Ocean Physics MSc thesis at the University of Victoria, under the supervision of Dr. Jody Klymak, characterising the internal wave field at Barkley Canyon.
A lack of inter-annual variability is noted over four years of overlapping data coverage.
IW energy is enhanced near topography, up to 1.5x and 2x, 150 m and 250 m AB, at slope and canyon sites, respectively.
There is unique annual seasonality for each band.
Tidally, forcing for the diurnal band is primarly local barotropic (spring-neap phase lag less than a day), while forcing for the semidiurnal band is a mix of local barotropic and remote baroclinic (spring-neap phase lag up to four days).
Wind forcing of the NI band is intermittent, with seasonal variation in ML energy propagation time-scales (up to two weeks) and deep canyon response (typically in fall).
The semidiurnal band is the biggest contributor to a cascade of energy to high-frequency (continuum) dissipative processes, where observed continuum energy is up to 10% of observed semidiurnal.
These could be summarised as 'the Barkley Canyon internal wave field is highly dependent on depth and frequency', but that seems far too vague to be the 'main point'.
To do:
[x] Update outline(s), based on new analysis.
[x] Refocus writing, based on above.
[x] Focus on my observations in the Results, unless analysis was directly inspired as a comparison with other studies. Why am I showing these Results? Further analysis (like slab model) is still Results. Most comparisons and speculation are Discussion.
[x] New version, but save old versions.
[x] Send new plots to Jody before next draft (e.g. epsilon vs M2 power).
[x] Cut some fluff, including plots or details that don't emphasise the main stories.
[x] p.18/19 discuss spectra in logical order and expand discussion, mention different lines are different years.
[x] Jody revisions in email(s).
[x] Pitch stories in Intro/Theory, then emphasise telling those stories throughout (including plots).
[x] Rework intro so that each main topic is introduced appropriately, e.g. more about mixing, etc.
[x] What are the questions that go along with each story? > Discussion.
[x] Secondary topics can be shorter paragraphs in Discussion. Comparisons are good!
[x] Cut wordiness (e.g. just say 'correlations').
[x] Cut any figure that doesn't say something new and relevant. e.g. many of the Axis rotary depth-band plots are pointless, as most things are rectilinear. Appendix figures should be relevant, too. e.g. Axis rotary plots don't need to be in the Appendix.
kurtisanstey
commented
2 years ago
New and worth sharing:
These could be summarised as 'the Barkley Canyon internal wave field is highly dependent on depth and frequency', but that seems far too vague to be the 'main point'.
To do: