Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled?
Ocean bottom pressure (OBP) variability serves as a proxy of ocean mass variability. A question how well it can modeled by the present general ocean circulation models on time scales of 1 day and more is addressed. It is shown that the models simulate consistent patterns of bottom pressure variabili...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Conference Object |
Language: | unknown |
Published: |
Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-9158, 2018
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/ https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/1/egu2018-cor.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10013/epic.f4b2ad6e-ebbb-4929-b8e9-bf6fa350fd7e |
id |
ftawi:oai:epic.awi.de:47968 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftawi:oai:epic.awi.de:47968 2024-09-15T18:37:14+00:00 Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? Androsov, Alexey Schröter, Jens Danilov, Sergey Lück, Christina Kusche, Jürgen Rietbroek, Roelof Ren, Le Schön, Steffen Boebel, Olaf Macrander, Andreas Ivanciu, Ioana 2018-04-09 application/pdf https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/ https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/1/egu2018-cor.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10013/epic.f4b2ad6e-ebbb-4929-b8e9-bf6fa350fd7e unknown Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-9158, 2018 https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/1/egu2018-cor.pdf Androsov, A. , Schröter, J. orcid:0000-0002-9240-5798 , Danilov, S. orcid:0000-0001-8098-182X , Lück, C. , Kusche, J. , Rietbroek, R. , Ren, L. , Schön, S. , Boebel, O. orcid:0000-0002-2259-0035 , Macrander, A. and Ivanciu, I. (2018) Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? , EGU General Assembly 2018, Vienna, 9 April 2018 - 13 April 2018 . doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16962.68800 <https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16962.68800> , hdl:10013/epic.f4b2ad6e-ebbb-4929-b8e9-bf6fa350fd7e EPIC3EGU General Assembly 2018, Vienna, 2018-04-09-2018-04-13EGU General Assembly 2018, Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-9158, 2018 Conference notRev 2018 ftawi 2024-06-24T04:21:00Z Ocean bottom pressure (OBP) variability serves as a proxy of ocean mass variability. A question how well it can modeled by the present general ocean circulation models on time scales of 1 day and more is addressed. It is shown that the models simulate consistent patterns of bottom pressure variability on monthly and longer scales except for areas with high mesoscale eddy activity, where high resolution is needed. The simulated variability is compared to a new data set from an array of PIES (Pressure-Inverted Echo Sounder) gauges deployed along a transect in the Southern Ocean. We show that while the STD of monthly averaged variability agrees well with observations except for the locations with high eddy activity, models lose a significant part of variability on shorter time scales. Furthermore, despite good agreement in the amplitude of variability, the OBP from the PIES and simulation show almost no correlation. Our findings point to limitations in geophysical background models required for space geodetic applications. We argue that major improvements in OBP modelling require data assimilation in order to increase the coherence between modelled and observed signals. Conference Object Southern Ocean Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar- and Marine Research (AWI): ePIC (electronic Publication Information Center) |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar- and Marine Research (AWI): ePIC (electronic Publication Information Center) |
op_collection_id |
ftawi |
language |
unknown |
description |
Ocean bottom pressure (OBP) variability serves as a proxy of ocean mass variability. A question how well it can modeled by the present general ocean circulation models on time scales of 1 day and more is addressed. It is shown that the models simulate consistent patterns of bottom pressure variability on monthly and longer scales except for areas with high mesoscale eddy activity, where high resolution is needed. The simulated variability is compared to a new data set from an array of PIES (Pressure-Inverted Echo Sounder) gauges deployed along a transect in the Southern Ocean. We show that while the STD of monthly averaged variability agrees well with observations except for the locations with high eddy activity, models lose a significant part of variability on shorter time scales. Furthermore, despite good agreement in the amplitude of variability, the OBP from the PIES and simulation show almost no correlation. Our findings point to limitations in geophysical background models required for space geodetic applications. We argue that major improvements in OBP modelling require data assimilation in order to increase the coherence between modelled and observed signals. |
format |
Conference Object |
author |
Androsov, Alexey Schröter, Jens Danilov, Sergey Lück, Christina Kusche, Jürgen Rietbroek, Roelof Ren, Le Schön, Steffen Boebel, Olaf Macrander, Andreas Ivanciu, Ioana |
spellingShingle |
Androsov, Alexey Schröter, Jens Danilov, Sergey Lück, Christina Kusche, Jürgen Rietbroek, Roelof Ren, Le Schön, Steffen Boebel, Olaf Macrander, Andreas Ivanciu, Ioana Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
author_facet |
Androsov, Alexey Schröter, Jens Danilov, Sergey Lück, Christina Kusche, Jürgen Rietbroek, Roelof Ren, Le Schön, Steffen Boebel, Olaf Macrander, Andreas Ivanciu, Ioana |
author_sort |
Androsov, Alexey |
title |
Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
title_short |
Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
title_full |
Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
title_fullStr |
Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? |
title_sort |
ocean bottom pressure variability: which part can be reliably modeled? |
publisher |
Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-9158, 2018 |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/ https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/1/egu2018-cor.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10013/epic.f4b2ad6e-ebbb-4929-b8e9-bf6fa350fd7e |
genre |
Southern Ocean |
genre_facet |
Southern Ocean |
op_source |
EPIC3EGU General Assembly 2018, Vienna, 2018-04-09-2018-04-13EGU General Assembly 2018, Geophysical Research Abstracts. Vol. 20, EGU2018-9158, 2018 |
op_relation |
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/47968/1/egu2018-cor.pdf Androsov, A. , Schröter, J. orcid:0000-0002-9240-5798 , Danilov, S. orcid:0000-0001-8098-182X , Lück, C. , Kusche, J. , Rietbroek, R. , Ren, L. , Schön, S. , Boebel, O. orcid:0000-0002-2259-0035 , Macrander, A. and Ivanciu, I. (2018) Ocean bottom pressure variability: Which part can be reliably modeled? , EGU General Assembly 2018, Vienna, 9 April 2018 - 13 April 2018 . doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16962.68800 <https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16962.68800> , hdl:10013/epic.f4b2ad6e-ebbb-4929-b8e9-bf6fa350fd7e |
_version_ |
1810481583958786048 |