Few (only 3) profiles went high enough to estimate the MABL height or
the layer averaged speed upstream from Cape Mendocino, so other data were
used as well.
Offshore of the profiles, height was estimated from the lidar data.
The BL height from the lidar was derived by Linda Strom.
The speed estimate was less direct. To match the layer-averaged wind speeds from the profiles, speeds from a flight along the same track at 30 m altitude were divided by .7. The .7 scaling is sensible based on a scaling of wind profiles , which showed the lowest altitude winds were about 75% of the layer averaged winds. The 10 m SSMI winds were used offshore of this data. To fit the other estimates, the SSMI winds were divided by .55. A comparison between the aircraft and satellite winds showed the satellite winds were 3 - 5 m/s slower than the aircraft winds, which may explain the need to scale the satellite data more. Since estimating these upstream conditions I have found a pass that was closer in time which could be used, but wouldn't change the estimate much.
The Froude numbers I got from the estimate speed and depth, using a reduced gravity value of .24 m/s^2 (the average for the 6/07 flight), were supercritical everywhere, reaching 1.2 at 106 km offshore. The winds were 2-3 times geostrophic even 175 km offshore, suggesting the estimate of the winds is too high.
This map of the June 7 survey line shows where which data were used.
It would be possible to combine the satellite winds with the upstream
MABL height along a line farther north. Since no profiles were flown
along this line, however, this would be a less reliable estimate.
