How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography
Download
1 / 13

How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 148 Views
  • Uploaded on

How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography?. Femke C. Vossepoel (IMAU/SRON), Peter Jan van Leeuwen (IMAU), and Radboud Koop (SRON). 3rd International GOCE Workshop, Frascati, 6-8 November 2006. Comparison of observational and modeled ocean mean dynamic topographies. Observed:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography?' - manning


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography

How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography?

Femke C. Vossepoel (IMAU/SRON), Peter Jan van Leeuwen (IMAU), and Radboud Koop (SRON)

3rd International GOCE Workshop, Frascati, 6-8 November 2006


Comparison of observational and modeled ocean mean dynamic topographies
Comparison of observational and modeled ocean mean dynamic topographies

  • Observed:

    • Le Grand

    • Rio05

    • Maximenko-Niiler

    • Naeije

    • Chambers-Zlotnicki

  • Modeled:

    • ORCA

    • MPI-OM

    • OCCAM

    • POP

    • Hycom

    • ECCO

    • NCOM

RIO05 (see Rio&Hernandez, 2004)


Observational mdt error sources
Observational MDT error sources topographies

  • MSS

  • Time-averaging periods

  • Interpolation errors

  • Observational errors


Low pass filtering with hamming filter
Low-pass filtering with Hamming filter topographies

  • N=15 (1334 km)

  • N=30 (667 km)

  • N=60 (334 km)

  • N=120 (167 km)


Possible sources of error in modeled mdts
Possible sources of error in modeled MDTs topographies

  • Averaging period

  • Errors in atmospheric forcing

  • Spatial resolution

  • Mixing parameterization


Conclusions
Conclusions topographies

  • RMS differences between MDTs in the order of 5-10 cm at N=15, still 5 cm at N=120

  • Reduction differences is smaller than expected

  • Results obscured by differences in:

    • Mean Sea Surface processing

    • Averaging period observations and models

    • Atmospheric forcing (models)

    • Model resolution and formulation

    • ….

Details: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vossepl/DraftVossepoel.pdf, under revision for JGR


Ongoing and future work
Ongoing and future work topographies

  • Regional model for Agulhas: study impact of current strength on ring shedding

  • Regional model for ACC

  • Assimilate SSH using different geoid models

  • Investigate importance bottom topography (pressure, friction)


ad