Seasonality of the submesoscale dynamics in the Gulf Stream region

Frontogenesis and frontal instabilities in the mixed layer are known to be important processes in the formation of submesoscale features. We study the seasonality of such processes in the Gulf Stream (GS) region. To approach this problem, a realistic simulation with the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model is integrated for 18 months at two horizontal resolutions: a high-resolution (1/48°) simulation able to resolve part of the submesoscale regime and the full range of mesoscale dynamics, and a coarser resolution (1/12°) case, in which submesoscales are not resolved. Results provide an insight into submesoscale dynamics in the complex GS region. A clear seasonal cycle is observed, with submesoscale features mostly present during winter. The submesoscale field is quantitatively characterized in terms of deviation from geostrophy and 2D dynamics. The limiting and controlling factor in the occurrence of submesoscales appears to be the depth of the mixed layer, which controls the reservoir of available potential energy available at the mesoscale fronts that are present most of the year. Atmospheric forcings are the main energy source behind submesoscale formation, but mostly indirectly through mixed layer deepening. The mixed layer instability scaling suggested in the (Fox-Kemper et al., J Phys Oceanogr 38:1145–1165, 2008) parametrization appears to hold, indicating that the parametrization is appropriate even in this complex and mesoscale dominated area

A Framework for Validation and Benchmarking of Pyroclastic Current Models

Numerical models of pyroclastic currents are widely used for fundamental research and for hazard and risk modeling that supports decision-making and crisis management. Because of their potential high impact, the credibility and adequacy of models and simulations needs to be assessed by means of an established, consensual validation process. To define a general validation framework for pyroclastic current models, we propose to follow a similar terminology and the same methodology that was put forward by Oberkampf and Trucano (Prog Aerosp Sci, 38, 2002) for the validation of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes designed to simulate complex engineering systems. In this framework, the term validation is distinguished from verification (i.e., the assessment of numerical solution quality), and it is used to indicate a continuous process, in which the credibility of a model with respect to its intended use(s) is progressively improved by comparisons with a suite of ad hoc experiments. The methodology is based on a hierarchical process of comparing computational solutions with experimental datasets at different levels of complexity, from unit problems (well-known, simple CFD problems), through benchmark cases (complex setups having well constrained initial and boundary conditions) and subsystems (decoupled processes at the full scale), up to the fully coupled natural system. Among validation tests, we also further distinguish between confirmation (comparison of model results with a single, well-constrained dataset) and benchmarking (inter-comparison among different models of complex experimental cases). The latter is of particular interest in volcanology, where different modeling approaches and approximations can be adopted to deal with the large epistemic uncertainty of the natural system