Cynthia Evelyn Bluteau

We provide best practices for estimating the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, ε, from velocity measurements in an oceanographic context. These recommendations were developed as part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 “Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing”. The recommendations here focus on velocity measurements that enable fitting the inertial subrange of wavenumber velocity spectra. The method examines the measurable range for this method of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. The recommendations are intended to be platform-independent since the velocities may be measured using bottom-mounted platforms, platforms mounted beneath the ice, or platforms directly on mooring lines once the data is motion-decontaminated. The procedure for preparing the data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, along with the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε during data archiving. The methods are applied to four “benchmark” datasets covering different flow regimes and two instrument types (acoustic-Doppler and time of travel). Problems associated with velocity data quality, such as phase-wrapping, spikes, measurement noise, and frame interference, are illustrated with examples drawn from the benchmarks. Difficulties in resolving and identifying the inertial subrange are also discussed, and recommendations on how these issues should be identified and flagged during data archiving are provided.

We provide best practices for estimating the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, ε, from velocity measurements in an oceanographic context. These recommendations were developed as part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 "Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing". The recommendations here focus on velocity measurements that enable fitting the inertial subrange of wavenumber velocity spectra. The method examines the measurable range for this method of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. The recommendations are intended to be platform-independent since the velocities may be measured using bottom-mounted platforms, platforms mounted beneath the ice, or platforms directly on mooring lines once the data is motion-decontaminated. The procedure for preparing the data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, along with the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε during data archiving. The methods are applied to four 'benchmark' datasets covering different flow regimes and two instrument types (acoustic-Doppler and time of travel). Problems associated with velocity data quality, such as phase-wrapping, spikes, measurement noise, and frame interference, are illustrated with examples drawn from the benchmarks. Difficulties in resolving and identifying the inertial subrange are also discussed, and recommendations on how these issues should be identified and flagged during data archiving are provided.

We provide best practices for estimating the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, ε, from velocity measurements in an oceanographic context. These recommendations were developed as part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 "Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing". The recommendations here focus on velocity measurements that enable fitting the inertial subrange of wavenumber velocity spectra. The method examines the measurable range for this method of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. The recommendations are intended to be platform-independent since the velocities may be measured using bottom-mounted platforms, platforms mounted beneath the ice, or platforms directly on mooring lines once the data is motion-decontaminated. The procedure for preparing the data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, along with the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε during data archiving. The methods are applied to four 'benchmark' datasets covering different flow regimes and two instrument types (acoustic-Doppler and time of travel). Problems associated with velocity data quality, such as phase-wrapping, spikes, measurement noise, and frame interference, are illustrated with examples drawn from the benchmarks. Difficulties in resolving and identifying the inertial subrange are also discussed, and recommendations on how these issues should be identified and flagged during data archiving are provided.

We provide best practices for estimating the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, ε, from velocity measurements in an oceanographic context. These recommendations were developed as part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 "Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing". The recommendations here focus on velocity measurements that enable fitting the inertial subrange of wavenumber velocity spectra. The method examines the measurable range for this method of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. The recommendations are intended to be platform-independent since the velocities may be measured using bottom-mounted platforms, platforms mounted beneath the ice, or platforms directly on mooring lines once the data is motion-decontaminated. The procedure for preparing the data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, along with the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε during data archiving. The methods are applied to four 'benchmark' datasets covering different flow regimes and two instrument types (acoustic-Doppler and time of travel). Problems associated with velocity data quality, such as phase-wrapping, spikes, measurement noise, and frame interference, are illustrated with examples drawn from the benchmarks. Difficulties in resolving and identifying the inertial subrange are also discussed, and recommendations on how these issues should be identified and flagged during data archiving are provided.

We provide best practices for estimating the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy, ε, from velocity measurements in an oceanographic context. These recommendations were developed as part of the Scientific Committee on Oceanographic Research (SCOR) Working Group #160 "Analyzing ocean turbulence observations to quantify mixing". The recommendations here focus on velocity measurements that enable fitting the inertial subrange of wavenumber velocity spectra. The method examines the measurable range for this method of dissipation rates in the ocean, seas, and other natural waters. The recommendations are intended to be platform-independent since the velocities may be measured using bottom-mounted platforms, platforms mounted beneath the ice, or platforms directly on mooring lines once the data is motion-decontaminated. The procedure for preparing the data for spectral estimation is discussed in detail, along with the quality control metrics that should accompany each estimate of ε during data archiving. The methods are applied to four 'benchmark' datasets covering different flow regimes and two instrument types (acoustic-Doppler and time of travel). Problems associated with velocity data quality, such as phase-wrapping, spikes, measurement noise, and frame interference, are illustrated with examples drawn from the benchmarks. Difficulties in resolving and identifying the inertial subrange are also discussed, and recommendations on how these issues should be identified and flagged during data archiving are provided.

Many turbulence estimates require fitting model forms, typically nonlinear expressions, to observations that have been converted into spectra. Choosing a fitting method usually depends on user preference, such as calculation ease under the spectra's presumed statistical nature or reducing computation demands when turbulence quantities must be estimated onboard expendable instruments. Six different methods are assessed by fitting a known model against synthetic spectra with variability generated from two different statistical distributions. The assessment uses an inertial subrange model to estimate the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate from velocity spectra. However, the results and conclusions are relevant to fitting other turbulence inertial subrange models that follow a power law where is the spectral slope and contains the sought‐after turbulence parameter. The two most accurate methods require linearizing the spectral observations by taking the logarithm of the wavenumbers and the dependent spectra power density . These methods are less sensitive to outliers and deviations of the observations from a known statistical distribution. Some methods returned that deviated from the prescribed value by more than 50% depending on the number of samples fitted and the level of uncertainty of the spectra. Methods for estimating the spectral slope, , were also assessed to provide recommendations on using this parameter to flag data which deviates from the expected form so that the spectra (or wavenumbers) can be excluded from further analysis.

The St. Lawrence Estuary connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean. The accepted view, based on summer conditions, is that the estuary's surface layer receives its nutrient supply from vertical mixing processes. This mixing is caused by the estuarine circulation and tides interacting with the topography at the head of the Laurentian Channel. During winter when ice forms, historical process-based studies have been limited in scope. Winter monitoring has been typically confined to vertical profiles of salinity and temperature as well as near-surface water samples collected from a helicopter for nutrient analysis. In 2018, however, the Canadian Coast Guard approved a science team to sample in tandem with its ice-breaking and ship escorting operations. This opportunistic sampling provided the first winter turbulence observations, which covered the largest spatial extent ever measured during any season within the St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The nitrate enrichment from tidal mixing resulted in an upward nitrate flux of about 30 nmol m⁻² s⁻¹, comparable to summer values obtained at the same tidal phase. Further downstream, deep nutrient-rich water from the gulf was mixed into the subsurface nutrient-poor layer at a rate more than an order of magnitude smaller than at the head. These fluxes were compared to the nutrient load of the upstream St. Lawrence River. Contrary to previous assumptions, fluvial nitrate inputs are the most significant source of nitrate in the estuary. Nitrate loads from vertical mixing processes would only exceed those from fluvial sources at the end of summer when fluvial inputs reach their annual minimum.

The St. Lawrence Estuary connects the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean. The accepted view, based on summer conditions, is that the Estuary's surface layer receives its nutrient supply from vertical mixing processes. This mixing is caused by the estuarine circulation and tidal-upwelling at the Head of the Laurentian Channel (HLC). During winter when ice forms, historical process-based studies have been limited in scope. Winter monitoring has been typically confined to vertical profiles of salinity and temperature and near-surface water samples collected from a helicopter for nutrient analysis. In 2018, however, the Canadian Coast Guard approved a science team to sample in tandem with its icebreaking and ship escorting operations. This opportunistic sampling provided the first winter turbulence observations, which covered the largest spatial extent ever measured during any season within the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf. The nitrate enrichment from tidal mixing resulted in an upward nitrate flux of about 30 nmol m⁻² s⁻¹, comparable to summer values obtained at the same tidal phase. Further downstream, deep nutrient-rich water from the Gulf was mixed into the subsurface nutrient-poor layer at a rate more than an order of magnitude smaller than at the HLC. These fluxes were compared to the nutrient load of the upstream St. Lawrence River. Contrary to previous assumptions, fluvial nitrate inputs are the most significant source of nitrate in the Estuary. Nitrate loads from vertical mixing processes would only exceed those from fluvial sources at the end of summer when fluvial inputs reach their annual minimum.