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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Androsov, Alexey, Schröter, Jens, Danilov, Sergey, Lück, Christina, Kusche, Jürgen, Rietbroek, Roelof, Ren, Le, Schön, Steffen, Boebel, Olaf, Macrander, Andreas, Ivanciu, Ioana
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