1 / 11

Vents diffusiométriques versus vents issus de d’analyses météorologiques

Niveau de mer et masses d’eaux simulées par les Océans forcés: un premier bilan des problèmes entre satellites et OGCMs R. Bourdalle-Badie (Mercator Océan) C. Cassou ( Cerfacs ) N. Ferry (Mercator Océan) MH Rio (CLS) The Drakkar group.

danyl
Download Presentation

Vents diffusiométriques versus vents issus de d’analyses météorologiques

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Niveau de mer et masses d’eaux simulées par les Océans forcés: un premier bilan des problèmes entre satellites et OGCMsR. Bourdalle-Badie (Mercator Océan)C. Cassou (Cerfacs)N. Ferry (Mercator Océan)MH Rio (CLS) The Drakkar group

  2. Vents diffusiométriques versusvents issus de d’analysesmétéorologiques • Vents diffusiométriques: • CORE2: issu de la réanalyse NCEP2, maisla moyenneclimatologique etle cycle saisonnierproviennent de Quickscat • Vents issud’analyses / réanalyses météorologiques: • ERA-Interim: assimilation de vents diffusiométriquesmaiscontrainte forte de la physique du modèleatmosphérique • Le vent est un forçageclé de la dynamiqueocéanique, surtoutdans les tropiques. •  Impact fort sur la surface moyenne de l’océan (MDT)

  3. Mean Dynamic Topography GOCE-TIMR3 :MSS CNES-CLS11 minus EGM-TIM-R3 MDT • MDT accuracy is close 1~2 cm , largest errors< 5 cm in most areas • MDT= imprint of the ocean circulation

  4. Impact of CORE2 forcing on the MDT • MDT difference: • ORCA1 forced by CORE2 minus GOCE-TIMR3 NEMO ORCA1° MDT:1993-2007 average simulation (C. Cassou, Cerfacs) 45°S-45°N average of the MDT difference is 0

  5. Impact of ERA-Interim forcing on the MDT • MDT difference: • ORCA1 forced by ERA-Interim minus GOCE-TIMR3 NEMO ORCA1° MDT:1993-2007 average simulation (C. Cassou, Cerfacs) 45°S-45°N average of the MDT difference is 0

  6. Impact of CORE2 forcing on the MDT • MDT difference: • ORCA1/12° forced by CORE2 minus GOCE-TIMR3 NEMO ORCA1/12° MDT:1998-2007 average. simulation by Drakkar group (M. Scheinert, IfM Kiel) 45°S-45°N average of the MDT difference is 0

  7. Impact of ERA-Interim forcing on the MDT • MDT difference: • ORCA1/12° forced by ERA-Interim minus GOCE-TIMR3 NEMO ORCA1/12° MDT1998-2007 average Simulation by Drakkar group (B. Barnier, JM Molines LEGI Grenoble) 45°S-45°N average of the MDT difference is 0

  8. Impact of CORE2 / ERA-Interim forcing on the MDT • Difference • ORCA1/12° CORE2 - ORCA1/12° ERA-Interim 1998-2007 average NEMO ORCA1/12°simulation Drakkargroup IfM Kiel LEGI, Grenoble cm 45°S-45°N average of the MDT difference is 0

  9. Impact of CORE2 on the MDT • MDT POP 1° forced by CORE2 – Maximenko / Niiler MDT cm NCAR simulation

  10. Impact of CORE2 / ERA-Interim on water masses • Temperature difference with LEVITUS at 100m CORE2 1993-2007 average ERA-Interim

  11. Impact of CORE2 / ERA-Interim on water masses • Temperature difference with LEVITUS at 300m CORE2 1993-2007 average ERA-Interim

More Related