Comments on “On the Utility and Disutility of JEBAR”

Abstract

where J is the Jacobian operator, c is the transport streamfunction, f and H are the Coriolis parameter and bottom topography, b [ ] f /]y, t is the kinematic surface wind stress vector, and pb is the bottom kinematic pressure. Equation (2) is the more physically appealing form containing the intuitive bottom torque term BT, which, however, renders it unsuitable for direct solution since pb contains the unknown surface elevation. Equations (1a) and (2a) reduce to the Sverdrup balance equation for a flat bottom, whence JEBAR 5 BT 5 0. Cane et al. state: ‘‘As a rule, we expect the flow to try to behave like Taylor columns, arranging itself to go around hills and valleys, avoiding vortex tube shrinking or stretching. Thus, we expect isolines of pb and H to be nearly parallel. If so, we expect the Sverdrup relation [Eq. (2) with BT 5 0] holds.’’ Cane et al. cite the solution to Eq. (1) by Mellor et al. (1982) and Greatbatch et al. (1991) and the implication is that their solutions may be greatly in error since they differ so much from the solution of the Sverdrup relation; therefore, I am moved to disagree. To illustrate and evaluate the possibility of error due to density and topographical measurement errors in solving Eq. (1), Cane et al. invoked a reduced-gravity