Search for: All records

The geographical variability, frequency content, and vertical structure of near‐surface oceanic kinetic energy (KE) are important for air‐sea interaction, marine ecosystems, operational oceanography, pollutant tracking, and interpreting remotely sensed velocity measurements. Here, KE in high‐resolution global simulations (HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model; HYCOM, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model; MITgcm), at the sea surface (0 m) and at 15 m, are compared with KE from undrogued and drogued surface drifters, respectively. Global maps and zonal averages are computed for low‐frequency (<0.5 cpd), near‐inertial, diurnal, and semidiurnal bands. Both models exhibit low‐frequency equatorial KE that is low relative to drifter values. HYCOM near‐inertial KE is higher than in MITgcm, and closer to drifter values, probably due to more frequently updated atmospheric forcing. HYCOM semidiurnal KE is lower than in MITgcm, and closer to drifter values, likely due to inclusion of a parameterized topographic internal wave drag. A concurrent tidal harmonic analysis in the diurnal band demonstrates that much of the diurnal flow is nontidal. We compute simple proxies of near‐surface vertical structure—the ratio 0 m KE/(0 m KE + 15 m KE) in model outputs, and the ratio undrogued KE/(undrogued KE + drogued KE) in drifter observations. Over most latitudes and frequency bands, model ratios track the drifter ratios to within error bars. Values of this ratio demonstrate significant vertical structure in all frequency bands except the semidiurnal band. Latitudinal dependence in the ratio is greatest in diurnal and low‐frequency bands.

 

Abstract The accuracy of three data-constrained barotropic ocean tide models is assessed by comparison with data from geodetic mission altimetry and ocean surface drifters, data sources chosen for their independence from the observational data used to develop the tide models. Because these data sources do not provide conventional time series at single locations suitable for harmonic analysis, model performance is evaluated using variance reduction statistics. The results distinguish between shallow and deep-water evaluations of the GOT410, TPXO9A, and FES2014 models; however, a hallmark of the comparisons is strong geographic variability that is not well summarized by global performance statistics. The models exhibit significant regionally coherent differences in performance that should be considered when choosing a model for a particular application. Quantitatively, the differences in explained SSH variance between the models in shallow water are only 1%–2% of the root-mean-square (RMS) tidal signal of about 50 cm, but the differences are larger at high latitudes, more than 10% of 30-cm RMS. Differences with respect to tidal currents variance are strongly influenced by small scales in shallow water and are not well represented by global averages; therefore, maps of model differences are provided. In deep water, the performance of the models is practically indistinguishable from one another using the present data. The foregoing statements apply to the eight dominant astronomical tides M 2 , S 2 , N 2 , K 2 , K 1 , O 1 , P 1 , and Q 1 . Variance reduction statistics for smaller tides are generally not accurate enough to differentiate the models’ performance.