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


  • 149 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)