<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>Hello Yao,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The satellite altimetry constrain for the most recent 30 iterations or so is only applied to the large-scale features where the model-data misfit is smoothed both spatially and temporarily. This may explain why v4r3 does not have the small feature you
are interested. It would be helpful if you could post a figure showing the comparison you made for the four observational and model products.<br>
<br>
Ou Wang </div>
<div><br>
On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Yao Yu <<a href="mailto:yaoyu.9404@gmail.com">yaoyu.9404@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear EECO suport team,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I am Yao Yu, a graduate student in China. I am writing to inquire about the assimilation of altimetry SSH in the ECCO V4R3 OGCM.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I am using satellite altimetry measurements, GRACE measurements and two OGCMs (GLORYS2V4 and ECCO V4R3) to analyze an oceanic gyre in the Argentine Basin. However, ECCO failed to reproduce the sought-after feature (~25-day, ~500 km) while the three others
could. I am trying to figure out the reason. I have read about the datasets used in ECCO (<a href="ftp://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/Version4/Release3/doc/v4r3_data.pdf" target="_blank">ftp://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/Versi<wbr>on4/Release3/doc/v4r3_data.pdf</a><wbr>) and then
Forgot and Ponte (2015) for details about altimeter data. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd be grateful if you can help to answer my questions:<br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. Are there any spatial (except for the bin-averaging) and temporal smoothing schema applied to altimeter data? I don't think the nominal 1-degree spatial resolution of ECCO is coarse, however, ECCO's SSH look quite coarse (comparable with GRACE, ~300km)
in the Argentine Basin.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. If the answer is no for question 1, then are there any possible reasons that can explain inability of ECCO over the Argentine Basin?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many thanks!</div>
<div class="m_3740370825578346599gmail-yj6qo m_3740370825578346599gmail-ajU">
<div id="m_3740370825578346599gmail-:16u" class="m_3740370825578346599gmail-ajR">
<img class="m_3740370825578346599gmail-ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"></div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div class="m_3740370825578346599gmail-ajR">Yao<br>
</div>
</font></span></div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>ecco-support mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:ecco-support@mit.edu">ecco-support@mit.edu</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support">http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>