David E. Gregg , Nigel T. Penna , Christopher Jones , Miguel A. Morales Maqueda
{"title":"欧洲西北大陆架沿岸水域近期全球海洋潮汐模型的精度评估","authors":"David E. Gregg , Nigel T. Penna , Christopher Jones , Miguel A. Morales Maqueda","doi":"10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The accuracy of global ocean tide models is assessed in coastal waters of the European North West Shelf to ascertain where higher resolution local (forecast) models are most needed for geophysical and navigational applications, and which global models are most suitable for providing boundary conditions for regional and local tide models. Five recent global ocean tide models (FES2014b, EOT20, TPXO9-atlas-v5, GOT4.10c, and DTU16) are considered, with the models first compared by interpolating them onto common grids and computing the mean absolute deviation at each grid point. Coastline tide gauge and offshore bottom pressure sensor data were collated from several sources to give a total of 279 observation sites for evaluating model accuracy, including observational values from 137 locations that have not previously been released and have therefore not been assimilated into any of the global models tested. The residual errors between each model’s predicted phasor and the corresponding observed phasor were calculated at each observation location, and quantified using the root mean square (RMS) and median absolute residual (MAR) for the eight tidal constituents M2, S2, N2, O1, K1, K2, P1, and Q1. To avoid RMS values being biased by observation point density, a Voronoi-weighted RMS based on the water area of the Voronoi polygon about each observation location was also developed and used. Four zones were defined based on ocean depth to gauge model performance, and model inaccuracy is again demonstrated in near-shore regions. Seven further zones were defined based on geographical areas, which reveals inhomogeneity among the global models. The smallest overall root sum square (RSS) RMS error across all eight constituents arises with FES2014b, although TPXO9-atlas-v5 has the best performance when using the MAR and Voronoi-weighted RMS metrics. Using only the 137 observation sites that have not been assimilated by any model and therefore provide an independent accuracy assessment, FES2014b exhibits the smallest errors at the coastline, with an RSS RMS of 24.46 cm. All models exhibit larger errors with the 137 independent observation sites than with all 279 observation sites, with an average overall increase in RSS RMS error of 12%, and an increase of 30% for coastline tide gauges, highlighting the need for local model development in these areas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19457,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Modelling","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 102448"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy assessment of recent global ocean tide models in coastal waters of the European North West Shelf\",\"authors\":\"David E. Gregg , Nigel T. Penna , Christopher Jones , Miguel A. Morales Maqueda\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ocemod.2024.102448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The accuracy of global ocean tide models is assessed in coastal waters of the European North West Shelf to ascertain where higher resolution local (forecast) models are most needed for geophysical and navigational applications, and which global models are most suitable for providing boundary conditions for regional and local tide models. Five recent global ocean tide models (FES2014b, EOT20, TPXO9-atlas-v5, GOT4.10c, and DTU16) are considered, with the models first compared by interpolating them onto common grids and computing the mean absolute deviation at each grid point. Coastline tide gauge and offshore bottom pressure sensor data were collated from several sources to give a total of 279 observation sites for evaluating model accuracy, including observational values from 137 locations that have not previously been released and have therefore not been assimilated into any of the global models tested. The residual errors between each model’s predicted phasor and the corresponding observed phasor were calculated at each observation location, and quantified using the root mean square (RMS) and median absolute residual (MAR) for the eight tidal constituents M2, S2, N2, O1, K1, K2, P1, and Q1. To avoid RMS values being biased by observation point density, a Voronoi-weighted RMS based on the water area of the Voronoi polygon about each observation location was also developed and used. Four zones were defined based on ocean depth to gauge model performance, and model inaccuracy is again demonstrated in near-shore regions. Seven further zones were defined based on geographical areas, which reveals inhomogeneity among the global models. The smallest overall root sum square (RSS) RMS error across all eight constituents arises with FES2014b, although TPXO9-atlas-v5 has the best performance when using the MAR and Voronoi-weighted RMS metrics. Using only the 137 observation sites that have not been assimilated by any model and therefore provide an independent accuracy assessment, FES2014b exhibits the smallest errors at the coastline, with an RSS RMS of 24.46 cm. All models exhibit larger errors with the 137 independent observation sites than with all 279 observation sites, with an average overall increase in RSS RMS error of 12%, and an increase of 30% for coastline tide gauges, highlighting the need for local model development in these areas.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ocean Modelling\",\"volume\":\"192 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102448\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ocean Modelling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500324001355\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocean Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500324001355","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy assessment of recent global ocean tide models in coastal waters of the European North West Shelf
The accuracy of global ocean tide models is assessed in coastal waters of the European North West Shelf to ascertain where higher resolution local (forecast) models are most needed for geophysical and navigational applications, and which global models are most suitable for providing boundary conditions for regional and local tide models. Five recent global ocean tide models (FES2014b, EOT20, TPXO9-atlas-v5, GOT4.10c, and DTU16) are considered, with the models first compared by interpolating them onto common grids and computing the mean absolute deviation at each grid point. Coastline tide gauge and offshore bottom pressure sensor data were collated from several sources to give a total of 279 observation sites for evaluating model accuracy, including observational values from 137 locations that have not previously been released and have therefore not been assimilated into any of the global models tested. The residual errors between each model’s predicted phasor and the corresponding observed phasor were calculated at each observation location, and quantified using the root mean square (RMS) and median absolute residual (MAR) for the eight tidal constituents M2, S2, N2, O1, K1, K2, P1, and Q1. To avoid RMS values being biased by observation point density, a Voronoi-weighted RMS based on the water area of the Voronoi polygon about each observation location was also developed and used. Four zones were defined based on ocean depth to gauge model performance, and model inaccuracy is again demonstrated in near-shore regions. Seven further zones were defined based on geographical areas, which reveals inhomogeneity among the global models. The smallest overall root sum square (RSS) RMS error across all eight constituents arises with FES2014b, although TPXO9-atlas-v5 has the best performance when using the MAR and Voronoi-weighted RMS metrics. Using only the 137 observation sites that have not been assimilated by any model and therefore provide an independent accuracy assessment, FES2014b exhibits the smallest errors at the coastline, with an RSS RMS of 24.46 cm. All models exhibit larger errors with the 137 independent observation sites than with all 279 observation sites, with an average overall increase in RSS RMS error of 12%, and an increase of 30% for coastline tide gauges, highlighting the need for local model development in these areas.
期刊介绍:
The main objective of Ocean Modelling is to provide rapid communication between those interested in ocean modelling, whether through direct observation, or through analytical, numerical or laboratory models, and including interactions between physical and biogeochemical or biological phenomena. Because of the intimate links between ocean and atmosphere, involvement of scientists interested in influences of either medium on the other is welcome. The journal has a wide scope and includes ocean-atmosphere interaction in various forms as well as pure ocean results. In addition to primary peer-reviewed papers, the journal provides review papers, preliminary communications, and discussions.