Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models

Research output: Contribution to journalReview – Annual report year: 2014Researchpeer-review

Standard

Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models. / Stammer, D.; Ray, R. D.; Andersen, Ole Baltazar; Arbic, B. K.; Bosch, W.; Carrère, L.; Cheng, Yongcun; Chinn, D. S.; Dushaw, B. D.; Egbert, G. D.; Erofeeva, S. Y.; Fok, H. S.; Green, J. A M; Griffiths, S.; King, M. A.; Lapin, V.; Lemoine, F. G.; Luthcke, S. B.; Lyard, F.; Morison, J.; Müller, M.; Padman, L.; Richman, J. G.; Shriver, J. F.; Shum, C. K.; Taguchi, E.; Yi, Y.

In: Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2014, p. 243-282.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview – Annual report year: 2014Researchpeer-review

Harvard

Stammer, D, Ray, RD, Andersen, OB, Arbic, BK, Bosch, W, Carrère, L, Cheng, Y, Chinn, DS, Dushaw, BD, Egbert, GD, Erofeeva, SY, Fok, HS, Green, JAM, Griffiths, S, King, MA, Lapin, V, Lemoine, FG, Luthcke, SB, Lyard, F, Morison, J, Müller, M, Padman, L, Richman, JG, Shriver, JF, Shum, CK, Taguchi, E & Yi, Y 2014, 'Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models' Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 243-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014rg000450

APA

Stammer, D., Ray, R. D., Andersen, O. B., Arbic, B. K., Bosch, W., Carrère, L., ... Yi, Y. (2014). Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models. Reviews of Geophysics, 52(3), 243-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014rg000450

CBE

Stammer D, Ray RD, Andersen OB, Arbic BK, Bosch W, Carrère L, Cheng Y, Chinn DS, Dushaw BD, Egbert GD, Erofeeva SY, Fok HS, Green JAM, Griffiths S, King MA, Lapin V, Lemoine FG, Luthcke SB, Lyard F, Morison J, Müller M, Padman L, Richman JG, Shriver JF, Shum CK, Taguchi E, Yi Y. 2014. Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models. Reviews of Geophysics. 52(3):243-282. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014rg000450

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Stammer, D. ; Ray, R. D. ; Andersen, Ole Baltazar ; Arbic, B. K. ; Bosch, W. ; Carrère, L. ; Cheng, Yongcun ; Chinn, D. S. ; Dushaw, B. D. ; Egbert, G. D. ; Erofeeva, S. Y. ; Fok, H. S. ; Green, J. A M ; Griffiths, S. ; King, M. A. ; Lapin, V. ; Lemoine, F. G. ; Luthcke, S. B. ; Lyard, F. ; Morison, J. ; Müller, M. ; Padman, L. ; Richman, J. G. ; Shriver, J. F. ; Shum, C. K. ; Taguchi, E. ; Yi, Y. / Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models. In: Reviews of Geophysics. 2014 ; Vol. 52, No. 3. pp. 243-282.

Bibtex

@article{a1c631357370427e954d70a3710f82dd,
title = "Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models",
abstract = "The accuracy of state-of-the-art global barotropic tide models is assessed using bottom pressure data, coastal tide gauges, satellite altimetry, various geodetic data on Antarctic ice shelves, and independent tracked satellite orbit perturbations. Tide models under review include empirical, purely hydrodynamic ({"}forward{"}), and assimilative dynamical, i.e., constrained by observations. Ten dominant tidal constituents in the diurnal, semidiurnal, and quarter-diurnal bands are considered. Since the last major model comparison project in 1997, models have improved markedly, especially in shallow-water regions and also in the deep ocean. The root-sum-square differences between tide observations and the best models for eight major constituents are approximately 0.9, 5.0, and 6.5 cm for pelagic, shelf, and coastal conditions, respectively. Large intermodel discrepancies occur in high latitudes, but testing in those regions is impeded by the paucity of high-quality in situ tide records. Long-wavelength components of models tested by analyzing satellite laser ranging measurements suggest that several models are comparably accurate for use in precise orbit determination, but analyses of GRACE intersatellite ranging data show that all models are still imperfect on basin and subbasin scales, especially near Antarctica. For the M2 constituent, errors in purely hydrodynamic models are now almost comparable to the 1980-era Schwiderski empirical solution, indicating marked advancement in dynamical modeling. Assessing model accuracy using tidal currents remains problematic owing to uncertainties in in situ current meter estimates and the inability to isolate the barotropic mode. Velocity tests against both acoustic tomography and current meters do confirm that assimilative models perform better than purely hydrodynamic models. {\circledC}2014. American Geophysical Union.",
keywords = "Geophysics",
author = "D. Stammer and Ray, {R. D.} and Andersen, {Ole Baltazar} and Arbic, {B. K.} and W. Bosch and L. Carr{\`e}re and Yongcun Cheng and Chinn, {D. S.} and Dushaw, {B. D.} and Egbert, {G. D.} and Erofeeva, {S. Y.} and Fok, {H. S.} and Green, {J. A M} and S. Griffiths and King, {M. A.} and V. Lapin and Lemoine, {F. G.} and Luthcke, {S. B.} and F. Lyard and J. Morison and M. M{\"u}ller and L. Padman and Richman, {J. G.} and Shriver, {J. F.} and Shum, {C. K.} and E. Taguchi and Y. Yi",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1002/2014rg000450",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "243--282",
journal = "Reviews of Geophysics",
issn = "8755-1209",
publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models

AU - Stammer, D.

AU - Ray, R. D.

AU - Andersen, Ole Baltazar

AU - Arbic, B. K.

AU - Bosch, W.

AU - Carrère, L.

AU - Cheng, Yongcun

AU - Chinn, D. S.

AU - Dushaw, B. D.

AU - Egbert, G. D.

AU - Erofeeva, S. Y.

AU - Fok, H. S.

AU - Green, J. A M

AU - Griffiths, S.

AU - King, M. A.

AU - Lapin, V.

AU - Lemoine, F. G.

AU - Luthcke, S. B.

AU - Lyard, F.

AU - Morison, J.

AU - Müller, M.

AU - Padman, L.

AU - Richman, J. G.

AU - Shriver, J. F.

AU - Shum, C. K.

AU - Taguchi, E.

AU - Yi, Y.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The accuracy of state-of-the-art global barotropic tide models is assessed using bottom pressure data, coastal tide gauges, satellite altimetry, various geodetic data on Antarctic ice shelves, and independent tracked satellite orbit perturbations. Tide models under review include empirical, purely hydrodynamic ("forward"), and assimilative dynamical, i.e., constrained by observations. Ten dominant tidal constituents in the diurnal, semidiurnal, and quarter-diurnal bands are considered. Since the last major model comparison project in 1997, models have improved markedly, especially in shallow-water regions and also in the deep ocean. The root-sum-square differences between tide observations and the best models for eight major constituents are approximately 0.9, 5.0, and 6.5 cm for pelagic, shelf, and coastal conditions, respectively. Large intermodel discrepancies occur in high latitudes, but testing in those regions is impeded by the paucity of high-quality in situ tide records. Long-wavelength components of models tested by analyzing satellite laser ranging measurements suggest that several models are comparably accurate for use in precise orbit determination, but analyses of GRACE intersatellite ranging data show that all models are still imperfect on basin and subbasin scales, especially near Antarctica. For the M2 constituent, errors in purely hydrodynamic models are now almost comparable to the 1980-era Schwiderski empirical solution, indicating marked advancement in dynamical modeling. Assessing model accuracy using tidal currents remains problematic owing to uncertainties in in situ current meter estimates and the inability to isolate the barotropic mode. Velocity tests against both acoustic tomography and current meters do confirm that assimilative models perform better than purely hydrodynamic models. ©2014. American Geophysical Union.

AB - The accuracy of state-of-the-art global barotropic tide models is assessed using bottom pressure data, coastal tide gauges, satellite altimetry, various geodetic data on Antarctic ice shelves, and independent tracked satellite orbit perturbations. Tide models under review include empirical, purely hydrodynamic ("forward"), and assimilative dynamical, i.e., constrained by observations. Ten dominant tidal constituents in the diurnal, semidiurnal, and quarter-diurnal bands are considered. Since the last major model comparison project in 1997, models have improved markedly, especially in shallow-water regions and also in the deep ocean. The root-sum-square differences between tide observations and the best models for eight major constituents are approximately 0.9, 5.0, and 6.5 cm for pelagic, shelf, and coastal conditions, respectively. Large intermodel discrepancies occur in high latitudes, but testing in those regions is impeded by the paucity of high-quality in situ tide records. Long-wavelength components of models tested by analyzing satellite laser ranging measurements suggest that several models are comparably accurate for use in precise orbit determination, but analyses of GRACE intersatellite ranging data show that all models are still imperfect on basin and subbasin scales, especially near Antarctica. For the M2 constituent, errors in purely hydrodynamic models are now almost comparable to the 1980-era Schwiderski empirical solution, indicating marked advancement in dynamical modeling. Assessing model accuracy using tidal currents remains problematic owing to uncertainties in in situ current meter estimates and the inability to isolate the barotropic mode. Velocity tests against both acoustic tomography and current meters do confirm that assimilative models perform better than purely hydrodynamic models. ©2014. American Geophysical Union.

KW - Geophysics

U2 - 10.1002/2014rg000450

DO - 10.1002/2014rg000450

M3 - Review

VL - 52

SP - 243

EP - 282

JO - Reviews of Geophysics

JF - Reviews of Geophysics

SN - 8755-1209

IS - 3

ER -