|
|
|
|
|
ENACT CLS TASKS The RIO-03 Combined Mean Dynamic Topography (CMDT) |
|
|
The direct method The synthetic method CMDT versus OCCAM, Levitus and Le Grand CMDT RIO-03 References |
|
| Comparison of Global Mean Dynamic Topographies |
The CMDT RIO-03 (righ bottom) is compared to 3 other MDT: the Levitus Climatology (left bottom), the OCCAM model (mean from 1993-1995, left top) and the Le Grand inverse model solution (right top): |
|
The Levitus and Legrand MDT are too smooth. Levitus have poor realism in Arctic and Antarctic areas. The OCCAM and RIO-03 MDT compare better: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
To exactly quantify the differences, the four MDT have then been compared more carefully in four areas, using drifter velocities:
|
|
|
|
Altimetric anomalies of geostrophic velocities are added to each MDT, in order to produce the full ocean currents, then compared to concurrent drifter velocities. Differences (in rms) are due to smoothing differences between altimetry and lagrangian data, noise in each data set, and MDT errors. Because we use exactly the same set of data, the lowest differences correspond to the more precise MDT. Vectorial correlation are also computed (Cv). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Differences are particularly high in the Gulf Stream area were currents are intense, and differences between drifter velocity and satellite altimetric deduced velocities are larger. |
|
|
|
|
The direct method The synthetic method CMDT versus OCCAM, Levitus and Le Grand CMDT RIO-03 References |
|
| Copyright © 1999-2004 CLS. All rights reserved. | Latest Update: 10/02/2004 |