1 / 13

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. Observed:

manning
Download Presentation

How well do we know the mean ocean dynamic topography?

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. 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

  2. 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)

  3. Observational MDT error sources • MSS • Time-averaging periods • Interpolation errors • Observational errors

  4. Low-pass filtering with Hamming filter • N=15 (1334 km) • N=30 (667 km) • N=60 (334 km) • N=120 (167 km)

  5. Possible sources of error in modeled MDTs • Averaging period • Errors in atmospheric forcing • Spatial resolution • Mixing parameterization

  6. Conclusions • 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

  7. Ongoing and future work • 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)

More Related