Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models
By Detlef Stammer, Richard D. Ray, Ole Baltazar Andersen, B. Arbic, W. Bosch, L. Carrère, Yongcun Cheng, D. Chinn, B. Dushaw, Gary D. Egbert and 17 more. 2014
443 citations recorded by the source corpus.
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.
Subfields: Environmental Chemistry, Oceanography
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad2a7be5fc31555a04c3de88fc9dbf772d457cf0
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Oceanography
Citations in the corpus
- ITSG‐Grace2018: Overview and Evaluation of a New GRACE‐Only Gravity Field Time Series (2019, background): “Global ocean tide models have limitations in these regions (Chen et al., 2009; Lei et al., 2017; Stammer et al., 2014), which speaks to the effectiveness of the tidal estimates, as these signatures are not present in ITSG-Grace2018.”
- A global reanalysis of storm surges and extreme sea levels (2016, unknown): “A review on the performance of global tide models by Stammer 66 shows that FES2012 performs relatively well compared to other global tidal models in coastal areas.”