Seven years of GRACE intersatellite range-rate measurements are used to test the new ocean tide model FES2014 and to compare against similar results obtained with earlier models. These qualitative assessments show that FES2014 represents a marked improvement in accuracy over its earlier incarnation, FES2012, with especially notable improvements in the Arctic Ocean for constituents K(sub 1) and S(sub 2). Degradation appears to have occurred in two anomalous regions: the Ross Sea for the O(sub 1) constituent and the Weddell Sea for M(sub 2)

Loomis, B.D.

Luthcke, Scott B.

Rachlin, Kenneth E.

Ray, R. D.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

submitted to Geophys. J. Int.
Tests of ocean-tide models by analysis of satellite-to-satellite
range measurements: An update
EXPRESS LETTER
R. D. Ray1, B. D. Loomis1, S. B. Luthcke1, and K. E. Rachlin2
1 Geodesy & Geophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
2 KBRWyle, Greenbelt, MD, USA.
SUMMARY
Seven years of GRACE intersatellite range-rate measurements are used to test the new
ocean tide model FES2014 and to compare against similar results obtained with earlier
models. These qualitative assessments show that FES2014 represents a marked improve-
ment in accuracy over its earlier incarnation, FES2012, with especially notable improve-
ments in the Arctic Ocean for constituents K1 and S2. Degradation appears to have oc-
curred in two anomalous regions: the Ross Sea for the O1 constituent and the Weddell
Sea for M2.
Key words: Tides – Ocean tides – satellite gravity
1 INTRODUCTION
A few years ago Stammer et al. (2014) conducted a suite of comprehensive tests of seven modern
altimeter-constrained ocean-tide models. Many of the tests relied on comparisons against in situ tidal
measurements, but some relied on remote measurements. One of the most valuable remote tests was
based on analysis of satellite-to-satellite ranging data from the GRACE satellites (Tapley et al. 2004),
using an approach described by Ray et al. (2009). These provided some of the best tests in polar
regions, where high-quality in situ data are lacking and where the models themselves are least accurate.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190001628 2020-03-28T18:51:44+00:00Z
2 R. D. Ray et al.
The present short note is essentially a footnote to the GRACE analysis described by Stammer et al.
(2014), updated now to include a new tidal model that is already being widely adopted in many varied
applications.
Subsequent to the Stammer et al. testing work, a new version of the French finite-element model,
FES2014, was developed and a large global atlas of constituents has now been publicly released
(Carre`re et al. 2016). This is the latest in a series of global finite-element models begun by the late C.
Le Provost and colleagues (Le Provost et al. 1994) and continuing with refinements in spatial resolu-
tion, accuracy, and comprehensiveness (Lyard et al. 2006). The FES2014 atlas, although created on a
finite-element grid, has been released on a global (1/16)◦ latitude-longitude grid, with 34 constituents.
Tests of the FES2014 model done by several groups—some published (Quartly et al. 2017), many
unpublished—suggest it represents a clear advance in global modeling. The model has already been
adopted for use by some international projects (e.g., Quartly et al. 2017), and it is currently the default
ocean-tide model in the widely used Radar Altimeter Database System (Scharroo et al. 2013). Some
standard tide-gauge tests, such as those employed by Stammer et al. (2014), are not especially useful
in testing this model because many of those data were assimilated into the solution. It is thus timely to
subject FES2014 to the same GRACE tests that have been found previously useful, especially for the
unique insights GRACE can yield over the polar regions.
Our analysis of the FES2014 tidal model follows exactly the approach used in Section 6.1.2 of
Stammer et al. (2014). So the following section only briefly outlines the procedure. This is followed
by the main results, which focus on the problematic tides of the polar seas, including the tides under
polar ice shelves.
2 METHODOLOGY
We use the Release-2 version of the Level-1B GRACE data generated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The Level-1B datasets contain the fundamental K-band microwave ranging measurements, 3-axis ac-
celerometer measurements, attitude parameters, and GPS-based orbit ephemerides. We used the data
from 2004–2010, a period during which active thermal control of both spacecraft was maintained.
The adopted prior models of Earth’s time-varying gravity should be as comprehensive as possible
in order to isolate the small signals of tidal residuals in the intersatellite range data. Along with high-
degree models of the static geopotential, atmospheric mass variations, and glacial isostatic adjustment,
we used the MOG2D model (Carre`re & Lyard 2003) for non-tidal ocean mass variations. Both the
atmospheric and oceanic mass models have 3-hour time resolution, and the former includes the main
diurnal and subdiurnal barometric tides. Hydrological and cryospheric mass variations were modeled
by using the previous GRACE solutions of Luthcke et al. (2013), which are expressed in terms of
3“mascons,” or localized mass anomalies. Only terrestrial mascons were used; oceanic mascons were
set to zero to prevent possible removal of any correlated tidal signals. Near land/water boundaries it
is possible some “cross talk” between hydrological and ocean tidal signals remains, especially for the
S2 constituent whose alias period in GRACE is a relatively long 161 days (Ray et al. 2003).
The ocean tide elevations are expressed in spherical harmonic form, with the major constituents of
interest here taken to degree and order 90. For each tested ocean-tide model, we recomputed satellite
orbit parameters, allowing initial states to adjust as needed. GRACE’s range-rate residuals were then
converted to range acceleration residuals, because anomalies in acceleration are better localized over
their causative mass anomalies. Acceleration residuals can, however, lead to noticeable side lobes over
large anomalies (Ray et al. 2009), something to keep in mind when examining final maps. Our range
accelerations were low-pass filtered with a cutoff of approximately 6×10−3 Hz. These data were then
binned by geographical location and the time series of residuals in each bin subjected to tidal analysis.
The end result, for each tested model, is a set of gridded constituents whose amplitudes—still in units
of range acceleration—delineate regions of likely tide model error. The results are only a qualitative
assessment of model error since they do not yield actual sea-surface elevation errors. To obtain the
latter would require an additional inversion step, which is far more expensive computationally and
more algorithmically complex, requiring regularization (e.g., Han et al. 2007; Killett et al. 2011) and
ultimately assimilation into a hydrodynamical model (Egbert et al. 2009). Although qualitative in
nature, and also somewhat “blurry” owing to GRACE’s limited spatial resolution, constituent maps of
acceleration residuals are still valuable for the unique perspective they give to possible model errors.
3 RESULTS
The main results, which directly compare acceleration residuals of model FES2012 and the newer
FES2014, are shown in Figure 1. The two major semidiurnal constituents, M2 and S2, and two major
diurnal constituents, O1 and K1, are shown. Because the GRACE processing has been kept consistent,
or nearly consistent, our new maps can be directly compared with similar maps given by Stammer
et al. (2014) for several other tide models (HAMTIDE12, OSU12, TPXO.8, EOT11, GOT4.7). Our
one inconsistency in processing arises from use of different prior models for terrestrial water storage,
which has a very minor effect (mostly in S2), as can be seen by comparing the previously published
maps for model FES2012 with the FES2012 maps shown here.
Figure 1 shows that, for the most part, FES2014 represents a marked improvement over FES2012.
In particular, the large FES2012 anomalies in K1 and S2 in the Arctic Ocean have been eliminated. In
fact, both these constituents are everywhere considerably improved over FES2012. For M2 and O1 the
changes mostly reflect improvements, but O1 is noticeably degraded in the Ross Sea area.
4 R. D. Ray et al.
As expected, there is little change between latitudes ±66◦, which is an area well constrained by
satellite altimetry in both models. Nonetheless, the root-mean-square amplitudes, evaluated over the
globe between ±60◦, do show improvement:
O1: 0.092 0.082 nm s−2
K1: 0.132 0.119
M2: 0.250 0.231
S2: 0.140 0.112
for FES2012 and FES2014, respectively. So the improvements are not limited to only polar regions.
Some lower latitude anomalies clearly remain in M2, and these are nearly identical in the two
models. In fact, they are also nearly identical to M2 anomalies seen in the other models examined by
Stammer et al. (2014), a point noted by those authors. For example, all have small anomalies centered
over New Zealand and the southern part of the Patagonian Shelf and relatively large anomalies in
the northeast Atlantic. Since these are so similar in all models, we conjecture the problem likely lies
with our handling of the GRACE data. Truncation of spherical harmonics at degree 90 conceivably
can explain the anomaly over New Zealand, since M2 is fairly large there but tightly confined as it
rotates around the islands. M2 is also of large amplitude in the northeast Atlantic, so a small scaling
error could potentially lead to relatively large observed anomalies. For example, a possible scaling
error could arise from errors in the assumed density of seawater, although some initial experiments
that adjust the seawater density have not removed the residual anomalies. These problems require
follow-up investigation.
Since most of the changes between FES2012 and FES2014 appear in the high latitudes, Figures
2 and 3 serve to better highlight those regions. The FES2014 improvements in K1 in the Arctic are
now especially clear. The O1 constituent also appears of good quality in the Arctic. Even though the
FES2012 solution for O1 did not have the large problem that occurred in K1, one can still see small O1
improvement in the region of Baffin Bay. In the Antarctic figure, both M2 and K1 are noticeably im-
proved in the Ross Sea even though O1 is degraded there. Three of the four constituents are improved
in the Weddell Sea, but M2 is somewhat degraded.
Since polar diagrams were not shown by Stammer et al. (2014), we have also added results from
model GOT4.7 (Ray 2013) to Figures 2–3 (these results have again been reprocessed with a terrestrial
hydrology model consistent with that used for the two FES models). It is interesting that GOT4.7
displays large anomalies in both diurnal constituents over the Ross Sea, although mainly in the open
sea, whereas the anomalies in the FES models are situated more underneath the Ross Ice Shelf. This
possibly is due to the use of a small amount of ICESat-1 data in the GOT solutions, but only over the
ice shelves, not in the open sea (Ray 2008). Very few ICESat-1 data were available over the Larsen Ice
5Shelf, however, in part owing to persistent cloud cover, and O1 for GOT indeed shows a small anomaly
there. GOT also displays evident sidelobes in the diurnal tides north of the Ross Sea, which (as noted
above) can happen in range-acceleration residuals when the central anomaly is sufficiently large. The
M2 solution for GOT appears especially poor in the (typically ice-covered) Canadian archipelago, but
all models appear inadequate in that region.
While these GRACE results highlight again the well-known problem of model inaccuracies in
polar regions, we wish to end on a positive note. While the FES2014 model shows improvements in
most polar regions, recent work by Cancet et al. (2018) in the Arctic has yet to be incorporated into FES
solutions. Moreover, to our knowledge no global model has yet attempted to use Cryosat-2 altimeter
data, yet recent work by Zaron (2018) as well as Cancet et al. (2018) shows good improvements can be
obtained with these data over both ice shelves and (partly sea-ice impacted) open ocean. The recently
launched ICESat-2 satellite should also lead to more and better data that enables further progress.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration through the GRACE
science team. The GRACE Level 1B data are available from the Physical Oceanography Distributed
Active Archive Center (PODAAC) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
REFERENCES
Cancet, M., Andersen, O. B., Lyard, F., Cotton, D., & Benveniste, J., 2018. Arctide2017, a high-resolution
regional tidal model in the Arctic Ocean, Adv. Space Res., 62, 1324–1343.
Carre`re, L. & Lyard, F., 2003. Modeling the barotropic response of the global ocean to atmospheric wind and
pressure forcing – comparisons with observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(6), 1275.
Carre`re, L., Lyard, F., Cancet, M., Guillot, A., & Picot, N., 2016. FES2014, a new tidal model: Validation
results and perspectives for improvements, Presentation at ESA Living Planet Conference, Prague.
Egbert, G. D., Erofeeva, S. Y., Han, S.-C., Luthcke, S. B., & Ray, R. D., 2009. Assimilation of GRACE tide
solutions into a numerical hydrodynamic inverse model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20609.
Han, S.-C., Ray, R. D., & Luthcke, S. B., 2007. Ocean tidal solutions in Antarctica from GRACE inter-satellite
tracking data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L21607.
Killett, B., Wahr, J., Desai, S., Yuan, D., & Watkins, M., 2011. Arctic ocean tides from GRACE satellite
accelerations, J. Geophys. Res., 116(C11), C11005.
Le Provost, C., Genco, M. L., Lyard, F., Vincent, P., & Canceil, P., 1994. Spectroscopy of the world ocean
tides from a finite element hydrodynamic model, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 24777–24797.
Luthcke, S. B., Sabaka, T. J., Loomis, B. D., Arendt, A. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Camp, J., 2013. Antarc-
6 R. D. Ray et al.
tica, Greenland amd Gulf of Alaska land-ice evolution from an iterated GRACE global mascon solution, J.
Glaciology., 59, 613–631.
Lyard, F., Lefevre, F., Letellier, T., & Francis, O., 2006. Modelling the global ocean tides: modern insights
from FES2004, Ocean Dynam., 56, 394–415.
Quartly, G. D., Legeais, J.-F., Ablain, M., Zawadzki, L., Fernandes, M. J., Rudenki, S., Carre`re, L., Garcı´a,
P. N., Cipollini, P., Andersen, O. B., Poisson, J.-C., Njiche, S. M., Cazenave, A., & Benveniste, J., 2017. A
new phase in the production of quality-controlled sea level data, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 557–572.
Ray, R. D., 2008. A preliminary tidal analysis of ICESat laser altimetry: Southern Ross Ice Shelf, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 35, L02505.
Ray, R. D., 2013. Precise comparisons of bottom-pressure and altimetric ocean tides, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans,
118, 4570–4584.
Ray, R. D., Rowlands, D. D., & Egbert, G. D., 2003. Tidal models in a new era of satellite gravimetry, Space
Sci. Rev., 108(1-2), 271–282.
Ray, R. D., Luthcke, S. B., & Boy, J.-P., 2009. Qualitative comparisons of global ocean tide models by analysis
of intersatellite ranging data, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09017.
Scharroo, R., Leuliette, E. W., Lillibridge, J. L., Byrne, D., Naeije, M. C., & Mitchum, G. T., 2013. RADS:
Consistent multi-mission products, in Proc. Symposium on 20 Years of Progress in Radar Altimetry, European
Space Agency, Spec. Publ. SP-710.
Stammer, D. et al., 2014. Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models, Rev. Geophys., 52,
243–282.
Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Ries, J. C., Thompson, P. F., & Watkins, M. M., 2004. GRACE measurements of
mass variability in the Earth system, Science, 305, 503–505.
Zaron, E. D., 2018. Ocean and ice shelf tides from Cryosat-2 altimetry, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 48(4), 975–993.
This paper has been produced using the Blackwell Scientific Publications GJI LATEX2e class file.
70.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
M2
K1
O1
S2
M2
K1
O1
S2
FES2012 FES2014
Figure 1. Amplitudes of tidal constituent residuals, in units of nm s−2 of GRACE intersatellite range acceler-
ation, based on using either (left) tide model FES2012 or (right) tide model FES2014 to compute the expected
tidal perturbation to the intersatellite ranges. Large residual amplitudes occur in places where GRACE’s mea-
sured ranges disagree with model-based calculated ranges, thus suggesting locations of likely tide model errors.
8 R. D. Ray et al.
O1
GOT4.7 FES2012 FES2014
K1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
M2
nm/s2
Figure 2. Similar to Figure 1 but for the region south of 60◦S. Also shown (leftmost column) are similar results
for tide model GOT4.7.
9O1
GOT4.7 FES2012 FES2014
K1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
M2
nm/s2
Figure 3. Similar to Figure 1 but for the region north of 60◦N.


Tests of Ocean-Tide Models by Analysis of Satellite-To-Satellite Range Measurements: An Update

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server