An Assessment of Global Ocean Barotropic Tide Models Using Geodetic Mission Altimetry and Surface Drifters
An Assessment of Global Ocean Barotropic Tide Models Using Geodetic Mission Altimetry and Surface Drifters
复制标题
DOI：
10.1175/jpo-d-20-0089.1
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
E. Zaron;S. Elipot
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Zaron;S. Elipot
三个数据约束的正压海洋潮汐模型的准确性进行了评估，通过比较大地测量使命测高和海洋表面漂移，数据源选择独立的观测数据，用于开发潮汐模型的数据。由于这些数据源不提供适合谐波分析的单个位置的常规时间序列，因此使用方差缩减统计来评估模型性能。结果区分了GOT 410、TPXO 9A和FES 2014模型的浅水和深水评估;然而，比较的一个特点是强烈的地理变异性，全球性能统计数据没有很好地总结。这些模型表现出显着的区域一致性差异的性能，应考虑在选择一个特定的应用程序的模型。从数量上看，浅水区模式间SSH方差的差异仅为50 cm左右均方根（RMS）的1%~ 2%，而高纬度地区差异较大，超过30 cm RMS的10%。潮流方差的差异受到浅水小尺度的强烈影响，并且不能很好地用全球平均值表示;因此，提供了模型差异图。在深水中，使用现有数据，模型的性能几乎无法区分。上述陈述适用于八个主要天文潮汐M2、S2、N2、K2、K1、O 1、P1和Q1。较小潮汐的方差缩减统计通常不足以区分模型的性能。
The accuracy of three data-constrained barotropic ocean tide models is assessed by comparison with data from geodetic mission altimetry and ocean surface drifters, data sources chosen for their independence from the observational data used to develop the tide models. Because these data sources do not provide conventional time series at single locations suitable for harmonic analysis, model performance is evaluated using variance reduction statistics. The results distinguish between shallow and deep-water evaluations of the GOT410, TPXO9A, and FES2014 models; however, a hallmark of the comparisons is strong geographic variability that is not well summarized by global performance statistics. The models exhibit significant regionally coherent differences in performance that should be considered when choosing a model for a particular application. Quantitatively, the differences in explained SSH variance between the models in shallow water are only 1%–2% of the root-mean-square (RMS) tidal signal of about 50 cm, but the differences are larger at high latitudes, more than 10% of 30-cm RMS. Differences with respect to tidal currents variance are strongly influenced by small scales in shallow water and are not well represented by global averages; therefore, maps of model differences are provided. In deep water, the performance of the models is practically indistinguishable from one another using the present data. The foregoing statements apply to the eight dominant astronomical tides M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, and Q1. Variance reduction statistics for smaller tides are generally not accurate enough to differentiate the models’ performance.