved small scale motions are called eddies.\nBecause the eddy effects are not resolved, they must be para-\nmeterized where they appear in the averaged equations. In\nanalogy with the theory of turbulence, it might be assumed that\nthe net effect of all eddy processes was to enhance the\ndiffusion of momentum, heat and salinity. Based on this\nassumption the model parameterizes the eddy fluxes by the\n-44-","negative gradient of the appropriate large scale variable\nmultiplied by a constant, positive eddy coefficient.\nThe spatial resolution of the numerical model is deter-\nmined by the distance between grid points. For example, the\nGulf of Mexico model with 37,26, and 7 grid points in the\nzonal, meridional, and vertical directions respectively, has\na uniform horizontal resolution of about 50 kilometers and a\nvariable vertical resolution of 70 to 930 meters. An increase\nin the number of grid points allows a finer resolution but\nalso requires more computer memory and time to perform a calcula-\ntion.\n5) The model assumes that the frictional drag of the\nbottom is negligible in all areas except for those with the\nshallowest model depths. This is a reasonable assumption for\ndeep water where the vigorous wind-driven circulation is confined\nto the surface layers. However, in regions where strong currents\nextend to the bottom, the assumption breaks down. There is\nsome distortion of the simulated continental shelf circulation\nin regions with no bottom friction. Also, a certain amount\nof dissipation is missing from the model. However, because\nthe missing dissipation represents a very small fraction of\nthe total dissipation in the model due to eddy viscosity,\nthe effect on the energetics of the model as a whole is\nnegligible.\nAll of these approximations are included in the basic\nBryan model; no additional approximations have been made in\nthe Gulf version of the model. However, the Gulf model does\n-45-","include modifications to accommodate the open boundaries at\nthe Straits of Yucatan and Florida. Separate experiments\nhave been done using two distinct treatments of the boundary\nconditions at the Straits. In one case, the user supplies\nthe model with information about the direction and vertical\nstructure of the flow at the open boundaries; while in the\nother case, the model itself specifies the freer condition\nthat the flow does not change direction at the boundaries.\nIn addition, in both treatments the user must specify the\ntotal transport of water through the boundaries. A com-\nparison of the results using these different treatments at\nthe boundaries shows only slight differences in the interior\nof the Gulf.\nThe model has been run in a diagnostic mode. To make\nsuch a calculation, the initial value of temperature, salinity,\nand horizontal velocity at all grid points of the model must\nbe specified. In addition, the values of wind stress, the\nflux of heat through the surface, and the apparent flux of\nsalt through the surface as a result of evaporation and\nprecipitation are required at each surface grid point.\nDuring the calculation the temperature, and salinity fields\nare held fixed while the velocity field is allowed to evolve\nto a steady state. The validity of the velocity field\ndetermined in a diagnostic study depends strongly on the\nquality and quantity of the temperature and salinity data\nput into the calculation.\n-46-","IV DATA PREPARATION\nFigures 12, 13, and 14; 15; and 16 show the distribution\n0\nby 1 squares of station, expendable bathythermograph (XBT)\nand mechanical bathythermograph (MBT) data collected in the\nGulf of Mexico. Figures 12, 13, and 14 also list the distri-\nbution of station data by 10° square and month. The lack of\nadequate spatial or temporal coverage is apparent in these\nfigures and tables for all areas except the eastern Gulf.\nMuch of the subjectivity used in the processing of these\ndata is necessary because of this sparse data-set.\nMore sophisticated methods have been developed to mani-\npulate data-sets, in particular objective analysis, ( Gandin,\n1963), but time constraints precluded the adoption of these\ntechniques into the present study. However, in view of the\ndifficulties encountered with the methods implemented,\nand the need for more refined data handling methods for\npreparing data-sets for the prognostic models, the last\nsection of this report will discuss the need to expand the\nsecond year work to include development of advanced techniques.\nThe numerical model when used in the diagnostic mode\nrequires four types of data, in addition to the interior\ntemperature and salinity fields , to define the boundary\nconditions. The lateral boundaries and bottom topography of\nthe Gulf of Mexico, the surface wind stress field, and the\ntotal volume transport through the Florida and Yucatan\nStraits, must be specified. The geostrophic model requires\n-47-","90\n80\n30\n30\n21\n37\n37\n38\n18\n42\n28\n57\n28\n29\n31\n23\n73\n46\n5\n25\n20\n48\n30\n29\n60\n66\n15\n23\n24\n38\n32\n35\n53\n59\n35\n2\n25\n21\n20\n43\n35\n39\n84\n194\n108\n102\n13\n24\n31\n42\n42\n58\n72\n632\n218\n110\n12\n17\n32\n26\n42\n33\n41\n106\n43\n27\n35\n18\n34\n33\n45\n26\n1\n1\n262\n245\n18\n20\n20\nSO\n80\nSTATION DATA INVENT.\nFOR TEN DEGREE SQUARES 1110\nJAN\n120\nJUL\n130\nSTATIONS\nFEB\n440\nAUG\n638\nJAN-MAR\nMAR\n291\n851\nSEP\n219\nAPR-JUN\nAPR\n370\n1754\nOCT\n148\nJUL-SEP\nMAY\n739\n987\nNOV\n236\nOCT-DEC\nJUN\n645\n529\nDEC\n145\nTOTAL\n4121\nFigure 12. The distribution of Nansen station data collected in Marsden\nSquare 1110 in the Gulf of Mexico from 1900 to 1975. The\ndistribution by months is also listed.\n-48","100\n90\n30\n30\n1\n10\n1\n3\n522\n14\n36\n29\n17\n21\n23\n4\n10\n14\n28\n27\n16\n10\n15\n2\n11\n15\n19\n22\n22\n14\n23\n3\n7\n12\n12\n15\n13\n14\n20\n0\n3\n6\n7\n10\n14\n9\n6\n15\nB\n5\n8\n9\n8\n8\n7\n6\n8\n12\n8\n13\n12\n6\n18\n29\n3\n11\n4\n11\n7\n11\n8\n7\n-\n6\n9\n14\n11\n9\n4\n20\n20\n100\n90\nSTATION DATA INVENTORY\nFOR TEN DEGREE SQUARES 1111\nSTATIONS\n97\nJUL\n37\nJAN\n345\n121\nJAN-MAR\n95\nAUG\nFEB\n57\nAPR-JUN\n159\n153\nSEP\nMAR\n215\n40\nJUL-SEP\nAPR\n23\nOCT\n71\nOCT-DEC\n141\nMAY\n39\nNOV\n30\nTOTAL\n863\n97\nDEC\nJUN\nFigure 1 3.\nThe distribution of Nansen station data collected in Marsden\nSquare 1110 in the Gulf of Mexico from 1900 to 1975. The\ndistribution by months is also listed.\n49","14\n59\n18\n17\n108\n10\nThe distribution of Nansen station data collected in Marsden Squares 1011 and 1210 in the\n20\n90\n90\nSTATIONS\nJAN-MAR\nAPR-JUN\nJUL-SEP\nOCT-DEC\nTOTAL\n2\nGulf of Mexico from 1900 to 1975. The distribution by months is also listed.\n7\n11\n0\n15\n3\n6\n11\n0\nG\n7\n9\nJUL\nAUG\nSEP\nOCT\nNOV\nDEC\n20\n17\nFOR TEN DEGREE SQUARES 1011\nSTATION DATA INVENTORY\n28\n4\n2\n8\n0\n52\n7\nJAN\nFEB\nMAR\nAPR\nMAY\nJUN\n100\n100\n10\n20\n8\n7\n107\n0\n122\nSTATIONS\nJAN-MAR\nAPR-JUN\nJUL-SEP\nOCT-DEC\n40\n30\n80\nTOTAL\n80\n0\n8\n99\n0\n0\n0\nJUL\nAUG\nSEP\nOCT\nNOV\nDEC\n6\nFOR TEN DEGREE SQUARES 1210\n13\nSTATION DATA INVENTORY\n6\n1\n1\n0\n1\n6\nJAN\nFEB\nMAR\nAPR\nMAY\nJUN\nFigure 14.\n90\n90\n+\n30\n40","81\n1:\n1 :\n25:\n21\n3\n3\n2\n9\nFigure 15. The distribution of expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data collected in the Gulf of Mexico from\n140\n24\n12\n11\n2\n1\nI\n248\n346\n16\n19\n2\n3\n10\n12\n80\n66\n29\n21\n4\n4\n12\n19\n30\n54\n118\n114\n55\n38\n41\n36\n78\n85\n60\n95\n101\n282\n57\n2\n6\n13\n12\n35\n48\n54\n76\n90\n73\n169\n67\n28\n38\n62\n94\n43\n52\n18\n11\nG\n2\n36\n39\n38\n26\n12\n21\n31\n1\n16\n26\n25\n17\n13\n21\n2\n2\n90\n90\n22\n24\n22\n11\n11\n3\nI\n1\n28\n27\n10\n16\n5.\ng\n5\n28\n3\n7\n3\n3\n2\n1\n1\n13\n16\n7\n6\n2\n5\n2\n1\n1\n16\n8\n7\n5\n9\n2\n3\n5\n4\n1\n-\n15\n3\n1\n5\n4\n5\n3\n4\n1\n1962 to 1975.\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n1\n0\n100\n100\n30\n20","46 66 85 61 52 103 145 149 176 200 249 233 932 2561\n13\n15\n446\n73\n20\n12\nThe distribution of mechanical bathythermograph data collected in the Gulf of Mexico from\n10\n23\n249\n225\n323\n78\n4\n5\n1\n29\n27\n139\n103\n183\n34\n171\n3\n6\n52\n43\n180\n98\n126\n92\n98\n30\n57\n259\n225\n51\n231\n86\n74\n161\n85\n51\n476\n98\n254\n481\n98\n228\n85\n201\n201\nYTO\n289\n444\n159\n113\n81\n53\n109\n5\n78\n158\n154\n80\n83\n95\n35\n124\n94\n71\n54\n96\n133\n25\n233\n91\n90\n90\n46\n83\n21\n60\n130\n108\n134\n3\n45\n72\n63\n73\n102\n135\n145\n9\n39\n58\n27\n44\n99\n114\nE\n157\n190\n32\n56\n66\n38\n149\n93\n97\n255\n284\n34\n23\n38\n21\n99\n556\n375\n271\n151\n37\n38\n29\n50\n39\n28\n92\n178\n71\n8\n1941 to 1975.\n36\n33\n61\n45\n40\n53\n138\n133\n75\n30\n9\n0\n24\n3B\n8\n9\nFigure 16.\n100\n100\n20\n30\n5\n2","temperature and salinity values at each grid-point to\ndetermine velocities. The data-handling techniques used\nto obtain this information will be described next.\n1) Bottom Topography and Lateral Boundaries\nA digitized bottom topography of the Gulf of Mexico,\nincluding lateral boundaries, was supplied by Drs. Yin-Shang\nSoong and Ya Hsueh of the Department of Oceanography, Florida\nState University. The bottom is digitized at a one-quarter\ndegree grid interval, using three maps prepared by the Geological\nSurvey: Uchupi (1971), and USGS I-457, and I-521. The digitized\ntopography, contoured at 500 m intervals, is presented in\nFigure 17.\n2) Surface Wind Stress\nThe surface wind stress over the Gulf of Mexico was\nsupplied by Mr. Andrew Bakum of the Pacific Environmental\nGroup of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Surface\nwind stress components are generated from monthly mean atmos-\npheric pressure data obtained from January 1946 to June 1974.\nThe geostrophic wind speed is computed from the surface pressure\ndistribution. A wind speed squared stress law and a drag\ncoefficient of .0013 are used. The zonal and meridional wind\nstress components are determined for each month at 30 intervals.\nThe 28 monthly values for each 30 square and month\nare averaged to obtain monthly mean stress values for January\nthrough December. A spline interpolation routine obtained\n-53-","84\n82\n88\n86\n92\n90\n96\n94\n30\n30\n28\n28\n26\n3000\n26\n24\n24\n22\n22\n3000\n20\n20\n1000\n500\n88\n84\n82\n86\n92\n90\n96\n94\nFigure 17. Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico. The contour interval is 500 meters.\nThe maximum depth is 3400 meters. The resolution is 1/4 degree.\n-54-","from the NCAR Library of Subroutines (NCAR, 1971) is used\nto interpolate the stress values to the model's 1/2°\nincrement. Figures 18 to 23 give the distributions of\nmonthly mean wind stress vectors at this interval.\nYucatan Straits Transport\n3)\nThe Yucatan Straits is divided into eight subregions.\nEach subregion is an area 12' of longitude by 18' of lati-\ntude, except for the eastern most region which extends over\n18' of longitude. Figure 24 shows the eight subregions\noverlaid on a bathymetric chart of the Yucatan Straits.\nFor each subregion, the National Oceanographic Data\nCenter (NODC) produced bi-monthly vertical array summaries\nof temperature, salinity, and dynamic heights at the\nstandard NODC levels. The dynamic height data were inte-\ngrated to form a transport function (McLellan, 1965), and\nvolume transports were computed from this function.\nConsiderable noise existed in the computed trans-\nport. values even though the data were averaged spatially\nand temporally. The sparsity of data during certain\nmonths and in some subregions probably causes much of the\nnoise.\nThe raw dynamic height data were subjectively smoothed,\nusing as a criterion the assumption that the average dynamic\nheight distribution should vary smoothly in time and space.\nA similar criterion was employed by Whitaker (1971)\n-55-","98\n92\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\nI\n2\n0.55 dynes/cm\nANNUAL\n18\n98\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n00\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n2\n0.55 dynes/cm\nMAY to\nSEPTEMBER\n18\nee\n8\n92\n86\n80\n38\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n2\n1 0.55 dynes/cm\nNOVEMBER\nto MARCH\n18\n38\ne\n92\n86\nFigure 18. Wind stress vectors.\n- 56 -","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nJANUARY\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n38\n86\n80\n3\n38\n30\n30\n25\n26\n22\n22\n10.55 dynes/cm 2\nFEBRUARY\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n38\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n2\n1\n0.55 dynes/cm\nMARCH\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n38\nFigure 19. Wind stress vectors.\n-57-","92\n86\n98\n3\n30\n26\n25\n22\n22\n1 0.55 dynes/cm\n2\nAPRIL\n18\n13\n92\n86\n80\n98\n80\ndu\n3.\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nMAY\n18\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n4 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nJUNE\n18\ni&a\n80\n86\n92\nFigure 20. wind stress vectors.","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n0.55 dynes/cm 2\n1\nJULY\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n3\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n2\n1 0.55 dynes/cm\nAUGUST\n18\n80\n86\n18\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n25\n22\n22\n2\n10.55 dynes/cm\nSEPTEMBER\n18\n80\n18\n86\n153\n92\nFigure 21. Wind stress vectors.\n-59-","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n25\n20\n22\n22\n2\n1 0.55 dynes/cm\nOCTOBER\n18.\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n38\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\nf 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nNOVEMBER\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n38\n92\n86\n111)\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nDECEMBER\n18\n80 8\n98\n92\n86\nFigure 22. Wind stress vectors.\n-60-","8\n26\n22\n30\n22\n8\n26\n30\n80\n80\n80\n80\n2\n2\nf 0.55 dynes/cm\n1 0. .55 dynes/cm\n86\n86\n8G\n86\nJUNE 1967\n92\n92\n02\n92\nJUNE 1975\n98\n98\n98\n98\n18\n22\n26\n18\n30\n26 26\n22\n30\n18\n30\n26\n22\n22\n18\n80\n80\n8'\n2\nI 0.55 dynes/cm 2\nf 0.55 dynes/cm\nFigure 23. Wind stress vectors.\n86\n86\n86\n86\nFEBRUARY 1962\nAUGUST 1971\n92\n92\n92\n98\n98\n98\n22\n18\n38\n26\n18\n30\n22\n26\n30","84°W\nCONTOURS IN FATHOMS\n24. The eight subregions of the Yucatan Straits for which average dynamic height\n1500\n1100\nC\nU\nB\nA\nCABO SAN\nANTONIO\n900700\n100\n500\n1900\n85° °W\n1700\n2\n1100\n900\n900\n3\n4\n900\n900\n86°W\n5\nprofiles are computed.\n6\n7\nARROWSMITH\nBANCO\n8\nMUJERES\nCOZUMEL ISLAND\nISLA\nI\n,100,\nFigure\n87°W\n22°N\n21°N","and Robinson (1973) in their studies of the climatological\ntemperature distributions.\nThe transports determined after smoothing the dynamic\nheight values were further smoothed by applying a triangle\nweighting filter to three successive transport values. The\nannual harmonic is fitted to these six transport values, and\n6 3\nthe resulting curve represents a mean transport of 30.1x10 m /sec,\nan amplitude of 3.3x106m3/sec, and a phase shift from January\n1 of plus four months (i.e. the maximum transport occurs on\nMay 1) . Figure 25 presents the observed transports and the\nannual harmonic curve. These values compare favorably to the\naverage values obtained at the Straits of Florida by Niiler and\n6\n3\nRichardson (1973) ; mean transport, 29.5x10 /sec; amplitude\n1x10 3 / sec, and a phase shift of maximum transport to early\nJune.\n4)\nClimatological Temperature and Salinity Data\nThe temporal and spatial distribution of Nansen station\ndata (Figures 12,13 and 14) indicate poor spatial coverage on\ntime increments less than bi-annual. Therefore, an approach\nwas devised whereby temperature data from XBT and MBT stations\ncould be used to supplement the Nansen station data. This\nlarger data-set is used as input to both the numerical and\ngeostrophic models.\nThe basis of this approach is to match observed temperature\nvalues with salinity values obtained from an average T-S\nrelation. Emery (1975) reviews this procedure and finds it\nadequate in regions of small scatter about an average T-S\n-63-","computed relative to 1000 db. The annual harmonic fitted to these data in a least\nANNUAL HARMONIC FITTED TO OBSERVED TRANSPORTS\nFigure 25. The bimonthly values of total geostrophic transport through the Yucatan Straits\nT=30.1x106 m S/sec, T' = 3.3x106m 3 /sec, p=4 MONTHS\nJ\nD\nN\no\nS\nA\nOBSERVED TRANSPORTS\nJ\nMONTH\nT=T+T' COS [ NG IT (MONTH - )\nx\nJ\nM\nsquares sense is also shown.\nA\nM\nF\nJ\nD\n-\nX\n30\n25\n35","relation. As a first step, the Gulf was divided into the\nnine. regions shown on Figure 26. These regions were chosen\non the basis of the results of past investigations which\nsuggested common circulation and water mass characteristics\nfor each region. The year was divided into four seasons,\nDecember-February, March-May, June-August, and September-\nNovember; the season's based on the annual cycle of the\nLoop penetration given first by Leipper (1970) .\nFor each region, NODC provided a list of average\nsalinities for 1/2°c temperature intervals. To reduce\nthe raggedness in the T-S relations, particularly in\nareas of little data, the salinities at consecutive\nintervals were averaged to obtain salinities at 1°C\nintervals. The resulting four T-S relations for each\nregion were plotted and edited. In regions 1 through 6\nthere was little variability with season in the T-S\nrelations below 17°C (as previously reported on by\nCaruthers (1972), for instance). Areas 7,8, and 9\nwhich encompass shelf regions exhibited considerable\ntemporal variability in the T-S relations.\nThe T-S relations above 17°C for areas 1 through 6\nwere examined for systematic variations in the T-S\nrelations. The examination was cursory, and no clear-cut\nseasonal variability was found. Therefore, an annual mean T-S\nrelation was produced for these areas. Although areas 7,8\nand 9 exhibit seasonal changes in the T-S characteristics,\n-65-","98° 96° 94° 92° 90° 88° 86° 84° 82° 80°\nFigure 26. The nine subregions of the Gulf of Mexico for which average T-S relations are computed.\n7\n3\n8\n200m\n2000m\n4\n2\n9\n5\n6\n1\n18°\n26°\n20°\n24°\n22°\n30°\n28°","annual averages were also produced for these regions, for\nconsistency. Unfortunately, area 8 includes both shelf and\ndeep waters. In order to avoid complications in dynamic height\nand model computations, the T-S relation for this area was\nsubjectively smoothed with a bias toward deep water conditions\n(i.e. higher salinities). The accepted T-S relations produced\nfrom these manipulations are given in Figure 27.\nNODC also provided listings of mean monthly temperature\nat NODC standard depths, and by 1° square. These monthly data\nwere further averaged to form an annual mean temperature\nprofile, and two seasonal profiles (summer, May to September,\nand winter, November to March) at each 1° square.\nThe distribution of the mean monthly temperature\ndata, particularly in the western and central Gulf, is\nsparse. Therefore, a three-month average centered at the\ndesired month was computed to compensate for the lack of\nadequate spatial coverage. These average conditions will\nserve to represent the monthly temperature distributions.\nSeasonal representations of the circulation based on three\nmonth averages were also to be produced. In view of the\naveraging required to generate monthly data, no separate\nseasonal patterns are presented.\nTemperature data and salinity data are mated to obtain\nvertical profiles of both parameters at each 1° square.\nFirst, the subregion (Figure 26) in which a particular\n1° square temperature value lies is determined. The T-S\nrelation for that region gives salinity values for each\n-67-","33\n34\n(90)\n35\nAREA\nSYMBOL\n2\n36\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n37\n5\n10\n15\n20\n25\n30\nTEMPERATURE (°C)\nFigure 27. The average T-S relations for the nine subregions defined\nin Figure 26.\n-68-","1°c of temperature, therefore a linear interpolation is\nused to compute the salinity at the desired temperature.\nTemperature and salinity values at the model depths\nare computed from the resulting vertical profiles by using\na spline interpolation routine (NCAR, 1971) . A horizontal\ninterpolation scheme given by Haltiner (1971) is used\nto obtain temperature and salinity values on the 1/2°\nsquare grid required by the numerical model. The\nclimatological data are then subjectively edited and\nobviously bad points are replaced by the average of the\nsurrounding data. Finally, before input to the model,\nthe data are averaged by taking a weighted average at each\ngrid point with the surrounding four points.\n5) Climatological Dynamic Height Data\nThe annual, semi-annual, and monthly temperature and\nsalinity data available at the NODC standard depths, and\non a 1° square grid are used to compute dynamic heights.\nThe same horizontal interpolation scheme discussed above\n(Haltiner, 1971) is used to obtain dynamic height values\non a 1/2° square grid. These data then are used to compute\ngeostrophic velocities and to produce dynamic height maps\nrelative to various levels. The geostrophic velocities\nare computed at each interior grid point using a centered\ndifference analogue. At the boundaries, velocities are\ncomputed using a forward or backward interpolation analogue.\nThe dynamic height fields are also subjectively edited\nto remove bad data points. Some extrapolation is per-\n-69-","formed in the Yucatan Straits and Straits of Florida to\nincrease the spatial coverage. The extrapolation is\nperformed by subjectively filling in missing data points\nwith dynamic height values that are consistent with up-\nstream and/or downstream data.\n6) Synoptic Cruise Data\nData from four synoptic cruises are prepared for\ninput to the numerical and geostrophic models. The\nstation data from synoptic cruises normally do not occur\nat the model grid points; therefore, it is necessary to\ninterpolate the observed data to the required positions.\nAnother technique described by Haltiner (1971) has been\nadapted to accomplish this task. If an observed point is\nlocated within one grid interval of a model point, the\nobserved value is multiplied by a weighting function\nwhich is proportional to the distance from the point to\nthe grid point. The weighted observation values are stored\nat the appropriate grid points; and after the entire field\nhas been scanned, weighted averages are taken at the grid\npoints. The result of the averaging is the accepted value\nof the scalar property at the grid point. It should be\nemphasized that the influence of any observed point is\nonly propagated one grid interval.\nThree of the four synoptic cruises did not provide\nspatial coverage of the entire Gulf of Mexico. Therefore,\nthose grid points without observed values were filled with\ndata taken from the appropriate monthly distributions.\n-70-","The combined 1° square temperature and salinity distri-\nbutions at the model levels are subjectively edited to\nremove obviously bad points. The data are then interpolated\nonto a 1/2 o square grid, using the method of Haltiner, (1971);\nsubjectively edited again i smoothed ; and finally input\nto the primitive equation model.\nThe dynamic height data from the synoptic cruises\nare interpolated onto a 1/2° square grid using the above\ntechnique. However, these data are not smoothed. Geo-\nstrophic velocities are computed from the data using the\nsame techniques as applied to the climatological dynamic\nheight data.\nFinally, when available, sea surface current vectors\ncomputed from surface drifter data are decomposed into\ncomponent speeds. These scalar speeds are then interpolated\nto a 1/2° square grid by the Haltiner (1971) approach.\n-71-","V. GULF OF MEXICO CIRCULATION\nThe results of the geostrophic and primitive equation\nexperiments are presented in the form of a set of horizontal\ncharts and vertical sections. To repeat a previous caution,\nthe assumptions used in the formulation of both models must\nbe considered when interpreting these results. In particular,\nboth models have limited ability to simulate realistically\nthe circulation on the continental shelf. Therefore, the\nexistence of a shelf feature must be suspect unless additional\ncorroborating data exist.\nThe ability of either technique to reproduce the deep\nbasin circulation is limited more by the quantity and quality\nof the data than by the assumptions used in formulating the\nmodels. Therefore, in regions where data are sparse, such\nas in the western Gulf, circulation features may be arti-\nfacts of the limited data distribution rather than real.\nOne measure of the validity of the model results is a month-\nto-month persistence in the circulation features.\nThe geostrophic and primitive equation simulations\nof the large-scale (order of 100 km and greater) circula-\ntion features appear qualitatively similar. That is, the\nmonth-to-month variability of the intensity, position, etc.\nof the major current regimes of the Gulf exhibit similar\nproperties in the solutions of both models. The quanti-\ntative aspects of the circulation (i.e. current directions\nand speeds at a particular point) simulated by either model\n-72-","can not be evaluated without further analysis.\nTherefore, the description of the Gulf circulation will\nfocus on the results of the primitive equation model. The\nassumptions used in the development of this model are less\nrestrictive than those of the geostrophic model. For\ninstance, the numerical model simulates absolute velocities\nrather than relative velocities, the numerical model does\nnot use extrapolation techniques when large depth changes\noccur as does the geostrophic model, and the numerical\nmodel includes some effects of friction on the continental\nshelf.\nThe horizontal spatial resolution of the numerical\nmodel is 1/2°. . Seven layers, with varying thicknesses, are\nmodelled in the vertical. The mid-points of each level are\ntaken as the model depths; 35.0 m, 145.5 m, 369.5 m, 768.0 m\n1369.5 m, 2145.5 m, and 3035.0 m. The coefficients of\nfriction, are specified as; lateral coefficient of friction,\n7 2\n2\n4x10 cm /sec; vertical coefficient of friction, 1 cm /sec;\nand bottom coefficient of friction (applied only where the\nshallowest layer exists), 7x10- 8 sec-1.\nThe total transport through the Yucatan Straits for the\ntime increment modelled is obtained from Figure 25. The\ncondition that the flow does not change direction at the\nopen boundaries is applied. The wind stress distributions\nused to specify the surface boundary conditions are given in\nFigures 18 to 23. Finally, a steady-state solution is attained\n-73-","in a particular experiment when the time rate of change of\nthe total energy is less than a prescribed constant.\nGeostrophic velocities are computed relative to the\n1000 db and 250 db pressure surfaces. Below 1000 db, the\nobserved speeds are small (Nowlin, 1972), and few data have\nbeen collected. Geostrophic currents can be computed on\nportions of the continental shelf if the reference level is\n250 db.\nThe annual circulation patterns simulated by both\nmodels are presented first to establish the framework for\nthe following discussions. An experiment in which the form\nof the average annual temperature and salinity profiles is\nchanged is described next. Finally, the results of the\nbi-annual, monthly, and synoptic circulation studies are\nreviewed.\n1) Annual Circulation\nSurface velocities and total volume transport stream\nfunctions determined by the primitive equation model for\nthe annual increment are given in Figure 28. The circula-\ntion patterns computed for the 145.5 m, 369.5 m, 768.0 m,\nand 1369.5 m levels are similar to the surface patterns,\nexcept that the velocities are lower at each subsequent\nlevel. The flow in the bottom two layers, centered at\n2145.5 m and 3035.0 m, are much weaker, and it is difficult\nto discern consistent circulation patterns. The results\nof the bi-annual, monthly and synoptic experiments exhibit\nsimilar velocity profiles. Therefore, the circulation fields\n-74-","8\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\n10\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n10\nV\n26\n26\n0\n20\n0\n30\n22\n22\n<0\n0\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\nUpper panel. The steady state surface velocity vectors computed\nFigure 28.\nby the primitive equation model for the annual increment. Arrows\nwith lighter shafts indicate speeds of less than 5 cm/sec.\nLower panel. Streamfunctions of total volume transport for the\nannual increment. Contour interval is 57106 3/sec.\n-75-","for all levels except the surface are given in Appendix I.\nGeostrophic current distributions computed relative\nto 250 db and 1000 db are given for the annual increment\nin Figure 29. The dynamic height maps from which these\ncurrents are computed and the distribution of data points\nare given in Appendix II. Vertical sections of geostrophic\nvelocity computed relative to the 1000 db surface were\nconstructed. These sections indicate that the majority\nof the geostrophic flow is above 700 m, with the speeds\nnormally decreasing monotonically with depth. Therefore,\nonly four representative sections for each geostrophic\ncomputation are given in Appendix II.\nThe circulation will be described in terms of the six\nlarge-scale gyres which are evident in Figures 28 and 29.\nThe abbreviations to be used for each gyre are given on\nFigure 28. The anticyclonic (clockwise circulation)\nLoop Current, (LC in following discussions) is the largest\nand most intense circulation feature in the Gulf of Mexico.\nThe West Central Gulf of Mexico Gyre (WCG), an anti-\ncyclonic feature, is centered at approximately 23.59 ON and\n95. 5 W. A cyclonic gyre (counterclockwise circulation) in\nthe Bay of Campeche (BCG) , 20.5°N, and 950W, is a feature\nof the annual circulation. To the north of the WCG, a cyclonic\ncurrent pattern is found along the Texas-Louisiana Shelf,\nheretofore referred to as the Texas-Louisiana Gyre (TLG).\n-76-","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\n20.5\nANNUAL\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n66.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.5\nANNUAL\n20.5\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n18.5\nFigure 29.\nUpper panel. Geostrophic surface velocity vectors computed relative\nto the 250 did cressure surface for the annual increment. Lower\npanel. Geostrophic surface velocity vectors computed relative to the\n1000 db pressure surface for the annual increment. Arrows with\nlighter shafts indicate vectors determined from extrapolated data.\n-77-","This elongated and narrow feature has a wave-like southern\nboundary and extends from the Mississippi Delta to the\nTexas Shelf.\nThe De Soto Canyon Gyre (DCG) is centered at 28.5 O and\n87°W, approximately at the head of the De Soto Canyon (Figures\n28- and 29). Finally, the west Florida Shelf Gyre (WFSG) is a weak\ncyclonic current feature centered at 27.50N, and 85.5 W.\nFive of the six gyres have been identified previously\nFor instance, Leipper (1970) discussed the LC; Nowlin (1972),\nthe WCG and BCG; Gaul (1967 ), the DCG; and Ichiye, Kuo,\nand Carnes (1973), the WFSG. The TLG has been observed in\nthe form of an intermittent westerly current flowing along\nthe Texas continental shelf (Nowlin, 1972) .\n2) Varying Input Data\nMean annual temperature and salinity profiles averaged\nby 1° square were computed by NODC. Dynamic height topo-\ngraphies and geostrophic velocity maps were computed from\nthese data. These maps are compared to charts prepared\nusing the T-S mating technique described earlier. The\ncomparison is made to evaluate qualitatively the reliability\nof the data obtained from the mating scheme.\nFigure 30 presents geostrophic velocities computed\nrelative to 1000 db from the 1° square temperature, and salinity\ndata. The large scale circulation features discussed\npreviously in relation to Figure 29 are found in Figure\n30, with only minor differences in the velocity distributions.\n--78-","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\n20.5\nANNUAL\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n18.5\nFigure 30. Geostrophic surface velocity vectors computed relative to\nthe 1000 db pressure surface for annual increment dynamic\nheight data. The latter determined from 10 square\naverage temperature and salinity profiles.\n-79-","3) Bi-annual circulation\nThe 1° square temperature data are averaged over two\nfive-month periods; the resulting temperature distributions\nare presented as the average summer (May to September)\nand winter (November to March) conditions. These average\ntemperature profiles are mated to salinity values by the\nmethod described previously.\nThe surface circulation and volume transport distri-\nbutions determined from the primitive equation model for\nthe summer and winter seasons are given in Figures 31 and\n32. Summer and winter geostrophic velocities computed\nrelative to the 250 db and 1000 db surfaces are given in\nFigures 33 and 34.\nThe summer Loop Current is found farther to the north\nand west than the winter Loop Current in all data presenta-\ntions (Figures 31 to 34). The apex of the Loop is at\n26.5°N in the summer, and 25.0°N in the winter. The western\nlimb of the Loop extends to 88.50W in the summer, and to\n87°W in the winter.\nA portion of the Yucatan Current separates from the\nmain stream to flow along the Campeche Bank in both seasons\n(Figures 31 and 32) . However, the volume transport is not\ngreat because of the shallow depths found on the shelf.\nThe current maps for the lower levels, Appendix I, show\nno consistent flow to the west along the continental slope\nof the Campeche Bank.\n-80-","92\n86\n9\nou\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n30\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n10\n26\n26\n0\n20\n20\n10\n10\n30\nD\n22\n22\n<0\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28 except for the summer season.\nFigure 31.\n-81-","8L\n{ 6\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n3\n30\n30\n<0\n26\n26\n10\n0\n20\n10\n30\nD\n22\n22\n<0\n0\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28 except for the winter season.\nFigure 32.\n-82-","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n8..5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.\n20.5\nSUMMER\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n62.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.5\n20.5\nSUMPER\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\nFigure 33.\nSame as Figure 29 except for the summer season.\n-83-","80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.\nWINTER\n20.5\n250.0 H LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\n82.5\n00.5\n84.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\nWINTER\n20.5\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\nSame as Figure 29 except for the winter season.\nFigure 34.\n-84.","The center of the WCG is located farther to the north-\nwest in the summer than in the winter (Figures 31 to 34).\nThe velocities of the northern limb of the gyre appear\nhigher in the winter, but the total volume transport of the\neddy is the same in both cases.\nThe CBG is evident in both volume transport stream-\nfunction maps (Figures 31 and 32) and is discernable at\n20.5° N and 96.5° W in the surface velocity maps for the\nwinter (Figure 32). .\nThe TLG extends east to the northeastern Gulf in the\nwinter (Figure 32) , but only to the Mississippi Delta in\nthe summer (Figure 31) . The northern limb of this gyre\nis more intense in the summer, and the southern limb in the\nwinter.\nThe DCG and WFSG appear on the surface velocity maps\nbut not on the transport streamfunction maps (Figures 31\nand 32) . Both gyres appear more developed in the summer-\ntime with higher velocities around the DCG (Figure 33).\n4) Monthly Circulation\nThe monthly surface circulation and total volume\ntransport streamfunction maps produced by the primitive\nequation model are given in Figures 35 to 46. The monthly\ngeostrophic surface velocities compare favorably to the\nsurface current vectors simulated by the numerical model.\nTherefore, only the January, April, July, and October geo-\nstrophic velocities computed relative to the 250 db and\n-85-","J\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n80\n86\n18\n92\n80\n98\n8u\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n<0\n0\n26\n26\n10\n0\n20\nD\n10\n22\n22\n-10\n0\nP\n18\n80\n86\n18\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of January.\nFigure 35.\n-86-","81\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n26\n26\n10\n0\n20\n10\n30\nD\n22\n22\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n38\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of February.\nFigure 36.\n-87-","92\n86\n98\n30\n30\n26\n20\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n92\n38\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n<0\n26\n26\n10\n20\n30\n30\n22\n22\n0\n<<0\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of March.\ncure 37.\n- -88-","00\n86\n92\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n02\n00\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n10\n0\n26\n26\n20\n<0\n0\n20\n30\n22\n22\n0\n<0\n18\n8018\n18\n86\n92\nE8\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of April.\nFigure 38.\n-89","86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n92\n86\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n10\n26\n26\n0\n20\n20\n30\n10\n22\n22\n0\n<0\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of May.\nFigure 39.\n-90","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n10\n26\n26\n20\n0\nA\n20\n10\n10\n30\n22\n22\n0\n<0\n18\n80\n18\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of June.\nFigure 40.\n-91-","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n8:0\n30\n30\n<0\n<0\n10\n0\n26\n26\n0\n20\n10\n10\n20\n22\n0\n22\n<0\n18\n98\n18\n92\n86\n80\nFigure 41.\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of July.\n-92-","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n10\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n<0\n<0\n0\n26\n26\n0\n10\nis\n10\n20\nD\n22\n22\n<0\n0\nn\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of August.\nFigure 42.\n-93-","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n{\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n0\n<0\n<0\n10\n26\n26\n20\n0\n20\n22\n22\n0\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of September.\nFigure 43.\n-94","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n0\n<0\n26\n0\n26\n10\n<0\n20\ncan\n30\nV\n22\n22\n<0\n0\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nFigure 44.\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of October.\n-95 -","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30.\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n<0\n26\n26\n10\n0\n20\n10\n22\n22\n0\n-10\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nFigure 45.\nSame as Figure 28, except for the month of November.\n- -96-","80\n92\n86\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\ni 40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n92\n98\n86\n80\n92\n98\n30\n30\n-10\n26\n26\n10\n0\n20\n10\n30\n22\n22\n0\n18\n12\n80\n86\n92\n93\nFigure 46. Same as Figure 28, except for the month of December.\n-97-","1000 db pressure surfaces are given in this section (Figures\n47 to 50) . The complete set of geostrophic maps and related\ndata is presented in Appendix II.\nThe Loop Current penetrates farther north and west\ninto the Gulf from January to July. (Figures 35 to 40).\nIn August, the surface manifestation of the Loop axis\nrecedes dramatically to the south (Figure 42) . However,\nin September the Loop appears to reform in the north, and\nfrom October to December the Loop recedes to the south\n(Figures 43 to 46). The apex of the Loop is farthest to the\nsouth in December.\nIn the spring and summer months, April to July, the\nYucatan Current appears to split at 24°N and 86°W, with one\nlimb transporting water to the east, and the other to the\nnorth. The results of both models exhibit this bifurcation\n(Figures 38 to 41, and 48 and 49) The interpretation of\nthis feature, assuming the models simulate correctly the\ncirculation fields associated with the input data, raises\nthe fundamental question of what the monthly maps represent.\nFor instance, do Figures 38 to 41 indicate that during\nthe majority of the April to July cruises a split in the\nYucatan Current was observed? Or does the Yucatan Current\nhave two modes, one in which the flow is predominantly to\nthe north and another in which the flow is to the east?\nSimilarly, do the July to September Loop Currents repre-\nsent a rapid recession and then intrusion of the monthly\nmean Loop, or is the variability of the Loop Current's\nposition in August responsible for the observed circula-\ntion?\n-99-","60.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n90.5\n88.5\n92.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n29.5\n26.5\n24\n22.5\nJANUARY\n20.5\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n.\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.\n5\nJANUARY\n20.5\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\nSame as Figure 29, except for the month of January.\nFigure 47.\n-99-","80.5\n82.5\n86.5\n84.5\n90.5\n88.5\n92.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\nAPRIL\n20.5\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n90.5\n38.5\n86.5\n94.5\n92.5\n96.5\n30.5\n23.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.5\nAPRIL\n20.5\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n10\n18.5\nSame as Figure 29, except for the month of April\nFigure 48.\n-100-","86.5\n84.5\n82.\nBD.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.\nJULY\n20.5\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.1\n96.\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\nJULY\n20.5\n1000.0 in LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n18.5\nSame as Figure 29, except for the month of July.\nFigure 49.\n-101-","86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n28.5\n5\n22.\nOCTOBER\n20.5\n250.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n-\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.9\nOCTOBER\n20.5\n1000.0 M LEVEL\n10 CM/S\n18.5\nFigure 50. Same as Figure 29, except for the month of October.\n-102-","A measure of the variability of the flow during the\nmonthly increments is required to address these questions.\nThe problem of the variability of the flow has not been\nconsidered in a quantitative study, but some qualitative\nstatements can be made about the variability of the Loop\nCurrent during the monthly increments.\nThe variability of the current regimes in other\nportions of the Gulf within each month can not be dis-\ncussed at this time because of the lack of appropriate\ndata.\nFigure 51, taken from SUSIO (1975) gives 150 m\nisopleths of the 20°C surface obtained from both bi-monthly\nclimatological topographies, and topographies observed\nduring synoptic cruises. Again, the 150 m isopleth is\nconsidered an indicator of the current core (SUSIO, 1975). .\nThe data represented on Figure 51 are only a portion of\nthe information used in obtaining the monthly temperature\nprofiles, used as input to the primitive equation and\ngeostrophic models.\nThe few January to April isopleths presented in Figure\n51 suggest little variability in the position of the Loop\nCurrent core. Therefore, the January to April Loop Current\npatterns simulated by both models (Figures 35 to 38) should\nrepresent the mean conditions during these months.\n-103-","30'\n29\"\n28\"\n27°\n26\"\n25\n24°\n23\"\n22\"\n21\n321\n31\"\n30\"\n27\n26\"\n23\"\n22\"\n32°\n29\n26\"\n25\n24\n2r\n31\"\nen\n80\n80\nas\n150 m isopleths of the 20°C surface observed during the month/year indicated taken from SUSIO\n81\nA1\n81\"\n41\"\n(1975). The XBT-MBT climatological curves are obtained from bi-monthly averages of 10 square\n82'\n82\"\n62'\nA2\nD\n83\n83\"\n83\n831\n11/62\nNOVEMBER-DECEMBER\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\nXBT-MBT CLIMATOLOGICAL CURVE\n84*\n84*\n84'\n841\nMAY JUNE\n85'\n85\nXBT-MPT CLIMATOLOGICA\n85\n85\n86*\n86\"\n86\"\nR6'\nCURVE\n11/61\n87\n87\n87*\n87\"\n88\"\n88*\n86\"\nNA\n89\n89\n69*\n89'\n1\n90'\n90°\n90'\nno\n25\n31\n30\n28'\n29\n27\n26\n24\n23\n22\n21\n26\n27\n32\n31\n30\n29\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n21\n3c\n23\"\n22\"\n30\n29°\n27\n30\"\n29\"\n28\"\n26\n25'\n24*\n21\"\n28\"\n27\"\n26\n25\"\n24\"\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\n32\"\n32'\n31\"\n31\"\n80\n80'\n80\n80\nis\n81\n61\nB1*\n81\n82*\n82'\n6.\"\n82\"\n.\nD\nD\n65\n83\n83\n63\n10/5\nSEPTEMBER-OCTOBER\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\nLEVEL 20° AT 150m\n84*\n84'\nP4*\n84'\nMARCH-APRIL\n85'\n85'\n85\n65\nXBT-MBT CLIMATOLOGICAL\nXBT-MBT LMATOLOGICAL\n861\n86'\n86'\n86'\nCURVE\n9/65\n10/79\nCURVE\n9/65\n87*\n87*\n87*\n87'\n88\"\n88\"\n88\"\n88\"\ntemperature profiles (SUSIO, 1975).\n69\"\n83\n83\"\n89\"\n901\n30'\n90\n90\n23\n22\n21\n30\n30\n28\n26\n25\n24\n29\n28'\n32\n31\n26\n25\n21\n27\n24\n23\n22\n32\n31\n29\n27\n23\"\n22\"\n27°\n26\"\n25\"\n24\"\n21°\n30\"\n29\"\n28\"\n32\"\n31\"\n80\n32\"\n30\n29\"\n28\"\n27\"\n26\"\n25\"\n24*\n23\"\n22\"\n21\"\n31\"\n80°\n80'\n80\n81*\net\n81'\n81\"\n82\"\nB\n82\"\n82\"\n62'\nLIMATOLOGICAL\nXST.MST\nSUAVE\nD\n83\"\n83\"\n83'\n83\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150 m\nXST-MBT\nLEVEL 20°C AT 150m\nJANUARY FEBRUARY\nGUAVE\n84*\nASE\n84\"\nJULY-AUGUST\n84\"\n84\"\n85\n85\n85\n85\nThe\n8/68\n861\n86*\n86'\n86'\n67*\n87*\n87\nFigure 51.\n87*\n86\n88\n88\"\n88'\ns\n89'\n89\n89'\n89\n90'\n90\n90\n21\n90'\n23\n22\n30\n29'\n28'\n27\n26\n25\n24\n31\n32\n21\n26\n25\n24\n23\n22\n32\n31\n30\n29\n28\n27","The core of the Loop Current migrates considerably from\nMay to July. However, there do appear to be two distinct\nmodes for the position of the main current. When the Loop\nis well developed, the Yucatan Current procedes north into\nthe Gulf (e.g.,6/66, 5/70,8/71). When an eddy has detached,\nthe Yucatan Current has a shorter pathlength in the Gulf\n(e. g. 6/52, 6/67, 8/68, 7/73) ,\nThe disappearance of a well developed Loop during\nAugust is a function of the large variability in the posi-\ntion of the Current's core during this month. Figure 52\ngives the 20°C topography observed during four separate\nAugust cruises. Averaging of such variable data tends to\nsmooth the intense gradients found during any one cruise.\nFinally, the September to December isopleths show a\nreduction in the variability of the core of the Loop Current\nfrom that observed during the summer. However, the vari-\nability is still greater than that indicated by the January\nto April data.\nThe monthly circulation pictures do not show any\ndeep currents branching off from the Yucatan Current and\nflowing west along the Campeche Bank (Appendix I ) .\nThe\nonly transfer of water from the Yucatan Straits during\nall months (Figures 35 to 46) occurs along the northern\nboundary of the Yucatan Peninsula. The shallow depths, of\nCampeche Bank preclude the possibility of large transports\nof water occuring (Figures 35 to 46).\n-105-","9C°\n89\n88'\n87°\n86\"\n85\n84\"\n83\nB2\"\n61\"\n80\n90\n89\n88\n87\"\n86\"\n95\n84\"\n83\"\n82*\n81\"\n80°\n32\n32\n32\n32\"\nLEVEL 20°C\nLEVEL 20° C\n4-22 AUGUST 1967\n1-18 AUGUST 1966\n31\n31\"\n31\n31\"\nE\n30\n30\n30\n30\"\n29\n29°\n29\n29\"\n100\n28\n28\"\n25\n28\"\n150\n200\n27\"\n27\n27\nso\n27\"\n26\n26\n26\"\n26\"\nJose\na\n25\n25\n25\n25\n4\nso\n-\n100\n8\n150\n24\n24\"\n24\n24\"\n200\n250\n23\n23\n23\"\n23\n22\n22\"\n22\n22\nD\nD\n217\n21\n21\n21°\n90*\n89\n88\n87\"\n86'\n85*\n84\"\n83\"\n82\"\n81°\n80\n90'\n89\"\n88\n87\"\n86*\n85\"\n84\"\n83\"\n82\"\n81\"\n80\n90\n89\n88*\n87\n86'\n85\n84\"\n83\"\n82\n81\n80\n90\n99\n32'\nes\n87\n86*\n65*\n84\"\n83\"\n82°\n81\"\n80°\n32\"\n32\n32'\nLEVEL 20°C\n20° C TOPOGRAPHY\n1 AUGUST - 2 SEPTEMBER 1971\n31\n17 AUG-15 SEPT 1968\n31°\n31\n31\"\n30\n30\n30\n30\"\n29\n29\"\n29\"\n29\"\n50\n50\n28'\n28\"\n26\"\n28\"\n50\n8\n27\n27\"\n27\n27\"\n200\n250.\n26\n26\"\n26\n26\n50\n₫\n25\n25'\n25\n25\"\n50\n100\n75\n241\n24\n24\"\n100\n24\"\nthe\n150\nto\n-200\n23\"\n23\"\n23\n23\n22\n22\n22\n22\"\nD\nD\n21\n21°\n2:\n21°\n90'\n89\n88'\n87\"\n86\"\n85\n84*\n83\"\n82*\n81\"\n80\n90\n89'\n83'\n87'\n86'\n85*\n84\"\n83\"\n82\"\n81\"\n80\nThe 200C surface observed during four August cruises.\nFigure 52.\n-106-\n-","A deep westerly flow centered between 22.50 N and\n23.5 N is observed in all months, from the Campeche Bank\nto the east coast of Mexico. At the Mexican coast, the\nflow splits into two limbs, one flowing south and the\nother north.\nThe south-flowing current becomes the western side\nof the BCG. This gyre is most evident in the fall and\nwinter months. The most intense southerly flow occurs\nalong its western edge from September to February. The\ncommon boundary it shares with the WCG, a westerly current\ncentered at approximately 23 N, also exhibits large velo-\ncities during this period.\nThe anticyclonic WCG is located to the north of the\nBCG. The currents of the former gyre are strongest in\nDecember (Figure 46), with a secondary maximum in the\nintensity of this gyre occuring in June-July (Figures\n40 and 41) . The seasonality of the WCG simulated by the\ntwo models is consistent with the seasonality predicted\nby Sturges and Blaha (1976) Their hypothesis was based\non the wind stress field over the western Gulf, which has a\nmaximum current inducing distribution in December and a\nsecondary one in July. The center of the gyre migrates\ntowards the Mexican coast from February to June; and away,\nfrom July to January. Thus, the western arm of the gyre\nwith its northerly currents is widest in December-January\n-107-","The northern limb of the WCC is continuous from the\ncoast of Mexico to the western limb of the Loop Current\nonly during the summer. The transport of west Gulf waters\nto the eastern Gulf occurs along 24.5°N during the months\nJune through September (Figures 40 to 43). At other times\nof the year the majority of the WCG water recirculates in\nthis gyre, with return southerly flow observed between\n93° OW and 90°W.\nA concise distinction between the northern limb of\nthe WCG, and the southern limb of the TLG is difficult to\nmake without further data. For instance during the winter\nmonths, November through February, the two limbs appear to\ncoincide (Figures 35,36,45, and 46) but in the summer\nmonths, July and August, they appear as two distinct\nflows (Figures 41 and 42).\nThe northern limb of the TLG is a westerly current\nwhich is observed in all months on the Texas Shelf at\n28°N (Figures 35 to 46). The feature is evident in the\no\nresults of the geostrophic model only in the summer, Figure\n49, and Appendix II. When the current is intense, February\nto April (Figures 36 to 38) and August to November\n(Figures 42 to 45) , a continuous westerly flow can be\ntraced from 86°W to 96°W. When the current is weak the\nwesterly flow occurs only from the Mississippi Delta to\n96°W.\n-108-","The anticyclonic DCG centered at 28.5 O N and 87.5 o W,\nis most evident in the results of the primitive equation\nmodel during the months September to November (Figures 43\nto 45) It appears in the results of the geostrophic model\nin October also at 28.5 N and 87.5°W (Figure 50).\n.\no\nThe WFSG begins to form in July at 27.5 N and 85. 5 W\n-\n(Figure 41). . The cyclonic gyre begins to intensify and\nexpand to the south over the west Florida Shelf from\nAugust through October (Figures 42 to 44) . The gyre\nweakens and decreases in areal extent through the spring\nand summer months.\nCorroborating evidence for some of the model features\nobserved on the MAFLA Shelf is found in the analysis\nof drift bottle data. Tolbert and Salsman (1964) released\ntwo drift bottles each day at 30°N and 85 54 I W\nfrom September 1960 to October 1961. Drennan (1963)\nreleased some 32,000 drift bottles off the Mississippi\nDelta from September 1960 through October 1962. Finally,\nGaul (1964,1965,1966) launched drift bottles during 1963\nto 1965 along the MAFLA shelf.\nThese data have been reanalyzed and the results are\npresented in Figures 53 to 57. The contours represent\nthe percentage of returns from the areas indicated. For\ninstance, a dashed 50% contour line indicates that for\nthose stations within this contour 50% of those bottles\nreturned (not deployed) were found on the MAFLA Shelf.\n-109-","JANUARY - FEBRUARY\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n50%\n29°\n85°\n87°\n86°\n88°\n89°\nMARCH-APRIL\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n29°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\nFigure 53. January - February and March - April drift bottle\nrelease stations. The contours represent the ratio\nof bottle returns to the total returred (expressed\nas\na\nArrows pointed to the north indicate\nMAFLA shelf; to the southeast, the east coast of\nFlorida; and to the southwest, the coasts of Mexico\nand Texas.\n-110-","MAY\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n29°\n86°\n85°\n88°\n87°\n89°\nJUNE\nPERCENT RETURNED\n31°\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n0\n29°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\n85°\nSame as Figure 53, except for May and June.\nFigure 54.\n-111-","JULY\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n29°\n85°\n86°\n87°\n88°\n89°\nAUGUST\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n75%\n30°\n50%\n50%\n29°\n85°\n87°\n86°\n89°\n88°\nFigure 55. Same as Figure 53, except. for July\n-112-","SEPTEMBER\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n29°\n85°\n87°\n86°\n88°\n89°\nOCTOBER\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA CCAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n75%\n50%\n30°\n29°\n85°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n86°\nFigure 56. Same as Figure 53, except for September and\nOctober.\n-113-\n-","NOVEMBER\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n50%\n30°\n50%\n29°\n85°\n86°\n87°\n88°\n89°\nDECEMBER\nPERCENT RETURNED\nEAST COAST OF FLORIDA\n31°\nMAFLA COAST\nTEXAS COAST\nDRIFT BOTTLES RELEASED\n30°\n29°\n85°\n86°\n87°\n88°\n89°.\nFigure 57. Same as Figure 53, except for November and December.\n-114-\n-","Bottle trajectories can not be determined from these\ndata, but the returns are consistent with the results of\nthe numerical model. For instance. returns from the\nTexas-Mexican coastlines are greatest during the months\nJuly to November (Figures 55 to 57). As discussed, a\nstrong continuous westerly flow exists along 28°N, from\n86°W to 96°W, from August to November (Figures 42 to\n45). This current could be the mechanism for transporting\nbottles from the MAFLA shelf to the Texas-Mexico coastline.\nIt should be noted that a hurricane passed over the area\nin September 1961. Chew, Drennan, and Demoran (1962)\nreported that passage times for the bottles to reach the\nTexas-Mexico coast were considerably reduced after the\npassage of the hurricane.\nThe drift bottle data suggest that from January to\nJune the returns from releases north of approximately\n29°N are primarily along the MAFLA coasts: and from releases\nsouth of 29° N, along the Texas and east Florida coasts\n(Figures 53 and 54). The model results do not indicate\na plausible cause for these results.\n5) Synoptic circulation\nThe data from four synoptic cruises are input to the\nprimitive equation model. The type and/or distribution of\nthe data obtained are different for each cruise. For\ninstance; Nansen bottle data were obtained throughout\nthe Gulf in February - March 1962 only in the eastern\n-115-","Gulf during June - July 1967 and June 1975 and in portions\nof the western and eastern Gulf during August - September\n1971. In addition, XBT data were collected during August-\nSeptember 1971.\nTemperature and salinity values at the model grid-\npoints are obtained through interpolation of the observed\nNansen cast profiles (as described previously). XBT temperature\nprofiles are mated with the appropriate salinity values, and\nthen the resulting data are treated as a Nansen cast to\nobtain the input to the model.\nThe numerical model requires information at each grid-\npoint, therefore it is necessary to specify temperature and\nsalinity values at those grid-points lacking data. These\nvalues are obtained from the appropriate mean monthly data-\nsets (i.e. , the June-July 1967 model fields are filled with\ndata from the climatological June data-set, etc.).\nDynamic height distributions computed relative to 700\ndb from data obtained in the 1962, 1967, and 1975 experi-\nments are presented both to show the distribution of ob- -\nservations, and to illustrate the circulation pattern. The\n700 db surface is chosen as a reference level because the\nspatial coverage available at deeper levels is insufficient\nto define the current field.\nXBT profiles available in the eastern Gulf during\nAugust 1971 are used to supplement the Nansen cast data, as\nmost Nansen casts during this period on file at NODC\n-116-","are on the shelf. Two figures are presented for 1971\nto illustrate the distribution of both the deeper stations\nand XBT's, and the shallower shelf stations.\nSurface drifter data, interpolated to a 1/2° square\ngrid, are presented for the August 1971 and June 1975\nexperiments for comparison with the model results. Geo-\nstrophic surface currents are computed for the June 1967\ndata set, and also used for comparison with the model\nresults. A surface current map is not presented for the\n1962 data. Because of the large spacing between stations\nthe interpolation routine when applied to the dynamic\nheight field results in unrealistic current fields. The\nsmoothing of the interpolated temperature and salinity\nfields reduces this problem for the data input to the model.\ni) February - March 1962\nNowlin and McLellan (1967) and Nowlin (1972) have\nanalyzed the 1962 data (Figure 58) and described the\ncirculation. Their results suggest the currents observed\nin 1962 are typical of winter conditions in the Gulf.\nThe primitive equation model is able to simulate\nthe major circulation features observed during this period.\nThe model streamfunctions (Figure 59) , and the observed\ngeostrophic transport (Figure 1-35, Nowlin, 1972) are very\nsimilar. Both show a Loop penetrating to 26°N, a detached\neddy at approximately 25°N and 90°W and an intense WCG.\nThe magnitude of the velocities simulated by the primi-\ntive equation model are considerably less than those directly\n-117-","Figure 58. The positions of Nansen stations occupied during February, March 1962. The dynamic\n80.5\nheight distribution computed relative to 700 db is also shown. The contour\n82:5\n84.5\n0.9\n1.4\n86.5\n1.0\n1.3\n1.2\n1.1\n+\n1.0\n88.5\n+\n1.1\n90.5\ninterval is 0.1 dynamic meters.\n+\n92.5\n0,8\n0.9\n1.05\n0.95\n0.9\n94.5\n1.0\n96.5\n1.0\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\n20.5\n18.5","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n0\n26\n26\n10\n10\n20\n30\n10\n22\n22\n0\n<0\nP\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n00\nFigure 59. Same as Figure 28 except for February - March 1962.\n- 119","observed (Nowlin, 1972). The observations are made at\ndiscrete points. However, in the numerical model only the\naverage velocity in the interval between grid points can be\ndetermined. Since the high velocities normally occur in\nbands less than 1/2 wide, the model computation of speeds\ntends to smooth extrema in these fields. The geostrophic\nmodel with large station spacing experiences the same\ndifficulty.\nii) June - July 1967\nThe positions of the Nansen stations occupied during\nthe June - July 1967 experiment are given in Figure 60. The\ncontoured dynamic height distribution relative to 700 db is\nalso shown on this figure. In addition, geostrophic surface\nspeeds have been computed on a 1/2° square grid, after\ninterpolation of the station data to those points (Figure\n60) .\nNowlin and Hubertz (1972) have described the charact-\neristics of the detached eddy and main flow. The primitive\nequation model is able to resolve the eddy as a feature\nseparate from the main flow (Figure 61) Again the surface\nspeeds of the simulations (geostrophic and primitive equa-\ntion) are less than those observed (Nowlin and Hubertz,\n1972) .\niii. August - September 1971\nThe positions of the shallow Nansen stations and XBT's\noccupied during 1971 is given on Figure 62, and of the deep\nstations and XBT's on Figure 63. During August - September\n-120-","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n1\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n<0\n0\n26\n26\n<0\n10\n0\n10\n20\n30\n10\n10\n22\n22\n<0\n0\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nFigure 61.\nSame as Figure 28, except for June 1967.\n-121-","to\n96.5\n84.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n1.0\n0.9\n22.5\n1013\n12\n20.5\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.5\n22.5\nJUNE 1967\n20.5\n20 CM/S\n18.5\nUpper panel. Same as Figure 58, except for June 1967. Lower\nFigure 60.\npanel. Geostrophic surface vectors computed from these dynamic\nheight data after interpolation onto a 1/20 square grid.\n-122-","82°\n81°\n80°\n87°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n83°\n90°\n89°\n88°\n32°\n32°\nLEVEL 20°C\n1 AUGUST - 2 SEPTEMBER 1971\n31°\n31°\n30°\n30\n29°\n29°\n28°\n28°\n27°\n27°\n26°\n26°\n50\n25°\n25°\n24°\n24°\n23°\n23°\n22°\n22°\n21°\n21°\n80°\n83°\n82°\n81°\n86°\n85°\n84°\n89°\n88°\n87°\n90°\nFigure 62. The 200 topography, and the distribution of station positions in\nthe eastern Gulf from an August - September 1971 experiment.\n-123-","80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.3\n22.\n5\nit\n+\n20.5\n+\nAugust 1971\n+\n+\n18.5\n82.5\n60.5\n88.5\n85.5\n84.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.5\nAugust 1971\n20.5\n= 40cm/sec.\n18.5\nFigure 63. Upper panel. Nansen cast positions for those stations occupied in the\nwestern Gulf. Lower panel. Surface current vectors obtained from\ndrogue data which are interpolated onto a 1/20 grid.\n- 124 -","1971, the Loop intruded deep into the Gulf. The 20°c\ntopography (Figure 62) suggests that an eddy separation\nevent has not yet occurred but could be imminent. A large\nmeander is found at 24°N off the west Florida Shelf.\nThe primitive equation model is able to simulate the\nobserved features. The model Loop penetrates to 27°N\n(Figure 64), an eddy is not indicated, and the stream-\nfunction contours show a meander at 24°N extending from\nthe Florida Shelf. In addition, the model results show\nan intense WFSG. Further analysis of the observations is\nrequired to verify this portion of the simulation.\nThe surface speeds measured by the drifters (Figure 63)\nare considerably higher than those predicted by the model.\nThese measurements are made at discrete points; and as\nexplained previously, the model computes average velocities\nfor a 1/2° increment.\niv) June 1975\nThe positions of Nansen cast stations occupied during\nJune 1975 are shown in Figure 65. The contoured dynamic\nheight field and surface drifter trajectories indicate a\nwinter-like penetration of the Loop Current to only 24.5°-25 O N.\nAbove the Loop a large cyclonic gyre is found.\nThe model results closely resemble the observational\nresults (Figure 66) The Loop penetrates to 24.5°-25°N, and a\nlarge but weak cyclonic gyre is located to the north of the Loop.\n-125-","86\n80\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n0\n0\n<0\n<0\n26\n26\n0\n10\n10\n10\n20\n22\n22\n<0\n0\n18\n18\n86\n80\n92\n98\nSame as Figure 28, except for August - September 1971.\nFigure 64.\n- 126","80.\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96,5\n30.5\n+\n1.1\n1.1\n28.5\n+\n+\n26.5\n1.0\n+\n+\n+\n0.9\n+\n+\n1.2\n-1.0\n1.1\n24.\n1.3\n1.4\n+\n+\n1.5\n22.5\nJune 1975\n20.5\n4\n60.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.3\n18.5\n80.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n6.5\n28.5\n25.5\n24.3\n22.15\nJune 1975\n20.5\n4 1\n= 40 cm/sec\n16.5 65. Upper panel. The positions of Nansen stations occupied relative during to June\nFigure\n1275. Also, demonic height distribution comeuted\ndo. Lower panel. Surface current vectors obtained from\ndrogue 700 measurements after interpolation onto a 1/20 square grid.\n-127-","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26\n22\n22\n40 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n<0\n-10\n26\n26\n0\nD\n10\n22\n22\n0\n<0\n18\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\nFigure 66. Same as Figure 28, except for June 1975.\n-128-","6) Summary\nThe results of the primitive equation model are\nconsistent with the findings of previous investigations.\nIn particular, the cycle of the Loop Current intrusion\nsimulated by the model is similar to the cycle presented\nby Leipper (1970) and Whitaker (1971). In addition,\nthe temporal variability of the WCG predicted by the\nmodel agrees with the hypothesis of Sturges and Blaha\n(1976) that the gyre should be most intense in winter and\nsummer.\nAlthough the CBG, DCG, WFSG, and TLG have been\nobserved previously, the model results present the first\ndescription of the temporal variability of these gyres.\nIn addition, the model solutions identify certain\ncurrents which can transport water across the Gulf\nof Mexico. For instance, the northern limb of the TLG\nappears to be continuous from the eastern to the western\nGulf during the fall; while the northern limb of the\nWCG can be tracked across the central Gulf in the\nsummer.\nThe primitive equation model also has demonstrated the\nability to accept data from synoptic cruises, and to\nsimulate realistically the current fields. The model\ncould resolve the detached eddy observed in June 1967\n-129-","even though the grid spacing is 1/2°. In addition, the\nsuccess of the August 1971 simulation verified the\ntechnique of inputting to the model XBT temperature\nprofile data mated with climatological salinity data.\nOnly the large-scale intense current gyres simulated\n-\nby the model have been discussed. The model results in\nregions outside these gyres, where the flows are weaker\nand probably less persistent, must be considered suspect\nuntil additional analysis is performed. In addition, the\nvertical structure of the circulation cannot be verified.\nThe vertical sections of geostrophic velocity presented in\nAppendix I are computed relative to the 1000 db level.\nAlthough these figures suggest that the majority of the\nflow is above 700 db, direct measurements are required\nto substantiate this fact.\nThe model could not reproduce the magnitude of the\nobserved current speeds of the synoptic experiments\nbecause of the 1/2° grid spacing, as discussed. A grid\nwith a smaller grid-point separation is not warranted,\nbecause during most cruises the interpolation of data to\na finer grid would not produce the intense gradients\nobserved (i.e., most station spacing during Gulf cruises\nis between 30 and 60 nautical miles). Furthermore,\n-130-","the NODC data are supplied on a 1° square grid, and an\ninterpolation to less than 1/2° is not justified for\na similar reason.\nFinally, the presentation of mean monthly current\ncharts without an indication of the variability around\nthese means can lead to erroneous conclusions about the\ncirculation. The example pertaining to the August Loop\nCurrent demonstrates this problem. However, the analysis\nto date allows only qualitative statements about the\nyear-to-year Loop Current variability, and no statements\nabout the variability outside the Loop.\n-131-","VI. SECOND YEAR PROGRAM\nThe primary objective of the second year of this\nstudy is to evaluate the ability of the numerical model\n-\nwhen run in the prognostic mode \"to estimate the density\n, using\nand current patterns in the Gulf of Mexico,\nreal-time environmental information\". As a spin-off\nfrom this evaluation, many of the questions remaining\nafter the first year of the study will be addressed.\nThe variability of the currents in the Gulf, the forces\nwhich cause the circulation, and the interactions be-\ntween the major gyres will be considered in the second\nyear as the prognostic model tests are run. The follow-\ning outline is proposed as the framework for performing\nthe evaluation.\n1) Data Preparation\nThe climatological data received from NODC were\nobtained by averaging all the temperature data, at the\ndesired standard depth, and within a particular 1° square\nand month. In regions of little data, such as the western\nGulf, the temperature distributions produced by the simple\naveraging process were very irregular. The irregularities\ntypically were manifested as waves in the contoured dis-\ntributions. The wavelengths of these disturbances are\n-132-","typically two grid-lengths. Such features are primarily\nartifacts of the data distributions. The temperature and\nsalinity fields are averaged temporally and spatially in\norder to remove these features.\nAs discussed, the data input to the model were sub-\njestively edited through a visual edit of the data fields.\nThe resulting fields were then filled and averaged by a\nLaplacian operation, which performs a weighted average\non each point with the surrounding four points.\nThe only step in the data preparation process in which\nthe actual properties of the scalar distributions are con-\nsidered is the subjective analysis performed by visual\ninspection of the fields. For instance, the flow in the\nYucatan Straits is primarily north-south, or in the Straits\nof Florida east-west. These properties of the flow are\nused to eliminate points in the Straits which could introduce\nconsiderable east-west flow in the Yucatan area or north-\nsouth flow in the Florida area. This type of analysis is\nnot possible in areas where the circulation is poorly\ndefined such as in the western Gulf.\nObjective analysis is a statistical approach used\nprimarily in meteorology both to edit data and to inter-\npolate data to regions where little or no data exist. Gandin\n(1963) presents the mathematical development of this analytical\ntool. Recently, oceanographers (Bretherton, Davis, and Fandry,\n-133-","1976) have applied this technique to the problem of analyzing\noceanographic data.\nIt is proposed that an attempt be made to develop\nsuitable objective analysis package for use on the Gulf\na\nof Mexico data-set. In particular, correspondence with\nDI. Warren White at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in-\ndicates that such a package may already exist. White\nfeels their approach is particularly appropriate in regions\nof little data.\nIn addition, the data editing package used at the Fleet\nNumerical Weather Central may be appropriate for adoption in\nthe present study. Haltiner (1971) describes the salient\nproperties of this method. Although it is used primarily\nto edit meteorological data, the generality of the technique\nargues for its applicability to oceanographic data-sets.\nIf the Scripps objective analysis package is evaluated\nas appropriate for use in the Gulf, two approaches are\npossible for the implementation of the method. The package\ncould be used at NODC on their computer, or at AOML after\nreceipt from NODC of the Gulf data-set. Discussions with\nNODC personnel are necessary to determine the most efficient\napproach.\nIf the Scripps approach is not suitable, it is proposed\nthat NODC generate two-week, and 1/2° square average\ntemperature listings. These averages should produce better\n-134- -","temporal and spatial resolution of the data fields in the\neastern Gulf. In addition, the T-S relations should be\nfurther reviewed to ascertain if a different averaging\napproach, i. e. , smaller averaging area and/or longer averaging\ntime-step, for instance, might produce more detailed informa-\ntion for input to the model.\nThese steps are considered essential to produce data-\nsets suitable for use as input to the prognostic model\nruns. The more refined description of the circulation in\nthe Gulf of Mexico which will result from these data analysis\ntechniques is an equally important result. For instance,\nwith objective analysis the important time-scales of\nthe currents are obtained providing information on the\nvariability of the flow.\n2) Prognostic Modelling Tests\nThe prognostic modelling portion of the study will be\nconducted in three stages. In the first stage, the model\nwill be run in a purely predictive mode. That is, only\nthe surface boundary conditions and the total transports\nat the Yucatan Straits and Straits of Florida will be\nspecified. The model will be allowed to predict the interior\ntemperature, salinity and velocity fields.\nAt least two sets of boundary conditions will be used\nin these tests. The climatological annual cycle of both\nthe volume transport through the Straits and the surface\n-135-","wind stress will be input to the model. In addition, the\ndata collected during 1975-1976 will be used to provide\nboundary conditions.\nDuring the second stage, the model fields throughout the\nGulf will be initiated with synoptic data-sets when available,\nor combinations of synoptic and climatological data-sets.\nThe model will then be run in the predictive mode, with the\nboundary conditions to be specified by climatological and/or\nobserved data. The predictive run will continue until a time-step\nat which additional synoptic data exist. A comparison of\nthe model and observed current fields will be made to\nascertain the validity of the prediction. Various historical\nand recent data-sets, with different time increments between\nobservations, will be used in an attempt to determine over\nwhat intervals the circulation is predictable.\nThe final step of the second year's program will be\nan attempt to update the model fields with randomly spaced\ndata-sets, such as is accomplished in meteorological\nforecasts. An objective analysis method which can accurately\nmap the influence of a data point, both in time and space\nis an essential tool needed to insure the success of this\nprocedure.\n3) Data Analysis and Final Cruise\nThe completion of the analyses of data collected in\n1975-1976, and a final cruise is proposed for the second\n-136-","year program. The final cruise was originally planned for\nMay 1976 but it was requested that the cruise be rescheduled\nto the second year of study.\nHowever, as part of another program, a Virginia Key\ncruise to the Gulf did occur in May, funded by AOML. The\nKey retrieved a buoy which had entered the Gulf and had\nlost its drogue unit. The Key occupied two XBT transects\nwhile retrieving the buoy. In addition, the Researcher\nwill occupy two additional XBT transects in late May and\nearly June while enroute to a geological survey off the\nMississippi Delta. This coverage, plus a trajectory\nobtained from a buoy still reporting in the Gulf should\nserve to define the May circulation pattern. Therefore,\nit is proposed that the final BLM Key cruise be conducted\nin August to increase the temporal coverage of the Gulf\ncurrent fields.\n-137-","VII. ACKNONLEDGMENTS\nThe excellent cooperation extended by NODC personnel,\nin particular Mr. Darrell Knoll, is gratefully acknowledged.\nThe digitized bottom topography supplied by Dr. Ya Hsueh of\nFlorida State University and the wind stress data provided\nby Mr. Andrew Bakum of the National Marine Fisheries Service\nresulted in a considerable savings of time and effort.\nPortions of this program were funded by the National\nScience Foundation, International Decade of Ocean Explora-\ntion office, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric\nAdministration.\n- 138 -","References\nBetzer, R. R. , and M. E. Q. Pilson (1971). Particulate\niron and the nepheloid in the western North Atlantic,\nCaribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res., 18,\npp. 753-761.\nBretherton, F. P., R. E. Davis, and C. B. Landry (1976).\nA technique for objective analyses and design of\noceanographic experiments. Submitted to Deep-Sea\nResearch.\nBryan, K. (1969). A numerical method for the study of\nthe circulation of the world ocean. J. Comp. Phys.,\n4, pp. 347-376.\nBrooks, I. H., and P. P. Niiler (1975). The Florida\nCurrent at Key West: Summer 1972. J. Mar. Res.,\n33, pp. 83-92.\nCaruthers, J. W. (1972). Water masses at intermediate\ndepths. In: Contributions on the Physical Oceanography\nof the Gulf of Mexico, Capurro and Reid Editors,\nGulf Publ. Co., Houston, pp. 53-64.\nChew, F. (1974) The turning process in meandering currents:\nA case study. Jour. Phys. Ocn. 4, pp. 21-57.\nChew, F., K. L. Drennan, and W. J. Demoran (1962). Some\nresults of drift bottle studies off the Mississippi\nDelta. Limnology and Oceanography, 1, pp. 252-257.\nCochrane, J. D. (1963). Yucatan Current. In Unpubl.\nRept. of Dept. of Oceanogr. & Meteorol., The A.&M.\nCollege of Texas. Ref. 63-18A: pp. 6-11.\nCochrane, J. D. (1966). The Yucatan Current. In Unpubl.\nRept. of Dept. of Oceanogr., Texas A.&M. University,\nRef. 66-23T: pp. 14-25.\nCochrane, J. D. (1967). Upwelling off northeast Yucatan.\nIn Unpubl. Rept. of Dept. of Oceanogr., Texas A.EM.\nUniversity, Ref. 57-11T: pp. 16-17.\nCochrane, J. D. (1968). The currents and waters of the\neastern Gulf of Mexico and the western Caribbean Sea.\nIn Unpubl. Rept. of Dept. of Oceanogr., Texas A. &M.\nUniversity, Ref. 68-8T: pp. 19-28.\nCochrane, J. D. (1969). The currents and waters of the\neastern Gulf of Mexico and western Caribbean. In\nUnpubl. Rept. of Dept. of Oceanogr., Texas A.&M.\nUniversity, Ref. 69-9-T: pp. 29-31.\n-139-","Cochrane, J. D. (1972). Separation of an anticyclone\nand subsequent developments in the Loop Current\n(1969). In: Contributions on the Physical Ocean-\nography of the Gulf of Mexico, Capurro and Reid\nEditors, Gulf Publ. Co., Houston, pp 91-106.\nDefant, A. (1961) Physical Oceanography, Volume I.\nPergamon Press, Oxford, London, 729 pp.\nDrennan, K. L. (1963). Surface circulation in the north-\neastern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Coast Res. Lab. Ocn.\nSec. Tech. Rept. 1, 110 pp.\nDrennan, K. L. (1968). Hydrographic studies in the northeast\nGulf of Mexico. Gulf South Res. Lab, Ref. 68-0-1,\n111 pp.\nDuing, W. (1975). Synoptic studies of transients in the\nFlorida Current. J. Mar. Res., , 33, pp. 53-73.\nEmery, W. J. (1975). Dynamic height from temperature\nprofiles. Jour. Phys. Ocn., 5, pp. 369-375.\nFlorida Department of Natural Resources (1969). Memoirs\nof the Hourglass Cruises, Volumes 1 and 2. Marine\nResearch Laboratory St. Petersburg, Florida.\nFofonoff, N. P. (1962). Dynamics of ocean currents.\nIn: The Sea, Ideas and Observations, Volume 1.\nPergamon Press, New York and London, pp. 323-396.\nFomin, L. M. (1964). The Dynamic Method in Oceanography\nElsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 212 pp.\nGandin, L. S. (1963). Objective Analysis of Meteorological\nFields. National Technical Information Service,\nTT 65-50007, Springfield, Va., 242 pp.\nGaul, R. D., and R. E. Boykin (1964). Northeast Gulf of\nMexico hydrographic data collected in 1963. Texas\nA. &M. Univ. Dept. of Ocn. and Met. Ref., 64-26T,\n81 pp.\nGaul, R. D. and R. E. Boykin (1965). Northeast Gulf of\nMexico hydrographic survey data collected in 1964.\nTexas &M. Univ. Dept. of Ocn. and Met., Ref. 65-8T.\nGaul, R. D., R. E. Boykin, and D. E. Letzring (1966).\nNortheast Gulf of Mexico hydrographic survey data\ncollected in 1965. Texas A. . &M . Univ. Dept. of Ocn.\nand Met., Ref. 66-8T, 202 pp\n-140-","Gaul, R. D. (1967). Circulation over the continental\nmargin of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Doctoral\ndissertation, Texas A. .&M. Univ., , 172 pp.\nGrose, P. L. (1966) The stratification and circulation\nof the subsurface waters of the Gulf of Mexico.\nFlorida State Univ., Dept. of Oceanography Reference 1,\n84 pp.\nHaltiner, G. J. (1971). Numerical Weather Prediction.\nWiley Publ. Co., New York, 317 pp.\nHansen, D. V. (1972). Deep currents in the Yucatan Strait.\nAbstract in EOS, Transactions, A. G. U., 53, p. 392.\nHendershott, M. and W. Munk (1970) Tides. Ann. Rev. F1.\nMech., 2, pp 205-224.\nIchiye, T. (1962). Circulation and water mass distribution\nin the Gulf of Mexico. Geofis. Inter. (Mexico\nCity), 2, pp. 47-76.\nIchiye, T., H. H. Kuo, and M. R. Carnes (1973). Assess- -\nment of currents and hydrography of the eastern\nGulf of Mexico. Texas A.&M. Univ., Dept. of Oceanogr.\nContribution No. 601.\nIchiye, T., and H. Sudo (1971). Saline deep water in\nthe Caribbean Sea and in the Gulf of Mexico. Unpubl.\nRept., Dept. of Oceanogr. Texas A. &M. Univ., Ref.\n71-16-T, 27 pp.\nIchiye, T., and H. Sudo, (1971a). Mixing processes between\nshelf and deep sea waters off the Texas coast. Unpubl.\nRept., Dept. of Oceanogr., Texas A. &M. Univ. Ref.\n71-19-T, 29 pp.\nJones, J. I. (1973). Physical oceanography of the north-\neast Gulf of Mexico and Florida continental shelf\narea. In: A summary of knowledge of the eastern\nGulf of Mexico, Coordinated by the State University\nSystem of Florida Institute of Oceanography.\nKirwan, A. D. Jr., G. Mc Nally, M. S. Chang, and R.\nMolinari (1975). The effect of wind and surface\ncurrents on drifters. Jour. Phys. Ocn., 5, pp. 361-368.\nLeendertse, J. J. (1970). A water-quality simulation\nmodel for well-mixed estuaries and coastal seas.\nI. Principles of compilation. Memo RM-6230-RC. The\nRand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.\nLeipper, D. F. (1970) A sequence of current patterns in\nthe Gulf of Mexico. J. Geophys. Res , 75, pp. 637-657.\n-141-","Leipper, D. F., J. Dr. Cochrane, and J. F. Hewitt (1972).\nA |detached eddy and subsequent changes (1965). In:\nContribution on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf\nof Mexico, Capurro and Reid Editors, Gull Publishing\nCompany, pp. 107-117.\nMaul, G. (1975). An evaluation of the use of the Earth\nResources Technology Satellite for observing ocean\ncurrent boundaries in the Gulf Stream System. NOAA\nTech. Rept. ERL 335-AOML 18, 125 pp.\nMcLellan, H. J. (1965). Elements of Physical Oceanography.\nPergamon Press, Oxford, 151 pp.\nMcLellan, H. J. and Nowlin, W. D., Jr. (1963). Some features\nof the deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Mar. Res.,\n21, pp. 233-245\nMolinari, R. L., and J. D. Cochrane (1972). The effect\nof topography on the Yucatan Current. In: Contribu-\ntions on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of\nMexico, Capurro and Reid Editors, Gulf Publ. Co.,\nHouston, pp. 149-155.\nMolinari, R. L., , and R. Yager (1976). Upper layer hydro-\ngraphic conditions at the Yucatan Strait during\nMay 1972. Submitted to J. Mar. Res.\nMonin, A. S., and A. M. Yaglom (1971). Statistical Fluid\nMechanics. MIT Press, Cambridge, 769 pp.\nMooers, C. N. K., and J. F. Price (1975). General shelf\ncirculation. In: Compilation and Summation of\nHistorical and Existing Physical Oceanographic Data\nfrom the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. State University\nSystem Institute of Oceanography, Final Report Contract\nNo. 08550-CT4-64, pp. 41-52.\nNCAR (1971). Library Routines Manual. NCAR Technical Notes\nNCAR-TN/IA-67.\nNeumann, G., and W. J. Pierson, Jr. (1966) Principles\nof Physical Oceanography. Prentice-Hall, Englewood\nCliffs, N. J., 545 pp.\nNiiler, P. P. and W. S. Richardson, Jr. (1973). Seasonal\nvariability of the Florida Current. J. Mar. Res., ,\n31, pp. 144-167.\nNowlin, W. D. (1971). Water masses and general circulation\nof the Gulf of Mexico. Oceanology, 6, PP. 28-33.\n-142-","Nowlin, W. D. (1972). Winter circulation patterns and\nproperty distributions. In: Contributions on the\nPhysical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, Capurro\nand Reid Editors, Gulf Publ. Co., Houston, pp. 3-51.\nNowlin, W. D., and J. M. Hubertz (1972) Contrasting\nsummer circulation patterns for the eastern Gulf\nLoop Current versus anticyclonic ring. In: Contribu-\ntions on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of\nMexico, Capurro and Reid Editors, Gulf Publ. Co.,\nHouston, pp. 139-148.\nNowlin, W. D. and H. J. McLellan (1967). A characterization\nof the Gulf of Mexico waters. J. Mar. Res., 25,\npp. 29-59.\nNowlin, W. D. and C. A. Parker (1974). Effects of a\ncold-air outbreak on shelf waters of the Gulf of\nMexico. Jour. Phys. Ocn., 4, pp. 467-486.\nPaskausky, D. F., and R. 0. Reid (1972). A barotropic\nprognostic numerical circulation model. In: Con-\ntributions on the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf\nof Mexico, Capurro and Reid, Editors, Gulf Publ.\nCo. Houston, pp. 163-176.\nPequegnat, W. E. (1972). A deep bottom current on the\nMississippi Cone. In: Contributions on the Physical\nOceanography of the Gulf of Mexico, Capurro and Reid\nEditors, Gulf Publ. Co., Houston, pp. 65-87.\nPhillips, 0. M. (1969). The Dynamics of the Upper Ocean.\nCambridge University Press, Cambridge, 261 pp.\nPlaisted, R. 0., K. M. Waters, and P. P. Niiler (1975)\nCurrent meter data report from the NSF continental\nshelf dynamics program 1973-1974. Nova University\nScientific Data Report.\nPrice, J. F., and C. N. K. Mooers (1974a). Hydrographic NSF\ndata report from the winter 1973 experiment\nContinental Shelf Dynamics Program. RSMAS University\nof Miami Scientific Report. UM-RSMAS-74006; 61 pp.\nPrice, J. F. and C. N. K. Mooers (1974b). Current NSF meter\ndata report , from the winter 1973 experiment,\nContinental Shelf Dynamics. RSMAS University of Miami\nScientific Report. UM-RSMAS-74020, 78 pp.\n-143-","Price, J. F. , and C. N. K. Mooers (1974c) Current meter\ndata report from the fall 1973 experiment, NSF\nContinental Shelf Dynamics Program. RSMAS University\nof Miami Scientific Report. UM-RSMAS-74035, 59 pp.\nPrice, J. F., and C. N. K. Mooers (1975). Hydrographic\ndata report from the fall 1973 experiment, NSF continental\nShelf Dynamics Program. RSMAS University of Miami\nScientific Data Report. UM-RSMAS-75018, 52 pp.\nReid, R. 0. (1972). A simple dynamical model of the Loop\nCurrent. In: Contributions on the Physical Oceanography\nof the Gulf of Mexico, Capurro and Reid, Editors,\nGulf Publ. Co, Houston, pp. 157-159\nReid, R. 0. and B. R. Bodine (1968). A numerical model\nfor storm surges in Galveston Bay. J. Waterways\nand Harbors Div. ASCE, 94, Proc. Paper 5805, pp. 33-37.\nRinkel, M. 0. (1974). Western Florida Continental Shelf\nProgram. In: Proceedings of Marine Environmental\nImplications of Offshore Drilling Eastern Gulf of\nMexico, 1974. Edited by Robert E. Smith, SUSIO.\nRobinson, M. K. (1973). Atlas of Monthly Mean Sea Surface\nand Sub-surface Temperature and Depth of the Top\nof the Thermocline Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.\nScripps Institute of Oceanography. Ref. 73-8, 105 pp.\nRossov, V. V. (1966). Water circulation in the Gulf of\nMexico and Caribbean Sea. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR,\n166, pp. 202-204.\nSchlitz, R. J. (1973). Net total transport and net trans -\nport by water mass categories for Yucatan Channel\nbased on data for April 1970. Ph.D. Dissertation,\nTexas A. &M. University, Department of Oceanography.\nCollege Station, 107 pp.\nStommel, H. M. (1965). The Gulf Stream. A physical and\ndynamical description. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley,\n248 pp.\nSturges, W. and J. P. Blaha (1976). A western boundary\ncurrent in the Gulf of Mexico. Science, 192, pp.\n367-369.\nSUSIO (1975). Compilation and summation of historical\nand existing physical oceanographic data from the\neastern Gulf of Mexico. State University System\nInstitute of Oceanography, Final Report Contract No.\n08550-CT4-64.\n-144-","Tolbert, W. H. and G. C. Salsman (1964). Surface circulation\nof the eastern Gulf of Mexico as determined by drift-\nbottle studies. Jour. of Geophys. Res, 69, p. 223-229.\nUchupi, E. (1971). Bathymetric Atlas of the Atlantic,\nCaribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. Woods Hole Ocn.\nInstit. Ref. No. 71-72.\nWennekens, M. P. (1959). Water mass properties of\nthe Straits of Florida and related waters. Bull.\nMar. Sci. Gulf Carib. , o, pp. --52.\nWert, R. J. and R. O. Reid (1972). A baroclinic prognostic\nnumerical circulation model. In: Contributions\non the Physical Oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico,\nCapurro and Reid, Editors, Gulf Publ. Co. , Houston,\npp. 177-209.\nWhitaker, R. E. (1971). Seasonal variations of steric\nand recorded sea level of the Gulf of Mexico.\nMaster's Thesis, Texas A. &M. University, Department of\nOceanography, 109 pp.\nWunsch, C., D. V. Hansen, and B. D. Zetler (1969) .\nFluctuations of the Florida Current inferred from\nsea level records. Deep-Sea - Res. Supplement to 16,\npp. 447-470.\nWust, G. (1964). Stratification and circulation in the\nAntilles-Caribbean Basins. Columbia University Press,\nNew York, 201 pp.\n-145-","APPENDIX I\nNumerical Model Solutions\nfor Levels II to VII\nVelocity vectors computed from the primitive equation\nmodel for levels II to VII are given in this Appendix. The\narrows with lighter shafts indicate speeds of less than;\na)\n4.0 cm/sec for level 2,\nb) 2.0 cm/sec for level 3,\nc) 1.0 cm/sec for level 4,\nd) 0.7 cm/sec for level 5,\ne) 0.5 cm/sec for level 6, and\nf) 0.4 cm/sec for level 7,\nThe depth, DPT, indicated for each level represents the\nmid-point of the layer.","1.)\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n25\nDPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nOPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n92\n86\n80\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEY 4\n26\nOFT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\nANNUAL INCREMENT","80\n92\n86\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\nis CM/SEC\n8018\n18\n92\n86\n98\n&\n&\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n23\nDPT\n2146\n22\n22\n14 CM/SEC\nTo\n18\n9.2\n86\n98\n85\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nOPT 3035\n22\n22\n1 3 CM/SEC\n80 9\n18\n92\n86\n98\nANNUAL INCREMENT","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n25\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n8t.\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n25\nOFT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n92\n98\n80\n86\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n18 CM/SEC\n18\n142\n86\n80\n92\n38\nSEMI-ANNUAL INCREMENT\nMAY-SEPTEMBER","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nOPT 1370\n22\n22\nis CM/SEC\n80\n18\n86\n92\n38\n86\n80\n98\n2\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n14 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n86\n80\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n25\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\n13 CM/SEC\n8018\n18\n86\n92\nSEMI-ANNUAL MAY-SEPTENDEZACREMENT\n98","86\n8\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n25\nOPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n86\n92\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n25\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n8018\n18\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n18 CM/SEC\n80 8\n18\n86\n92\nSEMI-ANNUAL NOVEMBER-MARCH CREMENT\n98","BD\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\nI 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\nB6\n80\n98\n92\nB6\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2145\n22\n22\n4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\nen\n92\n85\n93\n98\n92\nBL\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nOPT 3035\n22\n22\n3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSEMI-ANNUAL INCREMENT\nNOVEMBER-MARCH","86\n80\n92\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n25\nOPT 145\n22\n22\n130 CM/SEC\n18\n1&8\n85\n80\n92\n80\n86\n92\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n26\nOPT 370\n22\n22\n15 CM/SEC\n18\n80\n1&to\n86\n92\n80\n85\n92\n98\n30\n30\n25 LEV 4\n25\nOPT 768\n22\n22\nis CM/SEC\n18\n18\nINCREMENT\n80\n86\n98\n92","98\n86\n30\n30\n126 LEV 5\n26\nOPT 1370\n22\n22\nis CM/SEC\n8018\n18\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\nt4\nCM/SEC\n18\n8018\n98\n92\n86\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nOPT\n3035\n22\n22\ni 3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n92\n85\n80\n98\nINCREMENT\nMONTHLY\nJANUARY","92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n13\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n80\n93\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n26\nDPT 370\n22\n22\ni\n15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nFEBRUARY","86\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\n98\n92\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 6\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n85\n80\n98\n92\n86\n100\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 7\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n38\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nFEBRUARY","86\n80\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nI\n92\n85\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n26\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n93\n85\nE:\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n8 CM/SEC\n8\n12\n80\n86\n92\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nMARCH","98\n92\n8E.\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 5\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n30\nSU\n26\n26 LEV 6\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n4 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 7\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n98\n8\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nMARCH","86\n30\n92\n26\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n25\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nAPRIL","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n25\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n16\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\ni 3 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nAPRIL","98\n92\n85\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n85\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nMAY","80\n92\n86\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n92\n86\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\n1 3 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n93\n92\n86\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nMAY","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n93\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\nf 8 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nJUNE","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n25\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\nf 5 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n:86\n80\n98\n92\n38\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nJUNE","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n38\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\nR\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n8 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nJULY","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\nas\n86\n80\n86\n92\n18\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nOFT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n9?\n86\n98\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nOPT 3035\n22\n22\n3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n85\n80\n92\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nJULY","92\n86\n80\n9\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nOPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n92\n86\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n25\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n-\n8\n18\n80\n92\n86\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nAUGUST","86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nOPT 1370\n22\n22\n15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2145\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nOPT 3035,\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nAUGUST","93\n92\n85\nBD\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\nBO\n98\n92\nB6\n8D\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n60\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n86\n80\n98\n92\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nSEPTEMBER","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n25\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nSEPTEMBER","8u\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n85\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n26\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n86\n80\n98\nye\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nOCTOBER","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nOPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n80°\n18\n86\n92\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\n1 3 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n92\n86\n80\n98\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nOCTOBER","98\n92\nB5\nBD\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/5EC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\nBO\n98\n92\nB6\nBD\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n19\n98\n92\nB5\nBD\n98\n92\nB6\n60\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nNOVEMBER","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV €\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n4 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n80\n98\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 7\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nNOVEMBER","98\n92\n85\nBD\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n98\n92\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n25\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n8 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nDECEMBER","80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n25\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n30\n30\n26 LEV G\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n14 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n80\n98\n92\n86\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\ni 3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\nMONTHLY INCREMENT\nDECEMBER","98\n92\nBG\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nOFT 146\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\nBD\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n15 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\nBD\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n12\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nFEBRUARY 1962","80\n92\n85\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 6\nOPT 2146\n22\n22\nCM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n98\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 7\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nFEBRUARY 1962","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 145\n22\n22\n1 30 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 CM/SEC\n18\n98\n8\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\nau\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nDPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nJUNE 1967","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 5\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n98\n92\n86\n80\n93\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 6\nOPT 2146\n22\n22\n4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n68\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV'7\nOPT 3035\n22\n22\nf 3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nJUNE 1967","BD\nB6\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 2\n26\nDPT 146\n22\n22\nf 3D CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 3\n26\nDPT 370\n22\n22\n1 15 IM/SED\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nBD\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 4\n26\nOPT 768\n22\n22\n8 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n92\n38\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nAUGUST 1971","80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 5\n26\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n1 5 CM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n85\n92\n98\n80\n86\n92\n98\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\nCM/SEC\n8\n18\n80\n86\n32\n98\n80\n86\n92\n93\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\n1 3 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n80\n86\n92\n98\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nAUGUST 1971","98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 2\nDPT 146\n22\n22\nI 30 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\n98\n92\n85\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 3\nDPT 370\n22\n22\nf 15 CM/SEC\n18\n8018\n38\n92\n86\n98\n92\n86\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 4\nOPT 768\n22\n22\n1 8 CM/SEC\n18\n98\n92\n8\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT 86\n80\nJUNE 1975","98\n92\nB5\n80\n30\n30\n26\n26 LEV 5\nDPT 1370\n22\n22\n5 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\n86\n80\n98\n92\n30\n30\n26 LEV 6\n26\nDPT 2146\n22\n22\n1 4 CM/SEC\n18\n18\n86\n80\n98\n92\n98\n92\n85\n80\n30\n30\n26 LEV 7\n26\nDPT 3035\n22\n22\n1 3 CM/SEC\n18\n8\n98\n92\n86\n80\nSYNOPTIC INCREMENT\nJUNE 1975","APPENDIX II\nGeostrochic Data and Computations\nThe three-month average, distribution of data and\nadditional results of the geostrophic model computations\nare included in this Appendix. If data are missing at\nan interior point, an interpolation routine using the\nsurrounding data points is used to fill-in the required\nvalue. In the Yucatan Straits and Straits of Florida,\na subjective extrapolation is performed to provide missing\ndata. The geostrophic velocities computed from these\nextrapolated values are given by arrows with lighter shafts.\nExtrapolated data are indicated by hexagons on the\ndynamic height maps. These maps have been machine contoured.\nVertical sections for four representative transects\nof the Gulf are also included. Those sections which suggest\nstrong subsurface velocity cores are suspect. These\nsubsurface velocity maximums are probably artifacts of\nthe data distribution and/or handling, rather than real\nfeatures of the circulation.","88.5\n86.5\n81 5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n17.5\n86.5\nR4.5\n82.5\n80.5\nS\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n30.5\n24 74 245\n5\n22\n21\n8\n10 102 159 124 157 27 12\n28.5\n28.5\n+\n24\n18\n36\n11\n13\n7\n2\n5\n6\n167\n228\n153\n154\n21\n14\n72\n216\n117\n126\n95\nB1\n135\n+\n+\n31\n40\n27\n19\n10\n10\n19\n22\n13\n25\n27\n195\n202\n85\n24\n47\n67\n93\n96\n116\n137\n35\n170\n243\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n37\n28\n9\n7\n10\n16\n15\n15\n20\n21\n25\n29\n238\n274\n237\n199\n60\n17\n91\n61\n135\n197\n160\n41\n40\n63\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n25\n60\n47\n22\n3\n8\n6\n14\n15\n22\n153\n7\n6\n10\n122\n67\n126\n182\n244\n296\n327\n300\n187\n338\n17\n32\n31\n54\n54\n51\n24\n24.\n+\n+\n37\n20\n24\n49\n38\n35\n6\n6\n6\n6\n7\ns\n8\n108\n391\n383\n307\n206\n594\n165\n90\n1\n7\n25\n23\n31\n58\n34\n58\n43\n36\n20\n+\n59\n23\n3\n8\n13\n10\n6\n3\n13 429 458 169\n2\n10\n5\n20\n20\n23\n15\n22\n2:\n26\n37\n22\n22.\n45 168\nA\n3\n7\n5\n485 840\n28\n12\n24\n28\n19\n2\n9\n6\n3\nANNUAL NUMBER\nANNUAL NUMBER\n12\n25\n25\n47\n26\n20.5\n+\n20.5\n4\n+\n+\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n5\n3\n28\n22\n38\n8\n4\nAT 1000 METERS.\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n00.1\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n04.5\n02.5\n90.5\n00.5\n06.5\n98.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n25.5\n26.5\n24\n24.\n22.9\n22.\nANNUAL\n20.5\nANNUAL\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nANNUAL\nANNUAL\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT a DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nGEOSTROPHIC VELCCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE1000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","60.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n96.5\n94.5\nIf 5\n90.5\n30.5\n0.420 0.520 8,532\n0.462 0.538 0.560 0.597 0.561 0.528\n28.5\n0.540 0.503 9.00 0.485 0.509 0.513 0.533 0.52) 0.587 0,533 0.580 0.556 0.512\n+\n+\n0.508 01558 0.455 0.512 0.544 0.535 0.528 0.54 0.584 0.066 0.6% 0.52 0.548\n26.5\n0.437 0.527 0.558 0.575 0.562 0.583 0.353 0.546 630 0 710 .80! (7)70\n567\n+\n+\n+\n0.592 0.535 0.589 0.603 0.592 0.580 0.347 0.545 des 0.698 0.144 0.75 2 15 0.567 0.492 0.472 0.95:\n24.\n+\n0.631 0.912 0.528 0.60 0.588 0.582 0.800 0.553 0.552 0.578 0.711 0,339\n10,642 0.658\n515 0.610 0.638 0.606 0.611 0.006 0.571 0.553\n0.49\n22.\n+\n0.574 0.555 0.582 0.570 0.588\n0.8f6\n+\nANNUAL\n0.520 0.524 0.940 0.531 0.533\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.513 0.495 0.523 0.559\nCONTOUR INTERVAL - .60-01\n0.513 0.540\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n1.184 1.213\n1.210 1.24\nJ70 1.305\n28.5\n1.148 1.139 1.165 1.17 1 272\n1.260 1.190\n1,792\n1.108\nt\n,\n.178\n1.197\n1.175\n1.171\n262\n350\n253 1.240\n1,144\n1.173\n1.117\n1.\n26.5\n+\n+\n7\nhis\n39)\n.274\n1.146\n1.105\n204 1.196\n1.173\n1.204\n1.20v 1.247 1.00 247 1.225 1.21 17b 1.21 337 1.50 1 44th\n.\n1.230 1.132 1.152 1.233\n24.9\na\n1.252\n1.265\n1.230\n1.231\n1.212\n1310\nV.M.\n1.225\n372\nLOVE\n.299\n1.287\nDate\n217\n1.207\n.220\n248\n1.214\n1.204\n1,190\n22.\n5\n+\n1.191\n1.15%\n1.222 1.138 1.184\nANNUAL\n1.193 125\\1.151 1.150 1.170\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.124 1.108\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n.\n18.5","84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n03.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n0.471\n30.5\n0.453 0.457 0.472\n0.466 0.438 0.536 0.526 0.518 0.492\n28.5\n0.562 0.495 0.437 0.435 0.456 0.443 0.476 o 508 486 0.462 0.450 0.434 0.455\n0.572 0.465 0.490 0.482 0.471 0.487 C, 509 0.516 0 504 O 922 0.945 0.523 0.523\n26.5\n+\n0.6 LI 0.600\n.591\n0.465\n...\n0.481\n0.449\n0.507\n0.423\n44433\n0.481\n0.548\n+\n+\n+\nCLESS 0.512 0.445 0.469 0.543\n0.5,17\n0.654\n0.509\n0.511\n0.523\nAre\n.15\n0.43\n0.9.17\n0.505\n0.565\n54\n+-\n24.\n168\n0.515 0.456 0.583 0.567 0.58a 0 9,943 0.336 0.539 0.529 0.511 512 0.617\n10/10/044\n0.827 0.824\n0.445\n10.646\n0.527\n0.512\no\n544\n0.518\n514\n0.510\n0.941\n0.\n550\n22.\n0,837 0.030\n0.6,6\n0.521 0.518 0 553 0.542 0.538\n+\n+\n+\nMARCH\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.471 0.402 0.539 0.544 0.541\n20.5\n/\n250 METERS\n0.505 0.507 0.529 0.537\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n60-01\n18.5\n60.5\n84.5\n82.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n1.107\n30.5\n1.096\n1.173 1.166 1.153 1.100\n28.5\n1,145\n1.131\n1.135\n180\n1.047\n1.050\n1.086\n1.103 1.059 1.068 1.094 1.10% 1.129\nI'M\n1.113\n1,159\n1.189\n26.5\n1.109\n1.110\n/234\n1.102\n1\n1.116 1.:2\n22\n1.109\n182\n126\n+\n1.127 1.014 1.0F4\n256\n1.0-4\n255\n1.225\n27\n1.201\n1.120 1.119 122\n24.\n1.173\n100\n.158\n1.176\n1.156\n1.154\n243\n1.26\n1.205\n1.0\n1.65\n1.158 1.179 1.00 1.204 1.168 1.118 1.134\n22.5\n1.144 .190 1.174 1,140\nMARCH\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.099 1133 141 1.150\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.104\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n50-01\n18.5","82.5\n80\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92 5\n30.5\n30.5\n3\n14\n20\n2\n3\n36\n43\n25\n21\n6\n28.5\n28.5\n.\n20\n109\n23\n34\n23\n20\n15\n15\n45\n12\n6\n3\n3\n+\n+\n1\n+\n+\n+\n9\n23\n19\n36\n30\n51\n9\n2\n3\n11\n10\n2\n16\n19\n42\n34\n38\n37\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n+\n+\n.\n4\n28\n29\n12\n23\n29\n11\n44\n54\n43\n10\n23\n11\n19\n24\n+\n1\n+\n+\n-\n7\n8\n7\n26\n20\n27\n31\n35\n47\n45\n37\n35\n165\n6\n12\n3\n18\n11\n27\n34\n24.\n24.\n+\n2\n5\n8\n13\n16\n10\n52\n45\n97\n38\n16\n2\n17\n3\n23\n63\n50\n3\n10\n30\n12\n20\n14\n7\n+\n+\n.\n1\n15\n12\n65\n99\n53\n11\n6\n13\n22\n7\n4\n12\n22.5\n22.5\n+\n+\n19\n56\n114 201\nA\n16\n3\n10\n13\n13\n+\n,\n+\n+\nMARCH NUMBER\nMARCH NUMBER\n3\n11\n10\n28\n17\n20.5\n20.5\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n12\n12\n27\n6\nAT 1000 METERS.\n+\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n88.5\n86.5\n64.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24\n24\n22.15\n22.5\nMARCH\n20.5\nMARCH\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nMARCH\nYARCH\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nGEOSTR1 1C VELOCITIES AT a DEPTH CF\n0 METERS\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 000.0 M LEVEL.\n0 METERS.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\nTO\n10\n-10\n150\n10\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nFEBRUARY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n-10\n150\n400\n10\n700\n1000\nFEBRUARY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n0\n30\n30\n45\n150\n-30\n15\nV\n30\no\n0\n-15\n400\n15\n700\n1000\nVELOCITIES E-W CROSS SECTION ARE FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT\nFEBRUARY\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR COMPUTED INTERVAL RELATIVE IS TO 5.0 1000 CM/S. M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 23.5.\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n90.5\n88.5\n.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n0\n-30\n30\n-15\n150\n.\n400\n15\n700\n0\n1000\nVELOCITIES E-W CROSS SECTION ARE COMPUTED FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT\nFEBRUARY\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL RELATIVE IS TO 5.0 1000 CM/S. M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 25.5.","60.5\n82.5\n86.5\n84.5\n$2.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n0.442 0.460 0.469\n0.510 0.04A 0,939 0.528 0.917 0.474\n28.5\n+\n+\n0.479 0.459 0.427 0.457 0.451 0.476 0.48A 0.517 0.458 0.466 0.475 U.463\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n0.300 0.470 0.475 0.471 0.475 0.50A 0.517 0.512 .501 0.505 0.529 0.523 C.522\n26.5\n+\n+\n0.009\n0.430\n.667\ncan\n0.5.9\n0.468\n0.542\n402\n0.4.19\n0.429\n0.462\n0.492\n0.5RF 0.533 0.401 0.475 0.549\n710\n0.516\n0.569\n570\n0.513\n0.94\n0.00\n0.544\n>5'6\n4.15\n0.43\n0.5.18\n24.\n0.000\n159\n0.302\n0:a06\n0.550\n0.035\n0.527\n0.551\ndelo\n.534\n0.538\n0.529\n0.572\n0.588\n0.563\n3.5:5\n0.439\n.508\n+\n0,839 0.811\n0.45\n5.508 0.510 0.10% 0.551 0.559 0.540 0.526 0.533\n22.\n0.637\n0.821\n0.521 0.514 0,559 540 0.539\n+\nFEBRUARY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.4A5 0.539 0.543 0.541\n0.471\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.502 0.507 0.529 0.538\n.50-01\n+\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n18.5\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n1.100\n1.186 1.183 1.191 1.118\n28.5\n1,028 1.133 1.106\n1.084\n1.054\n1.083\n1.1.NN.150\n+\n1.177\n1.102\n1.132\n1.081\n1.055\n1.062\n1.00*\nL118\n1.129\n1,453\n26.5\n1.149 1.16 238 1.113 204\\1.114 1.127 1.140 1.416 1.298 935 1.189\n931. 146 1.058 1.083 1.274\n1,120\n1.243\n.18\n1.128\n1.114\n1.00A\n1.110\n1.308\n248\n1\no\n24.9\n00\n381\n160\n1.175\n1.15%\n153\n1.1\n1.309\n1.274\n1.255\n1.242\nC\n694 1.641\n1.00\n1.176\n127\n.153\n1.150\n1.229\n1.203\n1.196\n22.5\n1.00 1.190 1.172 1.188\n+\n+\nFEBRUARY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.052\n1.153\n,137 1.150\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.053 104\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.60-01\n.\n18.5","82.5\n11\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n60.5\n86.5\n84.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n3\n13\n12\n2\n8\n36\n36\n23\n20\n11\n28.5\n28.5\n2\n3\n19\n18\n20\n24\n42\n12\n12\n24\n56\n50\n42\n+\n+\n+\n+\n8\n31\n24\n50\n9\n2\n35\n36\n27\n22\nn\n12\n10\n5\n6\n5\n21\n22\n45\n34\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n+\n17\n61\n45\n34\n7\n5\n21\n26\n13\n44\n10\n27\n13\n18\n24\n11\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n4\n3\n8\n7\n2\n6\n15\n11\n19\n24.\n24.\n!\n7\n5\n9\n12\n10\n34\n61\n95\n15\n19\n8\n3\n15\n53\n56\n31\n17\n4\n12\n29\n11\n21\n+\n+\n+\n+\n2\n4\n11\n44 52 41\n7\n4\n10\n22.\n2\n11\n7\n14\n22\n22\n+\n+\n+\n29\n70 123\n16\n4\n10\n13\n14\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\nFEBRUARY NUMBER\nFEBAUARY NUMBER\n3\n13\n10\n30\n17\n20.5\n20.5\n+\n+\n+\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n13\n12\n28\n6\n+\nAT 1000 METEAS.\n+\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n88.5\n06.5\n84.5\n02.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24.9\n24\n22.5\n22\nFEBRUARY\nFEBRUARY\n20.5\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nFEDEUARY\nFEBRUARY\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS\nGOOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 1000.0 M LEVEL.","29.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n19.5\n21.5\n0\n30\n-10\n10\n150\n120\n10\n400\n-10\n10\n700\n1000\nJANUARY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 K LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n10\n150\n-20\n400\n-10\n700\nTO\n1000\nJANUARY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GECSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.","86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n95.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n0\n30\n30\n45.\n150\n15\n-30\n30\n15\n-15\n0\n-15\n400\n15\n700\n1000\nJANUARY\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\nV\n30\n-30\n150\n15\n-15\no\n400\n-15\n700\no\n1000\nJANUARY\nE-H CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n62.5\n80.5\n30.5\nU.S.T 0.460 0.515\n+\n0.9 0.00 0.945 0.834 0.929 numb 0.504\n28.5\n0.422 n.002 0.455 0.470 0.474 0.509 0.511 0,511 0,470 0.00 0.501 0.521\n,\nI\n0.626 0.479\n0.468 0.432 0.544 0.303 0.507 0.532 0.844 0.521 0.4-1 0.551\n26.5\n0.524 0.45a 0.645\no.\n543\n0.443\n4.509\nCINYU\n0.525\n57\n0.515\n0.575\nI\n0.457/0.524\n2.542\n2.573\n0.528\n2.50\n0.547\nC.942\n.555\nQUTIL\nme\nLEVE 0.519 0.993 0.476 0.934\n24.\n516\n0.533\n1.580\n0.520\nD.\nSTA\n800\n0.553\n0.529\n545\n0.544\n0.544\n10.00\n313\n+\n22. 5 333 0.579 0.557 0.636 .579 0.609 C. 535 0.653\n0.503\nd stq\n852 0.509\n0.510 0.513\\0.557 0.551 0.554\n0.648 01925 0.016\nJANUARY\n0.515\n0.452\n505 0.550 0.541\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.497 .503 0.516 0.537\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n.50-01\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96,5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n30.5\n1.122\n1.190 1.15A 1.235 1.196\n28.5\n+\n+\n1.181 1.190 096 1.148 1.135\n1.115\n+\n1.091 1.128 1.055 1.113 1.170 1.136 1.163 1.170 1.179 223 1.232\n26.5\n+\n+\n1.219 1.198\n1.0\n1.1.56\n1.126\n1.165\n1.159\n1.10%\n1.19\nA32\n1.201\n+\n323 1.133 1.0E7 1.135 1.337\n1.239\n1.283\n(275)\n1.181\n241\n1.022\n1.156\n1.179\n1.171\n24.\n1\n1.3%\nLifes\n285\n1,242\n165 1.187 1.190 1.177\nFOR 1.608\n5 THE 1.292 1.250 1.200 236\n1.233\nN2\n1.180\n1.121\n22.\n41.\n1.117\n192 1.148\n1.34 778\nJANUARY\n1.007\n1.141\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.047\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n50-01\n18.5","84.5\n82.5\n60\n98.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n9'.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n3\n15\n6\n25\n23\n9\n18\n5\n2\n28.5\n28.5\n+\n21\n37\n12\n18\n23\n68\n38\n28\n10\n11\n24\n2\n26\n15\n19\n22\n25\n27\n22\n11\n18\n26.5\n3\n16\n22\n27\n26.5\n3\n2\n16\n15\n7\n32\n36\n47\n33\n8\n13\n11\n15\n2\n10\n.\n+\n+\n+\n+\n8\n43\n31\n171\n30\n21\n7\n8\n10\n18\n10\n14\n17\n12\n22\n5\n67\n24.\n24.\n.\n.\n+\n+\n+\n5\n7\nin\n8\n10\n59\n25\n31\n115\n6\n3\n10\n64\n4\n3\n15\n4\n15\n15\n11\n+\n.\n.\n+\n+\n.\n3\n6\n45\n43\n27\n7\n,\n18\n22.\n22.5\n.\n.\n5\n19\n53\n66\nV\n4\nJANUARY NUMBER\nJANUARY NUMBER\n2\n6\n20\n13\n20.5\n20.5\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n10\n,\n20\n5\nAT 1000 METERS.\n+\nAT 250 NETERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n98.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84,5\n82.5\n60.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n88.5\n84.5\n30.5\n30.5\n29.\n28.5\n26.5\nis\n24.\n22.\n22.5\nJANUARY\n20.5\nJANUARY\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n13.5\nJANUARY\nJANUARY\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO TME1000.0 M LEVEL.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\nV\n30\n10\n150\n10\n400\n700\n1000\nWINTER\nN-5 CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELUCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n10\n150\n-10\n0\n400\no\n700\n1000\nWINTER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HERVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n0\nV\nV\n30\n30\n30\n150\n30\n-30\n15\n15\n400\n15\n700\n1000\nWINTER COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITT AT LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 23.5.\nE-H CROSS SECTION ARE COMPUTED FOR V RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES\nVELOCITIES VELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n36.5\n94.5\n32.5\n90.5\n89.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n150\n400\no\n15\n700\n1000\nWINTER\nE- CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVT LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/5.","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90 5\n88.5\n86.5\n8.5\ni. 5\n(10.5\n30.5\n0.474 0.402 0.522\n+\n0.521 0.512 0.555 0.538 0.933 0.516 0.715\n28.5\n0.629 0.495 0.484 0.457 0.473 0.459 0.505 0.529 0.547 0.500 0.541 0.538 0.511\n:\n0.8 0.463 0.404 0.479 2:13 0.515 0.529 0.518 0.516 0.537 5.979\n49\n568\n26.5\n+\n+\n0.832 0.432 9.403 5.5 0.42 0.543 0.507 0.510 0.54 0.60s 0.645\n+\n+\n+\n24. 530 0.437 322 0.55 0.554 54 0.561 0.577 0.523 0.542 0.605 0.22 0.561 0.554 0.499 C.502 0.927\n536 0.505 0.802 0.583 0.569 0.564 D. 5410 0.565 0.566 0.556 0.547 0.710 or 0.03) D.704\n2672\n254\n22. 537 0.516 550 0.569 0.573 0.553 0.545 0.5NU\n0.500\n10.ESI\n0.052\n0.527 0.512 , 555 0-542 0.541\n0.672\n0.852\n+\nWINTER\n0.471 0.463 0.537 0.542 0.542\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n+\n250 METERS\n0.503 6.503 0.529 0.545\n+\nCONTOUR INTERVAL . .50-01\n0.524 0.524\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n1.10%\n28.5\n1.174 1.193 .191 1.136\n1.101\n1.082\n1.097\n1.118\n1.153\n1.170\n11\n1.18% 1.171\n+\n+\n1.104 1.009 1.012\n26.5\n120\n1.121\n1.143\n15)\n1.101 1.118\n2303\n1.806\n+\n1.149 1.127\n.225\n1.125\n204\n1.176\n139\n169\nV.235\n1.326\n1.74\n214\n1.045\n1.169 1.035 1.127 1.297\n24.\n1.133\n1.211\n1,256\n1)200\n1.250\n1.214\n129\n157\n1.255\n.N35\n.SM\n(+)\n-\nD\n0.\n1.178\n323\n1.208\n1.265\n1.203\n1.208\n1.192\n1.183\n213\n444\no\n5.165\n1.165\n22.\n1.253\n.218\n1.221\n185 1.151 1.176\n(099 1.703\n1.136 1731 1.177 1.179 1,340\n1.46\n596\n+\nWINTER\n1.004 1.131 1.133 1, Ass\n20.5\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1000 METERS\n1,088 1.090\nCONTOUR INTERVAL . .60-01\n18.5","82.5\n60\n84.5\n62.5\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n68.5\nBC.\n90.5\n88.5\n32.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n,\n18\n52\n5\n2\n28\n32\n6\n51\n48\n6\n2\n28.5\n28.5\n2\n9\n28\n36\n43\n43\n79\n\"\n37\n3\n3\n29\n92\n76\n54\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n:\n6\n7\n9\n3\n2\n13\n10\n5\n6\n40\n37\n38\n50\n41\n66\n24\n6\n33\n34\n52\n50\n30\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n2\n5\n5\n2\n33\n26\n57\n74\n86\n49\n21\n10\n27\n21\n21\n30\n15\n23\n+\n+\n+\n3\n3\n11\n10\n8\n49\n235\n58\n31\n3\n6\n22\n30\n28\n40\n44\n85\n94\n82\n7\n17\n12\n20\n25\n24.\n24\n5\n10\n6\n10\n18\n10\n72\n63\n280\n42\n17\n3\n3\n18\n13\n25\n26\n14\n7\n31\n115\n106\n4\n14\n30\n+\n5\n12\n2\n98\n105\n55\n9\n7\n3\n2\n6\n14\n10\n9\n19\n27\n8\n16\n2\n22.5\n22\n13\n41\n123 229\n4\n2\n19\n5\n13\n14\n14\n+\nWINTER NUMBER\nWINTER NUMBER\n3\n15\n11\n32\n18\n20.5\n20.5\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n15\n13\n29\n7\n'\nAT 1000 METERS.\n+\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n60.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n32.5\n09.5\n06.5\nHU.S\n82.5\n96.5\n24.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.9\n24.\n24.\n22.5\n22.5\nWINTER\nWINTER\n20.5\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nWINTER\nWINTER\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE1000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","27.5\n29.5\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n0\n30\n20\n20\n10\n150\n-10\n400\n700\n1000\nSUMMER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITT AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n27.5\n29.5\n25.5\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n0\n30\n-10\n10\n10\n-10\n150\no\n-10\n400\n700\n1000\nSUMMER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONG!TUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","82.5\n60.5\n84.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n0\n30\n15\n-15\n15\n150\n15\n400\no\n700\n1000\nSUMMER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTHOPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTER RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n34.5\n92.5\n0\nU\n30\n150\n15\n-15\n400\n-15\no\no\n700\n1000\nSUMMER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GENSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ANE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVT LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n0.545 0.526 0.703\n0.853 0.494 0 NT 0.724 0.714 0.615 0.632\n0.762\n28.5\n0.656 0.536 0.559 0.543 0.583 0.573 0.569 0.586 0.657 and 0.641 0.563 0.591\n&\nthe\n+\n,648 0.631 0.619\n0.050 0.852 0.843\\0.573 0.504 0.503 0.579 0.574\nthe\n26.5\n0.5%4 0.533 0.606 0.007 0.513 0.133 0.563 0.571 1.033 .711 0.73\n0.677 0.077\n+\n+\n+\n+\no A 0.97 0.519 0.559 0.042\n0.652 0.590 0.539 0.554 0.627 c.don 0.590 0.567 .00\n724\n0.72E\n24.\n954 0.03 0.631 0.662 0.633 0.065 0.638 0.031 0.567 0.557 0.577 706 0.645\n0.486 0.5% 0.825 0.909\n559 0.613 0.610 0.633 0.610 0.641 0.607 0.609\n22.\n0.6\n11.0.882 0.635\n0.770 1.603 0.648 0.617 arse2\n+\nSUMMER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.575 0.584 0.576 0.534 0.560\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.535 0.52% 0,545 0.569\nCONTOUR INTERVAL -\n50-01\n0.492\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n1.282\n1.350 1.417 1.358\n28.5\nat\n+\n1.212 1.195 1.200 1.177 1.813 250\n.306 1.196\n1.195\n+\n1.371\nA,237 1.233\n1.221\n1.252\n188\n1.193\n1.393\n1.280\n1.218\n26.5\n1.009\n224\n.427\n754\n1,600\n1.275\n1.185\n1.210\n1.241\n1.225\n.187\n+\n+\nAS 1.265 1.131\n174 1.150\n1:510\n1.457\n1.224\n1.199\n1.313\n1.350\n1.774\n1.235\n1.270\n1.209\n24.9\n1.426\nA,SAS\n1.275\n1.210\n1.255\n325\n1.313\n379\n1.324\n1.345\n1.324\n1.274\nc)\n1.255\n1,257\n1.252\n1.257\n2133\n1.243\n1.275\n22.\n1.122 1.223 1.258 235 1.226\nSUMMER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.170 204 1.193\n1.157\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.107 1.111\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n@\n18.5","80.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n68.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n30.5\n18 45 175\n11 14 5\n37\n92\n79\n96\n17\n8\n28.5\n28.5\n+\n+\n2\n15\n14\n26\n11\n11\n96\n103\n16\n.\n25\n39\n37\n63\n53\n40\n90\n95\n122\n-\n:\n6\n11\n6\n18\n21\n22\n30\n22\n16\nI\n86\n103\n143\n128\n110\n46\n26.5\n11\n10\n#2\n31\n44\n67\n81\n26.5\n+\n14\n13\n15\n20\n22\n30\n23\n7\n42\n5\n8\n8\n111\n134\n159\n160\n132\n2\n12\n13\n33\n51\n44\n83\n155\n+\n+\n+\n.\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n21\n45\n35\n12\n2\n5\n2\n2\n3\n4\n11\n16\n76\n2\n71\n117\n173\n186\n191\n163\n109\n70\n66\n6\n11\n17\n27\n2:\n22\n32\n24.\n24.\n+\n+\n+\n.\n+\n+\n17\n32\n24\n18\n3\n8\n10\n61\n223\n219\n138\n103\n254\n109\n70\n30\n9\n20\n8\n5\n15\n14\n25\n12\n+\n1\n+\n+\n+\n.\n+\nr\n+\n+\n5\n36\n14\n10 225 234 83\n2\n10\n5\n5\n11\n6\n8\n8\n22.5\n22.5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n22\n83\n262 #25\n2\n7\n6\n11\n9\n3\n+\n+\nSUMMER NUMBER\nSUMMER NUMBER\n8\n12\n11\n6\nS\n20.5\n20.5\n+\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n9\n7\nAT 1000 METERS\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88,5\n86.5\n84.5\n62.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n86.5\n8..5\n82.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n54.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n23.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24\n24\n22.5\n22\nSUMMER\nSUMMER\n20.5\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nSUMMER\nSUMMER\nGECSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\n20\n150\n-10\nTO\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nANNUAL\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n10\n-10\n10\n150\no\no\n400\n700\n1000\nANNUAL\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVT LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. ThE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","35.5\n94.5\n82.5\n90.5\n88.5\n30.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0-\n30\n30\n150\n15\n15\n-15\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nANNUAL\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEUSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES -DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n95.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n0\n80.5\n30\n30\n150\n15\n-15\n400\no\n0\n700\n1000\nANNUAL\nE-N CROSS SECTION FOR y COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n$0.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96.5\nIII\n30\n0\n45\n30\n45\n150\n30\n15\n30\n15\n-15\n400\n15\n700\n1000\nSECTION MARCH FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 23.5.\nVELOCITIES E-H CROSS ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 n LEVEL. HEAVY LINES\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n80.5\n82.5\n30.5\n86.5\n34.5\n90.5\n92.5\n$4.5\n$3.5\n&\n-15\n15\n-15\n15\n15\n150\n400\n-15\n700\n1000\nMARCH\nE-W CR.ISS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEBSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 4) LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL is 5.0 CM/S.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\n20\n150\n10\n10\n-10\n400\n-10\n10\n700\n1000\nMARCH\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29:5\n0\n30\n-10\n150\n0\n400\n700\n1000\nMARCH\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONG!TUDE 91.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n80.5\n86.5\n14.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n60.5\n30.5\n30.5\n10 33 32\n3\n20\n42\n24\n26\n5\n28.5\n28.5\n5\n26\n112\n17\n32\n32\n24\n12\n16\n33\n19\n20\n6\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n17\n11\n15\n11\n22\n22\n41\n43\n12\n22\n40\n41\n68\n13\n7\n26.5\n26.5\n.\n+\n+\n19\n63\n77\n64\n34\n20\n11\n20\n11\n10\n10\n13\n24\n33\n11\n11\n9\n2\n+\n+\n,\n.\n-\n'\n.\n-\n,\n+\n+\n58\n73\n58\n66\n47\n48\n89\n35\n21\n5\n9\n3\n9\n9\n5\n28\n49\n2\n9\n17\n16\n5\n24\n24.\n+\n+\n+\n118\n78\n18\n17\n11\n16\n10\n9\ng\n10\n8\n35\n105\n87\n65\n54\n10\n15\n16\n12\n15\n8\n+\n+\n.\n+\n.\n+\n+\n163\n49\n11\n3\n14\n9\n7\n3\n6\n7\n156\n3\n6\n33\n13\n22.15\n22.5\n+\n+\n212 363\n14\n11\n10\n9\n25\n94\n+\n.\n+\n+\nAPRIL NUMBER\n9\n12\n10\n4\n20.5\n20.5\nAPAIL NUMBER\n+\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n9\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n18.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n56.5\n94.5\n42.5\n90.5\n86.5\n30.5\n30.5\n23.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24.\n24\n22.5\n22.5\nAPAIL\n20.5\nAPAIL\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nAPRIL\nAPAIL\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIE AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTY OF\n0 METERS\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE1000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n£4.5\n96.5\n0.518\n30.5\n0.516 0.520 0.426\n&\n0.473 0.515 0.545 0.550 0.938 0.544 0.533\n28.5\n0.600 0.459 0.944 0.44 0.427 0.477 0.480 0.47H 502 0.523 0.512 0.532\n0.512\n+\n+\n+,\n122-4.504 0.560\n0.402 0.468 0.493 0.423 0.481 0.520 0.531 0.526 01912 act\n26.5\n+\n0.607\n0.646\n197\n0.505\n0.00\n0.503\n586\n0.438 0.450 0.405\n.525\n595\n+\n+\n+\n0.42 0.520 0.772 0.547 593 0.592 0.552 0.522 o. 0.06 0.218 /569 1.523 0.464 0.504 0.972\n24.\nV\n160\n0.434 .596 0.572 0.562 0.558 0.545 0.583 0.156 0.529 0.53) 2.003\n+\nb.839 0.641\n0.431\n0.558\n5.337\n0.555\n5*\n0.575\n0.549\n0.511\n22.5\n+\n+\nD\n0.523 0.545 0.533 0.000 0.535\nAPRIL\n+\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.448 0.519 0.544 0.526 0.544\n20.5\n+\n250 METERS\n0.514 0.509 0.516 0.537\n50-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.\n18.5\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96.5\n1.179\n30.5\n1.179\n1.210 1.185 1.199\n28.5\n1.098 1.115 1.091 1.083 1.111 1.177 1.191 1.175\n1.055\n1.160\n.145\n1.127\n1.20\n1\n152\n1.127\n1.060\n1.078\n1.0.0\n26.5\n237\n421\n1.149\n1.101\n1.202\n1.200\n1.003\n1.086\n1.168\nV\n220 1.200 1.051 1.125 1.225\nis\n145\n232\n1.246\na\n197\n302\n1.072\n24.\n+\n+\n1.159\n1.168 1.238 1.230 1.20% 1.148 1.156\n-\n1.630\n1.0%\n1.110\n1.168\n1.178\n1.159\n1.178\n1.122\n22.\n5\n1.152 1.194 1.171 1/137\n+\n+\n+\nAPAIL\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n.124 1.152\n1.131.1.155\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.106\n.60-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n18.5","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n0\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n30\n80.5\n15\n0\n30\n150\n30.\nV\n15\n400\n-15\n0\n15\n700\n1000\nAPRIL\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n0\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30\nV\n30\n-15\n150\n30\n15\n400\n-15\n700\n1000\nAPRIL\nE-K CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\n40\n10\n150\n-10\n30\n400\n20\n0\n700\n10\n1000\nAPRIL\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 06.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\n150\n10\n400\no\n700\n1000\nAPRIL\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","96.5\n04.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n81: 5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90,5\n00.5\n86.5\n84.5\n02.5\n00.5\n30.5\n30.5\n9\n26\n38\n3\n12\n41\n21\n55\n13\n2\n28.5\n6\n7\n28.5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n$\n31\n100\n4\n34\n28\n18\n54\n38\n63\n33\n67\n9\n2\n6\n6\n21\n$\n10\n+\n+\n1\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n10\n5\n7\n3\n8\n43\ngy\n34\n63\n82\n74\n59\n21\n26.5\n2\n10\n12\n14\n19\n13\n26.5\n10\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n2\n3\n4\n5\n11\n41\n59\n55\n90\n91\n90\n70\n15\n1\n2\n.\n4\n10\n15\n18\n24\n14\n5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n4\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n2\n6\n3\n19\n62\n91\n118\n96\n121\n93\n69\n47\n44\n59\n4\n8\n10\n16\n29\n29\n24.\n9\n24\n1\n.\n+\n2\n2\n2\n5\n.\n4\n17\n9\n45\n136\n117\n67\n51\n171\n65\n59\n2\n3\n13\n19\n21\n15\n13\n6\n+\n+\n+\n+\n.\n+\n2\n2\n3\n3\n7\n181 171 38\n8\n37\n12\n22.5\n22.15\n+\n217 387\nto\n24\n94\nMAY NUMBER\n2\n2\n3\n20.5\n20.5\nMAY NUMBER\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n04.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n42.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n64.5\n02.5\n80.5\n95.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n23.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24\n66\n22.5\n22.5\nMAY\n20.5\nMAY\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n16.5\n18.5\nMAY\nMAY\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nVELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 METERS. M LEVEL.\n0\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 1000.0 M LEVEL.\n0 METERS","82.5\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n90.5\n88.\n96.5\n54.5\n92.5\n0.680\n30.5\n0.557 0.550 0.534\n+\n0.916 0.558 0.573 R20 .015 0.503 0.591\n28.5\n+\n0.634 0.479 0.454 0.495 0.540 0.541 0.528 0.518 0.595 0.548 0.550 0.544 0.561\n0.502\n0.537\nTHE\nrisn 0.623\n0.626 0.50L 0.52\n0.483\n0.532\n26.5\n536\n0.506\n532\n0.523\n0.674\n0.766\n2 0.677\n0.927\n0.526\n-0.47\"\n0.527\nO.\n+\n0.504 0.506 0.605 0.517 0.621 0.609 0.5 0.542 0.542 (0.70) 0.769 0.75 g(601 0.562 0.477 0.522 0.814\n24.\n545\n0.598\n0.534\n0.566\n531\n0.000\n0.609\n0.635\n0.028\n0.557\n0,605\n0.58a 0.640 0.606 0.590 0.568 0.600 0.558\n0.448\n1838 0.959\n22.5\n0.619\n0.451\n0.520 0,002 0.643 0.630\nMAY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.496 0.584 0.577 0.824\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.510 0.520\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.50-01\n-\n18.5\n80.5\n84.5\n82.5\n88.5\n86.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n1.210\n1,218 1.278 1.253\n28.5\n+\n1.156 1.173 1.158 1.238 1.221 1.203 1.177\n+\n+\n1.202\n1.77\n1.1\n1.234 1.112\n26.5\n1.242 1.155 1.1\n1.170\n4\n+\n1.092 1.1 1.22\n1.332 1.24% 1.711 1.171 1.\n1.258\n24\n+\n1.190 1.242 1.80\n1.274 /1.931\\1.278\n1.253\n1/12\n1.251\n1.7\n1.198\n1.143\n1.224\n1.245\n22.\n5\n78\n1.116\n1.210\nMAY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.101\n1.175\n20.5\n1000 METERS\nCONTOUR INTERVAL . .60-01\n18.5","95.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n-30\n-15\n30\n150\n15\n-15\n400\no\n-15\n15\no\n0\no\n700\n1000\nMAY\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n30\n150\n-30\n15\n30\n400\n-15\no\n-15\n15\n700\n1000\nMAY\nE-H CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TC 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n40\n30\n-20\n10\n30\n150\n-10\n20\n-10\n400\n10\n700\n1000\nMAY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n-20\n150\n20\n400\n-10\no\n10\n-10\n700\n10\n1000\nMAY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","82.5\n80.5\n66.5\n84.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\nno.5\n02.5\n84.3\n86.5\n38.5\n901.\nI.\n30.5\n30.5\n28\n40\n8\n5\n28.5\n65\n14\n2\n6\n43\n29\n+\n.\n.\n+\n+\n28.5\n6\n8\n20\n6\n10\n+\n+\n9\n50\n74\n56\n55\n77\n25\n18\n9\n34\n4\n17\n19\n,\n+\n18\n12\n9\n1\n2\n10\n12\n13\n!\n26.5\n+\n67\n24\n84\n85\n47\n43\n33\n73\n10\n3\n14\n11\n3\n24\n26.5\n14\n5\n4\n10\n14\n18\n+\n+\n5\n+\n+\n+\n+\n97\n74\n89\n11C\n52\n131\n70\n7\n3\n3\n4\n2\n3\n+\n,\n28\n8\n9\n16\n29\n+\n56\n58\n24.\n+\n100\n67\n35\n103\n122\n88\n127\n20\n62\n2\n5\n6\n2\n8\nB\n6\n13\n20\n16\na\n24\n-\n+\n63\n56\n55\n176\n114\n52\n45\n135\n8\n5\n19\n8\n5\n6\n3\n5\n+\n5\n28\n9\n22.\n188 141 35\n9\n3\n18\n65\n22.5\n178 307\nV\nJUNE NUMBER\n+\n20.5\nJUNE NUMBER\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n6\n2\n2\n20.5\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nAT 1000 METERS.\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n38.5\n86.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n04.5\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96.5\n30.5\n30.5\n30.5\n29.5\n<4.5\n26.5\n24.\n26.\n22.5\n22.15\nJUNE\n20.5\nJUNE\n10 CM/S\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nJUNE\nGFOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO TME1000.0 M LEVEL.\nJUNE\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEFTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","$6.5\n14.5\n!\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n0.538 0.950 0.574\n+\n+\n28.5\nD.R.O.\n0.806 0.817 0.703 0.668 0.602 0.800\nv\n0.660 0.511 0.52% 0.511 0.551 0.560 0.540 0.519\\0.557 0.612 0.612 0.550 0.581\n+\n0.94h 0.023 0.961 0.502 n/56 0.530 01546 0.540 0.451 709 9,838 0.036 0.517\n26.5\n0.527\n0.558\n0.589\nadid\nU.L.\n000\n0.558\ngood\n0.748\n0.742\n0.694\n0.650\n+\n55.4 0.547 0.056 0.525 0.053 0.61 0.471 0.558 0.379 0.00\n24.\n0\n609 0.565 0.424 0.528 0.624\nU.S.C 0.687 A37 0,657 0.045 0.597 0.009 0.503 0.998 0.95 0,201 0,932\nC23\n0.507 0,65) 0.610 0.524 0.643 O. .400 0.509\n0.436 plan 0.080\n22.5\n0.543 0.550 0.653 0.630 0.610\n0.621\n$70\n+\nJUNE\n0.538 0.601 e.5. 0.543 0.557\n20.5\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n250 METERS\n0.510 0.520\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n1.254 1.352 1.J16\n28.5\n+\n+\n1,191 1.185 1.157 1.315 1.245 1.274 1.185\n+\n+\n1.219.1.233\n1,323\n1.141\n1.166\n1.256\n1.150\n1.160\n26.5\nV\n1.197\n1.252\n1.249\n1.230\n184\n1,211\n$6\n489\n+\nhaz 1.270 1.135 1.174\nsue\n1.290 1.305 1.257 1.701 1.185 20 409\n544\n1.328\n24.9\no-\n201 1.214 I and\n1.321\n1,413\n1\n.209\n1.314\n1.300\n1.253\n251\nto\n1,730\n1.273 1.259\n1.195\n1.223\n1.247\n22.5\n195\n1.133\n1.220\nJUNE\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.143\n1.193\n20.5\n1000 METERS\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n18.5","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n15\n30\n15\n150\n-15\n-15\n15\no\n0\n400\no\no\n700\n1000\nJUNE\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n150\n15\no\n-15\n400\n700\n1000\nJUNE\nE-H CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n20\n20\n10\n150\n10\n10\n0\n400\n700\n1000\nJUNE\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n150\n10\n400\n-10\n10\n700\n0\n1000\nJUNE\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","20.5\n04.5\n72.5\n30.5\n38.\n86.5\n81. 5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.3\n00.00\n30.5\n30.5\n7\n19\n48\n28\n63\n62\n70\n12\n5\n21.5\n.\n28.5\n11\n23\n22\n25\n16\n19\n65\n80\n94\n73\n77\n9\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n.\n,\n+\n+\n+\n7\n10\n16\n7\n8\n+\n+\n+\n+\n2\ny\n27\n13\n26\n41\n44\n56\n77\n110\n69\n73\n21\n25.5\n.\n+\n.\n.\n3\n8\n.\n10\n14\n15\n17\n26.5\n:\n10\n11\n+\n.\n+\n5\n9\n23\n41\n34\n61\n127\n76\n76\n93\n92\n79\n6\n.\n,\n.\n.\n7\n12\n+\n+\n10\n10\n12\n9\n17\n11\n4\n+\n+\n+\n+\n2\n12\n17\n18\n17\n19\n37\n70\n100\n114\n116\n118\n70\n44\n59\n56\n2\n.\n+\n+\n+\n.\n3\n6\n10\n10\n22\n17\n24.\n8\n+\n6\n3\n6\n8\n20\n9\n9\n2\n36\n121\n110\n72\n47\n191\n52\n62\n15\n&\n8\n+\n+\n+\n6\n3\n3\n75\n99\n57\n22.5\n22.5\n13\n,\n8\n10% 184\n34\n9\n7\nJULY NUMBER\n20.5\n2\nJULY NUMBER\n20.5\nOF OBSEAVATION\n9\n2\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.\n80.5\n3r.\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24.\n24.\n22.\n22.15\n20.5\nJULT\n20.5\nJULY\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nJULT\nJULY\nGEOSTPOTHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO TME1000.0 M LEVEL.","30.5\n82.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n0.671 0.839 0.534\n0.075 0.000 0.794 0.729 0.607 0.450\n0.763\n23.5\n561\\0.620\n0.544\n672\n0.648\n0.551\n0.556\n0.566\n0.554\n0.562\n0.553\n0.586\n026 0.521 0.947\n0.154\n758\n0.940\n0.801\n0.502\n0.570\n0.571\n0.\n744\n0.-10\n0.02\n26.5\n712\n0.004 0.1.99\n0.531 0.538 0.609 0.620 0.819 0.590 0.576 U.SP\n6/6\n0.24\n0.453\n0.557\n0.751\n0.001\n0.757\n12.059\n0.621\n0.556\n0.560\n0.601\n0.5%\n0.85\n0.224\n443\n579\n0.630\n586\n0\n24.\nT\n.554 0.633 0.762 0.656 0 110 0.671 0.645 ERO 0.576 0.578 0.018 0.723 0.738 0:503 274\n0.570 10,645 01931\n577 0.613 0.670 a. 57 0.612 0.540 0.615 0.629\n22.\n0.11\n0.575 0 151 0.059 0.625 569\n+\nJULY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.557 C. LLL 0.595 0.558 0.533\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.54L 0.565 0.513\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n.\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n84.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n1.295\n1.968 1.498 1.955\n28.5\n*\n1.310 1.194\n1.172\n1.210\n1.193\n1\n338\n1\n.234\n1.208\n1.186\n6\n325 1.272\n1.176\n1.105\n1.211\n1.207\n1.235\n.223\n1.218\n1.24\n26.5\n+\n1.927\n69\n1.255\nins\n1,228\n1,232\n1.209\n1.181\n+\n1.4g\n307 1.291 1.159 1 169 1.357\n1.232\n1.219\n1.313 1.375.1.257\n1.2%\ne\n24.\n1,405 1.948\n1.303\n373\n1.241\n1,313\n(1,213)\n318\n1.335\n44.\n57\n1.32\no\n1.20\n1.249 1.310 1.275 1.251 1.251 1.257\n22.5\n1.102 .273 1.279 1 243 1.213\n+\nJULY\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.154\n209 1.212\n1.130\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1,173\n60-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.\n18.5","84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n34.5\n92.5\n90.5\n68.5\n86.5\n0\n30\n-15\n15\n150\n15\n15\n-15\n15\n0\no\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nJULY\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/5.\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n0\n30\n150\no\n15\n-15\n400\n-15\n700\no\n1000\nJULY\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","29.5\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n0\n30\n=20\n10\n150\nV\n20\n-10\n400\n700\n1000\nJULY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n29.5\n27.5\n25.5\n23.5\n21.5\n19.5\n0\n30\n-10\n0\n150\n10\n400\n700\n1000\nJULY\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.","82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n96.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n04.5\n32.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n30.5\n30.5\n10 20 148\n+\n31\n59\n61\n45\n6\n6\n2\n28.5\n28.5\n.\n+\n31\n25\n36\n59\n64\n65\n36\n8\n9\n8\n5\nR\n22\n33\n33\n.\n+\n+\n+\n+\n54\n43\n70\n61\n52\n26\n6\n11\nof\n8\n9\n9\n12\n11\n7\n7\n35\n28\n36\n32\n44\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n+\n+\n,\n74\n64\n41\n5\n7\n8\n10\n9\n5\n6\n11\n12\n30\n46\n34\n49\n99\n57\n56\n70\n+\n+\n+\n55\n45\n22\n20\n61\n94\n77\n77\n46\n5\n2\n4\n16\n7\n6\n11\n16\n27\n18\n16\n10\n39\n24.\n24.\n,\n.\n+\n+\n64\n131\n48\n15\n2\n27\n7\n3\n21\n101\n107\n94\n2\n13\n8\n9\n2\n5\n13\n12\n24\n8\n+\n3\n69\n113\n59\n13\n2\n3\n10\n4\n8\n22.5\n22.\n+\n+\n+\n103 148 <\n24\n6\n6\n10\n8\n3\n+\n+\n+\nAUGUST NUMBER\nAUGUST NUMBER\n6\n10\n8\n5\n6\n20.5\n20.5\n+\n+\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n9\n6\nAT 1000 METERS.\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n91.5\n92.5\n90.5\n86.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n36.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n30.5\n29.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24\n24\n22.5\n22.5\nAUGUST\nAUGUST\n20.5\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nAUGUST\nAUGUST\nGEJSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS\n0 METEAS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","82.5\n80.5\n86.5\n04.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n0.707 0.708 0.760\n+\n0.897 0.715 0.112 0.01 11. , 100 0.639 0.019\n0.783\n28.5\nCt..\nO.SA\n0.688\n0.552\n0.663\n0.597 0.620\n0.618\nC. SRA\n0.572\n0.585\n0.08\n0.574\nC\n+\n0.764 0.081-0506 0.610 0.61% 0.653 0.811 9.537\n0.816 0.517\n0.045\n0.414\n4\n26.5\n0.701 0.547 0.511 0.602 0.611 0.537 5.592 0.636 0.693 0.633 0.0AT 0.666\n0.583\nI\n0.105\n0.755\n2766\n0.713\n0.670\n0.617\n0.547\n0.586\n0.654\n0.625\n0.504\n0.825\n0.607\n0,725\n0.673\n0.690\n8.543\n24.\n425\n0.789\n0.658\n0.614\n0/573\n664\n0.643\n0.731\n0.565\n0.829\n0.587\n0.666\n0.637\n0.012\n+\n563 0.631 0.517 .636 0.638 0.639 0.623 0.624\n0.583\n0.505\n.006\n0/935\n22.\n0.64\n0.589-0.595 0.648 0.515 0.595\n+\nAUGUST\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.802 0.536 0.579\n0.60\n0.565\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.552\n0.53)\n556 0.565\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n60-01\n.\n0.458\n18.5\n82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n30.5\n1.333\n1.997 1.451 1.422\n28.5\n437 1.223\n1.234 1.205 1.210 1.203 1.356\n1.225\nD\n+\nAno\n/256 1.252\n1.225\n1.201\n1.24\n1.929\n1.315\n1.249\n1.241\n211\n26.5\n+\n+\n27 1.316\n187\n336\n1.290\n411\n1.221\nhas\n1.290\n122\n1.202\n1.230\n+\n+\n228 1.291 1.150 1.192 196\n1.250\n1,243\n1.453\n1.47\n1.4*7\n1.350\n1.214\n1.296\n1.267\n1.213\n3\n24.\n293\n16\n1.432\n1.389\n115\n1.349\n1.323\n+\n1.225.1.0\n1.257 1.244 1.259\n1,252\n194\n.268\n1.273\n22.5\n233 1.239\n1.204\n1.214\n1.258\nAUGUST\nDINAMIC HEIGHT\n1.189\n.203 1.200\n1.163\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.15 16\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.50-01\n18.5","84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n0\n30\n-15\n15\n30\n150\n-15\n15\no\n15\n400\n700\n1000\nFIG.\nAUGUST\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n15\n150\n15\n-15\no\n400\no\n700\n1000\nAUGUST\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","29.5\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n0\n30\n10\n20\n30\n20\n150\n20\n-10\n10\n400\n10\n700\n1000\nFIG.\nAUGUST\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n150\n10\n-10\n10\n-TO\n-TO\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nAUGUST\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n80.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n86.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n30.5\n30.5\n11 27 144\n+\n39\n60\n64\n56\n5\n8\n28.7\n9\n3\n.\n-\n.\n28.5\n6\n12\n22\n32\n34\n36\n24\n36\n67\n67\n60\n43\n8\n9\n6\n6\n5\n,\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n+\n,\n7\n9\n43\n38\n32\n23\n47\n63\n56\n100\n62\n68\n36\n26.5\n3\n6\n10\n,\n9\n9\n10\n12\n10\n,\n.\n+\n26.5\n+\n+\n5\n11\n14\n37\n40\n32\n58\n30\n63\n00\n88\n100\n74\n40\n5\n7\n8\n10\n13\n7\n6\n7\n6\n9\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n24\n3\n2\n3\n9\n6\n20\n8\n5\n24.\n+\n+\n+\n+\n&\n7\n13\n14\n22\n12\n27\n10\n3\n4\n23\n127\n158\n160\n73\n110\n58\n3\n2\n2\n6\n19\n9\n10\n6\n4\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n,\n+\n+\n+\ne\n7\n4\n7\n9\n8\n4\n2\n138\n162\n63\n22.\n2\n14\n5\n2\n22.\n+\n6\n7\n13\nS\n126 194 N\n7\n26\n+\n+\n+\n+\nSEPTEMBER NUMBER\n7\n9\n8\n13\n7\n20.5\n+\nSEPTEMBER NUMBER\n+\n20.5\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n13\n8\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n2\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METEAS.\n18.5\n18.5\n96.5\n96.5\n34.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n60.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n86.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n60.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24\n24\n22.\n22.5\n20.5\nSEPTEMBER\n20.5\nSEPTEMBER\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nSEPTEMBER\nSEPTEMBER\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A EGPTH OF\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METER3\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 000.0 M LEVEL.","96.5\n92.5\n90.5\n8f.5\n86.5\n84 5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n0.121 0.742 0.800\nD\n0.677 0.725 .778 D. As 0.786 0.64A 0.703\n23.5\n0.780 0.504 0.592 0.575 0.513 0.577 0.599 501 U.S.AH 0.15\n0.566\nU.b.b\n0.745 0.E37 2.852 0.0pm 0.615 0.633 0.812 0.624 101 0.668 0.891 0\n0.631\n26.5\n+\n0.534 0.650 0.612 0.5% 0.607 D. 945 0.574 0.667 c.658 0.673 7.821 a,685 0.674 0.537\n+\nt\n0.582 0.669 0.635 0.849 0.607 598 0.621 0.61 0.590 0.792 0.769 0.731 0.6041 0.609 0.546 0.616 0.742\n24.\n915 0.093 0.710 0.672 0.653 0.674 0 452 0.856 0.622 0.033 0.043 0.752 0,010 0.855 0.771 192\n2\n+\n607 0.652 0.620 0.638 0.535 0.001 0.629 0.617\n0.622 0.6% a,845 0.936\n22.\n+\n+\n0.661 6/904 0.327\n0.541\n569\n0.633 0.506 0.519\n+\n+\n+\nSEPTEMBER\n0.646 0.570 0.567 0.59 0.580\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n250 METERS\n0.417\n0.573 0.577 0.561 0.565\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n50-01\n0.484\n18.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88,5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n1.348 1.362\n1.411 1.449 1.434\n28.5\n1.228\n1.240 1.182 1.218 1.212 1.30\n19 1.206\n1.911\n1.304\n1.200\n1.243\n1.255\n1.210\n1.227\n1.294\n336\n226\n26.5\n1.279\n192\n1.211\n1.225\n1.212\n1.165\n290\n1.292\n1.299\n1\n+\nv\n1.333\n1.286\n1.23\n1.232\n1.205\n1.252\n1\n280\n1.336\n1423\n1,516\n1.455\n,347 1.263 1.143 1.224 1.432\n24.\n1.323 1.382 1,949 1 347 1.279 1.291 1.905\n500\n1.335\n1.34\n412\n532\n5.231\n1.319\n1.215\n1.254\n1.250\n1\n247\n1.280\n22.\n1.256 389 1.25 1 225 1.274\nSEPTEMBER\n1.233 1.160 1.176 182\n194\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.173 1.164\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n.50-01\n18.5","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n45\n-15\n15\n30\n150\n0\n15\n400\n0\n700\n1000\nSEPTEMBER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n85.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\nC\n30\n-30\n30\n15\n150\n-15\n-15\n400\no\n700\n1000\nSEPTEMBER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITI. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","29.5\n27.5\n25.5\n23.5\n21.5\n19.5\n0\n30\n-10\n30\n20\n150\n20\n20\n-10\n400\n10\n700\n1000\nSEPTEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nMELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CH/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n-10\n10\n150\n-10\n-10\n400\n700\n1000\nSEPTEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE 10 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS S.C CM/S.","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n30.5\n,\n18\n150\n29\n31\n29\n43\n5\n4\n28.5\n28.5\n9\n12\n13\n40\n41\n37\n27\n34\nso\n64\n48\n39\n5\n.\n+\n+\n+\n8\n12\n27\n31\n22\n19\n31\n45\n45\n66\n63\n50\n29\n26.5\n5\n26.5\n+\n+\n+\n5\n8\n7\n19\n25\n12\n40\n24\nsa\n67\n68\n84\n59\n30\n6\n3\n+\n+\n+\n+\n.\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n3\n14\n8\n18\n9\n19\n6\n23\n42\n49\n69\n78\n92\n38\n34\n28\n24\n24\n2\nu\n14\n6\n2\n24\n+\n.\n+\n+\na\n3\n12\n14\n21\n12\n14\n10\n8\n7\n27\n10)\n119\n142\n74\n170\n29\n5\n12\n6\n,\n7\n2\n+\n+\n+\n+\n1-11\n7\n5\n6\n7\n6\n8\n3\n153\n153\n36\n22.5\n2\n10\n22\n+\n+\nS\n10\n4\n116 207\nA\n21\n+\nOCTOBER NUMBER\n5\n6\n13\n6\n20.5\n20.5\nOCTOBER NUMBER\n+\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\n6\n6\n2\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METEAS.\n18.5\n18.5\n80.5\n96.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n85.5\n84.5\n82.5\n94.5\n92.5\n60.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n20.5\n26.5\n24.\n22.9\n22\nOCTOBER\n20.5\nOCTOBER\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n-\n-\n18.5\n18.5\nOCTOBER\nOCTOBER\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES ARE VELOCITIES COMPUTED AT RELATIVE A DEFTH TO OF THE 1000.0 0 METERS M LEVEL.\nGE TROPHIC VELOCITIES at A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","80.5\n82.5\n81.5\n86.\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n£4.5\nin 3\n30.5\n0.668 0.793 0.762\n0.124 0.181 ⑈.4 4.73 11,025 0.705\n28.5\n0.601\n0.767 0.699 0.579 0.565 0.608 0.579 0.592 0.589\n(\n7\n0.611\n,992\n0.035 0.025 0.620 0.018 0.812 U.S.N\n0.002\n641\n0.519\n0.736\n26.5\n0.595\nalamy\nand\n0.657\n0.850\n0.614\n0.563\nstresses\n0.5\n0.58\nO.\n+\n0.623\n0.576\n0.615\n0.732 0.734 D. (10 0.502 0.538 0.603 0.708\n519 0.648 0.554 0.643 0.512 0.570 0.1503 0.615 0.60f 0.542\n.60\n24.\n7FB 413\n0.613 0.655 0.713 0.674 0.875 0.058 0.052 0.827 0.641 0.612 0.042 C 795 0.050 0.852 02756\n(\n0.654 0.914\n0.590\n0.00\n902 0.627 0.564 0.625 0.622 0.635 0.630 0 508\n22.\n0.693 0,086\n0.524 0.635\n0.832\n0.155\n0.655\nOCTOBER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.657 0.147 0.513 0.583 b,603\n20.5\n250 METERS\n1\np.567 0.560 0.585 0.603\n.50-01\n0.47\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.\n0.530 0.580\n18.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n92.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n1.415\n1.372 1.396 1.484 1.457\n28.5\n1.193 1.208 1.209 249\n41 1.203\n1.221\n1.220\n1.00\n1.21\n237\n1.330\n1.293\n1.197\n1.274\n1.235\n26.5\n+\nT\nat\nst\n.279\n1.240\n1.215\n1.205\n(1.27)\n1.199\n221\nV\n+\n226 1.145 231 1.410\n55\n461\n1,500\n1.225\n1.206\n1.278 1.317\n298\n1.233\n1.233\n1.275\n24.\neh\n1.275\n1.27\n1,319\nA37\n1.375\n1.208\n32\n58\n1.26\n1.30\n354\n1.313\n145\n254 1.260 1.272 1,295\nwas\n5.216\n1.27%\n22.\n1.21 1.298\n1.27 188\n1.\nOCTOBER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n1.155\n12\n1.16\n1.243\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.187 134\nCONTOUR INTERVAL . 50-01\n18.5","96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n80.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n0\n30\n30\n15\n45\n150\n30\n-15\n15\n15\n400\no\n700\n1000\nOCTOBER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 23.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n95.5\n94.5\n32.5\n90.5\n85.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n0\n80.5\n30\n30\n150\n15\n15\n400\no\n700\n1000\no\nOCTOBER\nE-W CROSS SECTION FOR V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE 25.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE NORTH\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n30\n30\n30\n20\n20\n20\n150\n-10\n10\nTO\n20\n400\n10\n700\n-10\n1000\nOCTOBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nYELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n0\n30\n150\n-10\n400\n-10\n700\n1000\nOCTOBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","82.5\n80.5\n68,5\n86.5\n84.5\n92.5\n90.5\n96.5\n94.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n90.5\n88.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n2\n15\n49\n23\n23\n19\n37\n4\n28.5\n28.5\n+\n39\n2\n45\n59\n43\n17\n17\n20\n25\n9\n9\n38\n30\n+\n,\n+\n+\n1\n42\n60\n36\n41\n29\n26.5\n8\n14\n23\n17\n18\n6\n13\n20\n26.9\n2\n2\n2\n2\n52\n78\n31\n+\n16\n5\n24\n13\n35\n48\n5\n2\n12\n11\n+\n3\n2\n3\n6\n77\n87\n29\n29\n23\n23\n34\n36\n52\n24.\n6\n3\n8\n6\n16\n7\n20\n24.\n+\n+\n+\n2\n10\n3\n10\n4\n54\n231\n17\n+\n101\n103\n115\n13\n8\n7\n24\n9\n10\n6\n4\n5\n+\n+\n2\n122\n31\n2\n135\n22.5\n5\n6\n8\n6\n3\nB\n7\n22.5\n6\n21\nAC\n95\n182\n2\nNOVEMBER NUMBER\nNOVEMBER NUMBER\n3\n20.5\n,\n11\n20.5\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nAT 1000 METERS.\nAT 250 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\nB(\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n88.5\n80.5\n86.5\n84.5\n62.5\n90.5\n88.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n28.5\n26.5\n26.5\n24.\n24.\n22.5\n22.5\nNOVEMBER\n20.5\nNOVEMBER\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nNOVEMBER\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nNOVEMBER\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE1000.0 M LEVEL.\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\n0 METERS.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n15.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96.5\n30.5\n0.620 0.744 0 0.563\n0.845 0.00 O /42 0.710 0.005 0.165\n28.5\n6.753 0.537 0.534 0.550 0.575 0.545 0.556 O. 0.626 0 549 9.477 0.570 0.595\nn.sev 0.620\n0.01. 0.583 .825 690 0.654 0.511\n2.734 0.506\n26.5\n0.529\n0.585\n0.502 0.5% 0,540 0.578 0.618 0,559 2.695 nea\nC.R23 0.501\nwg\n+\n0.553 0.585 0.117\nd.776\n0.100\n0.612\n1.5.5\n0.598\n0.567\n0.582\n6.869\n+\n5:9 0.648 0.623\nTHE\n0.621\n0.506\n24.\n335\n0.939\n3.329 0.709 0.501 0.658 0.817 0.842 0.635 0.00 0.052 758 863\n313 0.855\n(+)\n0.552\n0.642 0.635 0.630 0.581\n0.653\n0.641\n0.644\n22\n0.71 0,887\n0/669\n0.55\n0,572\n0.547\n0.602\nNOVEMBER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.601 0.541 0.535 0.575 0.609\n20.5\n+\n250 METERS\n0.624 0.581 0.570 0.576 0.618\n60-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.\n0.555 0.580\n18.5\n80.5\n84.5\n82.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n96.5\n94.5\n30.5\n1.363\n1.294 1334 1.437 1.371\n+\n28.5\n1.932\n1.170 1.177 1.181 2.27\n1.168\n1,227\n1,259\n1.234\n113\n1.295\n1.206\n1.166\nin\n1.212\n1.169\n1.150\n<\n26.5\n+\n+\n1.228\n1.201\n1.157\n1.205\n1.29\n1.242\n1.255\n1.282\n1476 191 1.173 1.217 1.404\n,\n252 1.228 1.250 1.901\n89\n1.171\n1.278 1.270\n.275\n24.\nT\n438 1,136\n1.285 1.205 1.297 1 255 1.224 231\n813\n1.414\n1,450\n32\nS\n1.282\n1.724\nwas 1.269 1,240\n234\n1.303\n1.24\n1.296\n22.\n5\n105\n1.212 /335\no\n1.775\n210\nNOVEMBER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n16 1,250\n1.150 1.098\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.101 142\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n$0-01\n18.5","82.5\n80.5\n88.5\n35.5\n84.5\n90.5\n94.5\n92.5\n38.5\n0\n30\n60\n30\n45\n30\n30\n-30\n150\n30\n15\n15\n15\n400\n15\n-15\n0\no\n700\n1000\nNOVEMBER V COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 23.5.\nE-W VELOCITIES CROSS SECTION ARE COMPUTED FOR RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n85.5\n80.5\n92.5\n#\n96.5\n34.5\n0\n45\n30\n150\n30\n30\n.\n400\n15\n-15\n-15\n15\n0\n700\no\n1000\nSECTION NOVEMBER FOR V COMPONENT OF GESSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LATITUDE DENOTE NORTH 25.5.\nE-W VELOCITIES CROSS ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","25.5\n27.5\n29.5\n19.5\n21.5\n23.5\n0\nLIMIT\n30\n30\n20\n-20\n50\n150\n10\n40\n20\n-TO\n400\n30\n10\n700\n20\n10\n1000\nNOVEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITT AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED HELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n29.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n19.5\n21.5\n0\n30\n-20\n150\n-10\n20\n400\n-10\no\n700\n1000\nNOVEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITT. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.","96.5\n94.5\n02.5\n90.5\n118.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n00.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n68.5\n86.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n30.5\n30.5\n2\n6\n21\n13\n6\n15\n2\n2\n28.5\n28.5\n.\n+\n+\n+\n3\n23\n66\n53\n24\n11\n19\n28\n30\n38\n31\n29\n:\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n4\n19\n15\n10\n16\n8\n10\n16\n22\n23\n18\n16\n16\n26.5\n26.5\n+\n12\n3\n11\n4\n7\n16\n25\n22\n47\n23\n6\n,\n+\n+\n+\n+\n+\n9\n2\n12\n6\n3\n22\n15\n42\n55\n52\n29\n93\n35\n16\n2\n24.\n24.5\n+\n2\n5\n14\n7\n5\n15\n65\n61\n43\n33\n211\n8\n5\n5\n.\n.\n5\n6\n58\n56\n17\n6\n22.\"\n22.5\n+\n+\n67 138\n7\n20\nDECEMBER NUMBER\nDECEMBER NUMBER\n20,5\n20.5\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nOF OBSERVATIONS\nAT 250 METERS.\nAT 1000 METERS.\n18.5\n18.5\n85.5\n84.5\n82.5\n80.5\n86.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n83.5\n96.5\n94.5\n92.5\n90.5\n38.5\n84.5\nDC.J\n...\n30.5\n30.5\n28.5\n23.5\n25.5\n26.5\n24.\n24\n22.5\n22.j5\nDECEMBER\nDECEMBER\n20.5\n20.5\n10 CM/S\n10 CM/S\n18.5\n18.5\nDECEMBER\nDECEMBER\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH OF\nGEOSTROPHIC VELOCITIES AT A DEPTH CF\n0 METERS\n0 METERS\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE1000.0 M LEVEL.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO THE 250.0 M LEVEL.","80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n38.5\n90.5\n94.5\n92.5\n96.5\n30.5\n0.620 0.502 0.532\n0.540 0.563 0.635 578 0.957 0.58% 0.763\n+\n+\n28.5\n0.571\n0.556\n0.558\n0.584\n0.564\n0.509\n0.536\n0.97\n0.505\n0.493\n0.499\n0.655\n0.503\n1\nc.ene 0.606\n1.526\n0.582\n0.005\n0.534\n0.580\n0.203\n0.835\n530\n0.529\n0.4:\n26.5\n0.627 0.626\n0.580\n0.868\n0.705\n0.534\n0.509\n0.575\n0.650\n0.506\n527\n0.453\n0.48\n+\n0.0-15\n0.800\nO.\n555\nand\n0.673\n653\n0.505\n0.555 0.57\n0,672\n0.5%\n0.566\n0.63\n0.595\n0.587\n3.563\n24.\n0.535\n745\n0.132\n2018\n0.576\n0.448\n0.075\n0.575\n0.586\n0.548\n0.577\n0.6.0\n0,727\nb.875 0.003\nO.\n563 0.503 0.027 0.044 0.581 0,646 0.581 0.565\n22.\nin\n0.696 0.866 0.443\n0.496\n0.541 0.589\n0.562\n447\nDECEMBER\nDYNAMIC HEIGHT\n0.475 0.492 0.527 a 553\n20.5\n+)\n+\n+\n250 METERS\n123 0.537 0.598\n0.485\n.50-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL .\n0.555 0.562\n18.5\n80.5\n82.5\n84.5\n86.5\n88.5\n90.5\n92.5\n94.5\n96.5\n30.5\n1.248\n1.207 1.300 1.291 1.172\n28.5\n1.194\n1,126\n1.200\n1.3\n1.133\n1.159\n1.146\n1.129\n8.325\n1.143 1.149 1.145 1.10\n1.153 1.155 1.111\n+\n26.5\n+\n1.560\n1.232\n1.\n1.182\n1.166\n172\n+\n1.244\n1.194\n1.125\n1.107\n+\n284 .264 1.235 1.297\n1.974\n1.301\n1,207\n1.310\n844\n210\n.265\n1.240\nin\n1\n1.228\n1.284\n1.213\n1.251\n24.\n1\n1.190\n1,425\n245 1.205 1.205\n1.\n1.309\n331 1.724\nJub#\n239 1.239 1/190\n1.190 1.234 1.983 1.230\n22.\n+\n1.173 1,117 1.153 1.172 1.182\no\nDECEMBER\nDYNAMIL HEIGHT\n1.066 1.0N 1.115 1. 175\n20.5\n1000 METERS\n1.070/0,074\n.50-01\nCONTOUR INTERVAL\n.\n18.5","90.5\n86.5\n80.5\n35.5\n92.5\n84.\n82\n85\n94\n5\n5\n5\n5\n0\n30\n60\n30\n-15\n150\n45\n30\n30\n15\n400\n15\n-15\no\n700\n1000\nDECEMBER\nE-H\nVELOCITT.\n5.0\nis\n96.5\n92.5\n00.5\n83.5\n84.5\n82.5\n30.5\n94,\n85\n5\n30\n150\n400\n-15\n700\n-15\n1000\nDECEMBER\n25.5.\nE-W\nNORTH\nVELOCITY.\nTHE","29.5\n23.5\n25.5\n27.5\n19.5\n21.5\nof\n30\n10\n20\n150\n400\n10\n700\n-10\n1000\nDECEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITT AT LONGITUDE 86.5.\nVELOCITIES HRC CMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S.\n29.5\n27.5\n25.5\n23.5\n21.5\n19.5\n0\n30\n150\n20\n-20\n400\n-10\n10\n-10.\n10\n700\n-10\n1000\nDECEMBER\nN-S CROSS SECTION FOR U COMPONENT OF GEOSTROPHIC VELOCITY AT LONGITUDE 94.5.\nVELOCITIES ARE COMPUTED RELATIVE TO 1000 M LEVEL. HEAVY LINES DENOTE EAST\nVELOCITY. THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5.0 CM/S."]}