[ecco-support] ECCO V4R3 SSH

[Ponte, Rui]

Yao,

The ~25-d period variability in the Argentine Basin is described in many papers as being caused by nonlinear eddy interactions with mean flow and topography. Models need sufficient resolution to simulate those processes. Given the relatively coarse grid of ECCO v4r3, the eddy-driven dynamics relevant for that variability is most likely not well represented in the solution. In this regard, some higher resolution ECCO products (e.g. SOSE, ECCO2) might be more helpful.

--
Rui M. Ponte
Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
131 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421-3126 USA
781-761-2288 | www.aer.com<http://www.aer.com>


From: <ecco-support-bounces at mit.edu> on behalf of ""Wang, Ou" (3244)" <Ou.Wang at jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: "ECCO support list, wider membership" <ecco-support at mit.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:39 AM
To: "ECCO support list, wider membership" <ecco-support at mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ecco-support] ECCO V4R3 SSH

Hello Yao,

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.

Ou Wang

On Jul 7, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Yao Yu <yaoyu.9404 at gmail.com<mailto:yaoyu.9404 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear EECO suport team,

  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.

 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 (ftp://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/Version4/Release3/doc/v4r3_data.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=ftp-3A__ecco.jpl.nasa.gov_Version4_Release3_doc_v4r3-5Fdata.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=birp9sjcGzT9DCP3EIAtLA&r=1L8uucM1VfjzQOg3MBsQnQ&m=lCbsvOEQyNPpqCsz6l8SqQmJCM7qor0uZ975iAThJLs&s=NZwC9m2wpmi-Fs_2qRh9r8M62_QbwNkVd-7n0BFteDM&e=>) and then Forgot and Ponte (2015) for details about altimeter data.

I'd be grateful if you can help to answer my questions:

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.

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?

Many thanks!
[mage removed by sender.]
Yao


_______________________________________________
ecco-support mailing list
ecco-support at mit.edu<mailto:ecco-support at mit.edu>
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/ecco-support<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.mit.edu_mailman_listinfo_ecco-2Dsupport&d=DwMGaQ&c=birp9sjcGzT9DCP3EIAtLA&r=1L8uucM1VfjzQOg3MBsQnQ&m=lCbsvOEQyNPpqCsz6l8SqQmJCM7qor0uZ975iAThJLs&s=uopRBSBE0FEA00jGoCHk6jmvyYzwdo501F3rCxBZroQ&e=>

________________________________

This email is intended solely for the recipient. It may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information or material. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and any attachments and notify the sender of the error.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/ecco-support/attachments/20180709/4fbe89bb/attachment.html