On theoretical wind speed and temperature profiles over the sea with applications to data from sable island, Nova Scotia

Abstract

In October 1985, the Boundary‐Layer Research Division of the Atmospheric Environment Service conducted an experiment on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, where 10‐m wind measurements were made at a number of locations. Wind data were also collected at 4 levels on one of the 10‐m masts and at 6 levels on a 26‐m mast, both located on the South Beach. Other data used in the present study consisted of air temperature measured at 9 m and sea temperature measured at the beach. The theory for wind speed and temperature profiles over the sea is reviewed. A method of deriving over‐sea profile parameters (u_*, θ_*, Z₀, L) from wind data at one level and the air‐sea temperature difference is described. The method is limited to applications either over homogeneous open ocean or, provided measurements are taken above the internal boundary layer generated by the change of roughness at the coastline, over a flat beach (without coastal orography). The heights at which the method is applied must be within the surface layer which must not have any discontinuities in wind speed or temperature in the vertical, such as are often associated with inversion layers. An application to data collected at beach sites in onshore flow during the October 1985 experiment is illustrated. Once the above parameters are obtained, theoretical wind profiles may be computed and compared with observed profiles. In order to make a proper comparison it is essential to account for internal boundary layers generated at the shoreline by the step‐change in surface roughness. Only the data measured above the internal boundary layer are representative of over‐sea conditions and may, therefore, be used for verifying the theoretical profiles. The agreement between calculated and measured data is generally very good. One complication, however, is a slight upstream‐blockage effect due to a 7‐m high dune located about 140 m downwind of the 26‐m mast. Estimates of the magnitude of this effect partially account for small discrepancies in the results at the 26‐ and 10‐m mast locations. An estimation of the most probable errors in the calculated parameters, based on assumed measurement errors, is included in the computer program. Results suggest that small measurement errors can explain the above discrepancies.