Cited by 4,443Oceanographic and Atmospheric ProcessesMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsOcean Waves and Remote Sensing

Oceanic vertical mixing: A review and a model with a nonlocal boundary layer parameterization

Large, W. G., McWilliams, J. C., Doney, S. C.·1994·Reviews of Geophysics

Abstract

If model parameterizations of unresolved physics, such as the variety of upper ocean mixing processes, are to hold over the large range of time and space scales of importance to climate, they must be strongly physically based. Observations, theories, and models of oceanic vertical mixing are surveyed. Two distinct regimes are identified: ocean mixing in the boundary layer near the surface under a variety of surface forcing conditions (stabilizing, destabilizing, and wind driven), and mixing in the ocean interior due to internal waves, shear instability, and double diffusion (arising from the different molecular diffusion rates of heat and salt). Mixing schemes commonly applied to the upper ocean are shown not to contain some potentially important boundary layer physics. Therefore a new parameterization of oceanic boundary layer mixing is developed to accommodate some of this physics. It includes a scheme for determining the boundary layer depth h , where the turbulent contribution to the vertical shear of a bulk Richardson number is parameterized. Expressions for diffusivity and nonlocal transport throughout the boundary layer are given. The diffusivity is formulated to agree with similarity theory of turbulence in the surface layer and is subject to the conditions that both it and its vertical gradient match the interior values at h . This nonlocal “ K profile parameterization” (KPP) is then verified and compared to alternatives, including its atmospheric counterparts. Its m…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/94rg01872

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 119 · Cited by 4,443

Authors
Large, W. G., McWilliams, J. C., & Doney, S. C.
Affiliations
NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
Venue
Reviews of Geophysics
Published
1994-11
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
363-403
ISSN
  • 0096-1043 (ISSN-L)
  • 8755-1209
  • 1944-9208
OpenAlex
W1963549306
Cited by
4,443
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 214 · 2024: 238 · 2023: 244 · 2022: 288 · 2021: 307 · 2020: 231 · 2019: 205 · 2018: 207 · 2017: 187 · 2016: 190 · 2015: 176 · 2014: 163 · 2013: 185 · 2012: 156
FWCI
12.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Reviews of Geophysics (publishedVersion)
  • Oceanographic literature review
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Oceanographic and Atmospheric Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Ocean Waves and Remote Sensing
Keywords
upper ocean mixing, K-profile parameterization, surface boundary layer, wind-driven mixing, internal waves, shear instability, double diffusion, diffusion coefficient, boundary layer depth, bulk Richardson number, gradient Richardson number, diurnal cycle, ocean temperature and salinity

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