Abstract

AbstractKnowledge of submonthly variability in ocean bottom pressure (pb) is an essential element in space‐geodetic analyses and global gravity field research. Estimates of these mass changes are typically drawn from numerical ocean models and, more recently, GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) series at daily sampling. However, the quality of pb fields from either source has been difficult to assess and reservations persist as to the dependence of regularized GRACE solutions on their oceanographic priors. Here, we make headway on the subject by comparing two daily satellite gravimetry products (years 2007–2009) both with each other and with pb output from a diverse mix of ocean models, complemented by insights from bottom pressure gauges. Emphasis is given to large spatial scales and periods <60 days. Satellite‐based mass changes are in good agreement over basin interiors and point to excess pb signals (∼2 cm root‐mean‐square error) over Southern Ocean abyssal plains in the present GRACE de‐aliasing model. These and other imperfections in baroclinic models are especially apparent at periods <10 days, although none of the GRACE series presents a realistic ground truth on time scales of a few days. A barotropic model simulation with parameterized topographic wave drag is most commensurate with the GRACE fields over the entire submonthly band, allowing for first‐order inferences about error and noise in the gravimetric mass changes. Estimated pb errors vary with signal magnitude and location but are generally low enough (0.5–1.5 cm) to judge model skill in dynamically active regions.

Highlights

  • The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its follow-on mission (GRACE-FO; Tapley et al, 2019) have been providing a unique series of measurements of temporal gravity variations at large spatial scales

  • We find that measures of similarity are markedly lower when ITSG2018 is replaced by the nontidal AOD1B background model, consistent with results in Poropat et al (2019)

  • Focusing on deep areas covered by both GRACE series, we find that David Einšpigel's Barotropic Ocean Tide model (DEBOT) and Dynamic Atmospheric Correction (DAC) have maximum RMS values of 1.3 cm w.r.t

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its follow-on mission (GRACE-FO; Tapley et al, 2019) have been providing a unique series of measurements of temporal gravity variations at large spatial scales. Full-scale simulations of the GRACE-FO satellite system (Flechtner et al, 2016) indicate that errors in the oceanic de-aliasing models for both tidal and nontidal signals are, along with accelerometer noise, the limiting source of spatially correlated errors in the monthly gravity field time series. If the two GRACE solutions agree on deficiencies in particular models, that would be a novel result, testifying to the credibility of the daily gravity field estimates over the ocean We explore such “convergence” in a broadband sense, at periods below 60 and 10 days. Placing the secondary cut-off at 10 days is somewhat arbitrary but emphasizes dynamic signals that are driven by both wind stress and atmospheric pressure (Hirose et al, 2001) These rapid barotropic motions explain 30%–60% of all submonthly pb variability, depending on the region. Throughout the paper, the term “submonthly” is used as synonym for periods of less than 60 days

Assessment of Daily GRACE Solutions
Ocean Models
ERA Model Yes
Comparisons With GRACE
Quantifying GRACE Errors
Summary Remarks and Outlook
ECCOv4
Findings
MITgcm LLC270 experiment
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call