Fig. 1. Slocum Glider (kg557) taken right before flying along the NIFS 106 line on August 7, 2017.
Fig. 3. Longitude (blue) and Latitude (black) GPS position of the underwater glider in time. Blue lines denote longitudinal location of the NIFS 106 stations.
Fig. 4. Zonal sections of potential temperature (a), salinity (b), and meridional absolute geostrophic velocity (c) along the offshore-bound glider trajectory. The contour intervals are 1.0℃ in (a) and 0.1 g/kg in (b). The black straight lines in (a) and (b) show the stations of the NIFS 106 line. Unit in (c) is cm/s.
Fig. 5. Same as Fig. 4 but along the onshore-bound glider trajectory.
Fig. 6. Zonal sections of potential temperature (a) and salinity (b) along the NIFS 106 line obtained from the shipboard CTD measurements from Aug. 13 to Aug. 14 which are interpolated with the cubic spline method in 2 km x 1 m bin. The contour intervals are 1℃ in (a) and 0.1 g/kg in (b). The black straight lines denote the stations of the NIFS 106 line.
Fig. 8. Depth-averaged velocities estimated by glider trajectories. Blue lines present meridional components and red ones are zonal components. Dotted lines denote original data and solid lines are the data after removing linear trends between 150 km and 180 km in zonal distance.
Fig. 9. Vertical profiles of potential temperature (a), salinity (b), and potential density (c) inside (red) and outside of Keddy (black).
Fig. 10. First baroclinic Rossby deformation radii estimated from the glider hydrographic measurements along the offshore-bound trajectory.
Fig. 2. (a) Offshore-bound trajectory of the underwater glider. Open circles denote the stations of the NIFS 106 line. The black arrow presents the location where Keddy was detected by the glider (b) Onshore-bound glider trajectory. (c) A map of Sea surface height anomaly (unit: meter) composited with multi-satellite measurements from Aug. 9 to Aug. 15, 2017 (http://marine.coperinicus.eu). Black dots denote the glider GPS positions.
Fig. 7. (a) Zonal sections of potential temperature in Fig. 4 (a) zoomed in between 150 km and 180 km in zonal distance. White lines show meridional absolute geostrophic velocity. (b) Absolute geopotential heights estimated from the glider measurements. Black contours denote the Gaussian geopotential model fitted into the glider observation. (c) Azimuthal cyclo-geostrophic velocity (unit: cm/s). Black straight lines present the locations where the maximum velocities appear.
References
- Chelton, D.B., R.A. Deszoeke, M.G. Schlax, K. El Naggar and N. Siwertz, 1998. Geographical variability of the first baroclinic Rossby radius of deformation. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 28(3): 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028<0433:GVOTFB>2.0.CO;2
- Collins, C.A., L.M. Ivanov, O.V. Melnichenko and N. Garfield, 2004. California Undercurrent variability and eddy transport estimated from RAFOS float observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 109(C5).
- D'Asaro, E.A., 1988. Generation of submesoscale vortices: A new mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 93(C6): 6685-6693. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC06p06685
- Gordon, A.L., E. Shroyer and V.S.N. Murty, 2017. An Intrathermocline Eddy and a tropical cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Scientific Reports, 7, 46218. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46218
- Hickey, B.M., 1979. The California current system-hypotheses and facts. Progress in Oceanography, 8(4): 191-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6611(79)90002-8
- Huyber, A., J.A. Barth, P.M. Kosro, R.K. Shearman and R.L. Smith, 1998. Upper-ocean water mass characteristics of the California Current, summer 1993. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45(8-9): 1411-1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(98)80002-7
- Kunze, E., 1995. Quantifying salt-fingering fluxes in the ocean. Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 94: 313-320.
- Lee, C.M., L.N. Thomas and Y. Yoshikawa, 2006. Intermediate Water formation: AT THE JAPAN/EAST SEA SUBPOLAR FRONT. Oceanography, 19(3): 110-121. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2006.48
- McDougall, T.J., 1988. Some implications of ocean mixing for ocean modelling. In Elsevier oceanography series. Elsevier, 46: 21-35.
- McGillicuddy, D.J., 2015. Formation of intrathermocline lenses by eddy-wind interaction. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 45(2): 606-612. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-14-0221.1
- McGillicuddy, D.J., L.A. Anderson, N.R. Bates, T. Bibby, K.O. Buesseler, C.A. Carlson, C.S. Davis, C. Ewart, P.G. Falkowski, S.A. Goldthwait, D.A. Hansell, W.J. Jenkins, R. Johnson, V.K. Kosnyrev, J.R. Ledwell, Q.P. Li, D.A. Siegel and D.K. Steinberg, 2007. Eddy/wind interactions stimulate extraordinary mid-ocean plankton blooms. Science, 316(5827): 1021-1026. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136256
- McWilliams, J.C., 1985. Submesoscale, coherent vortices in the ocean. Reviews of Geophysics, 23(2): 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG023i002p00165
- Park, J.J., 2013. Underwater glider: Its applicability in the East/Japan Sea. Ocean and Polar Research, 35(2): 107-121. https://doi.org/10.4217/OPR.2013.35.2.107
- Pelland, N.A., C.C. Eriksen and C.M. Lee, 2013. Subthermocline eddies over the Washington continental slope as observed by Seagliders, 2003-09. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 43(10): 2025-2053. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-086.1
- Rudnick, D.L. and S.T. Cole, 2011. On sampling the ocean using underwater gliders. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 116(C8).
- Schmitt, R.W., 1995. The ocean's salt fingers. Scientific American, 272(5): 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0595-70
- Shin, H.R., C.W. Shin, C. Kim, S.K. Byun and S.C. Hwang, 2005. Movement and structural variation of warm eddy WE92 for three years in the western East/Japan Sea. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 52(11-13): 1742-1762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2004.10.004
- Spall, M.A., 1995. Frontogenesis, subduction, and cross-front exchange at upper ocean fronts. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 100(C2): 2543-2557. https://doi.org/10.1029/94JC02860
- Steinberg, J.M., N.A. Pelland and C.C. Eriksen, 2018. Observed evolution of a California Undercurrent eddy. Journal of Physical Oceanography, (2018).
- Thomas, L.N. and C.M. Lee, 2005. Intensification of ocean fronts by down-front winds. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 35(6): 1086-1102. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO2737.1
- Thomas, L.N., 2008. Formation of intrathermocline eddies at ocean fronts by wind-driven destruction of potential vorticity. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, 45(3-4): 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2008.02.002
- Thomson, R.E. and M.V. Krassovski, 2015. Remote alongshore winds drive variability of the California Undercurrent off the British Columbia-Washington coast. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120(12): 8151-8176. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011306
- Todd, R.E., D.L. Rudnick, M.R. Mazloff, R.E. Davis and B.D. Cornuelle, 2011. Poleward flows in the southern California Current System: Glider observations and numerical simulation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 116(C2).
- Webb, D.C., P.J. Simonetti and C.P. Jones, 2001. SLOCUM: An underwater glider propelled by environmental energy. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 26(4): 447-452. https://doi.org/10.1109/48.972077