The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Numerical modeling of an estuary: A comprehensive skill assessment
Open accessAbstract
Numerical simulations of the Hudson River estuary using a terrain‐following, three‐dimensional model (Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS)) are compared with an extensive set of time series and spatially resolved measurements over a 43 day period with large variations in tidal forcing and river discharge. The model is particularly effective at reproducing the observed temporal variations in both the salinity and current structure, including tidal, spring neap, and river discharge–induced variability. Large observed variations in stratification between neap and spring tides are captured qualitatively and quantitatively by the model. The observed structure and variations of the longitudinal salinity gradient are also well reproduced. The most notable discrepancy between the model and the data is in the vertical salinity structure. While the surface‐to‐bottom salinity difference is well reproduced, the stratification in the model tends to extend all the way to the water surface, whereas the observations indicate a distinct pycnocline and a surface mixed layer. Because the southern boundary condition is located near the mouth the estuary, the salinity within the domain is particularly sensitive to the specification of salinity at the boundary. A boundary condition for the horizontal salinity gradient, based on the local value of salinity, is developed to incorporate physical processes beyond the open boundary not resolved by the model. Model results are sensitive to the specification of the bottom roughness length and vertical stability functions, insofar as they influence the intensity of vertical mixing. The results only varied slightly between different turbulence closure methods of k‐ɛ, k‐ω, and k‐kl.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Haidvogel, D. B., Arango, H., Budgell, W. P., Cornuelle, B. D., Curchitser, E., Di Lorenzo, E., Fennel, K., Geyer, W. R., Hermann, A. J., Lanerolle, L., et al. (2008) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.016 · Cited by 1,375
Self-citationMacCready, P., & Geyer, W. R. (2010) · Annual Review of Marine Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081015 · Cited by 416
Self-citationNorth, E., Schlag, Z., Hood, R., Li, M., Zhong, L., Gross, T., & Kennedy, V. (2008) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps07317 · Cited by 383
Ecological forecasting in Chesapeake Bay: using a mechanistic-empirical modeling approach.
Brown, C. W., Hood, R. R., Long, W., Jacobs, J., Ramers, D. L., Wazniak, C., Wiggert, J. D., Wood, R., & Xu, J. (2013) · Journal of Marine Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.12.007 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Warner, J. C., Geyer, W. R., & Lerczak, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- C5
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989282335
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Numerical modeling of an estuary: A comprehensive skill assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2004jc002691
- The paper
- Warner, J. C., Geyer, W. R., & Lerczak, J. A. (2005). Numerical modeling of an estuary: A comprehensive skill assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jc002691
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.