A comparison of global and regional ocean tide models with tide gauges in the East Asian marginal seas

IF 2.1 4区 地球科学 Q2 MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
{"title":"A comparison of global and regional ocean tide models with tide gauges in the East Asian marginal seas","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.seares.2024.102527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To enhance storm surge forecasting and establish open boundary conditions for sophistical numerical simulation of tides and tidal currents in the Bohai Sea, Yellow Sea, and East China Sea, this study evaluated the accuracy of eight global and regional tide models (EOT20, FES2014, NAO.99Jb, TPXO9, DTU16, HAMTIDE12, OSU12, and GOT4.10c) based on 41 tide gauges in the region. The differences between tide models and 8 offshore tide gauges were notable, with the root mean square (RMS) values ranging from 12.67 to 25.97 cm for M<sub>2</sub>, 6.09–13.73 cm for S<sub>2</sub>, 2.96–6.56 cm for K<sub>1</sub>, and 2.50–4.20 cm for O<sub>1</sub>. For the offshore stations, the NAO.99Jb model demonstrated superior performance with the root square sum (RSS) value of 12.63 cm among the eight tide models. For the island and coastal stations, the EOT20 model performed the best for M<sub>2</sub> (RMS 13.03 cm), the FES2014 model for S<sub>2</sub> (RMS 6.26 cm), and the DTU16 model for K<sub>1</sub> and O<sub>1</sub> (RMS 2.73 cm and 2.26 cm, respectively). Overall, the EOT20 model also exhibited the lowest RSS value (15.22 cm) among the eight models for 24 island and coastal stations. The EOT20 model slightly outperformed others with the RSS of 14.88 cm across all 32 tide gauges. Regarding the Sa tidal component, great discrepancies were found between TIDAL CONSTANTS (TICON) harmonic constant data and tide gauges. The reason for this is that the Doodson number for the Sa tidal component derived from tide gauge data, which is influenced by meteorological factors, should be (0,0,1,0,0,0), while the TICON harmonic constant data employed the Doodson number of (0,0,1,0,0,−1) corresponding to the basic astronomical variables. A correction method was proposed to adjust tidal constants from inconsistent Doodson numbers. Comparing with the harmonic constants of the Sa tidal component at 28 coastal tide stations revealed large errors in the NAO.99b, FES2014, and EOT20 models, with RMS values of 19.03, 22.08, and 13.61 cm, respectively. Consequently, caution should be taken when using the Sa results from these ocean tide models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50056,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sea Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385110124000601/pdfft?md5=fc7ce101bc026d8bda0027b0f8cfea31&pid=1-s2.0-S1385110124000601-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sea Research","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385110124000601","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To enhance storm surge forecasting and establish open boundary conditions for sophistical numerical simulation of tides and tidal currents in the Bohai Sea, Yellow Sea, and East China Sea, this study evaluated the accuracy of eight global and regional tide models (EOT20, FES2014, NAO.99Jb, TPXO9, DTU16, HAMTIDE12, OSU12, and GOT4.10c) based on 41 tide gauges in the region. The differences between tide models and 8 offshore tide gauges were notable, with the root mean square (RMS) values ranging from 12.67 to 25.97 cm for M2, 6.09–13.73 cm for S2, 2.96–6.56 cm for K1, and 2.50–4.20 cm for O1. For the offshore stations, the NAO.99Jb model demonstrated superior performance with the root square sum (RSS) value of 12.63 cm among the eight tide models. For the island and coastal stations, the EOT20 model performed the best for M2 (RMS 13.03 cm), the FES2014 model for S2 (RMS 6.26 cm), and the DTU16 model for K1 and O1 (RMS 2.73 cm and 2.26 cm, respectively). Overall, the EOT20 model also exhibited the lowest RSS value (15.22 cm) among the eight models for 24 island and coastal stations. The EOT20 model slightly outperformed others with the RSS of 14.88 cm across all 32 tide gauges. Regarding the Sa tidal component, great discrepancies were found between TIDAL CONSTANTS (TICON) harmonic constant data and tide gauges. The reason for this is that the Doodson number for the Sa tidal component derived from tide gauge data, which is influenced by meteorological factors, should be (0,0,1,0,0,0), while the TICON harmonic constant data employed the Doodson number of (0,0,1,0,0,−1) corresponding to the basic astronomical variables. A correction method was proposed to adjust tidal constants from inconsistent Doodson numbers. Comparing with the harmonic constants of the Sa tidal component at 28 coastal tide stations revealed large errors in the NAO.99b, FES2014, and EOT20 models, with RMS values of 19.03, 22.08, and 13.61 cm, respectively. Consequently, caution should be taken when using the Sa results from these ocean tide models.

全球和区域海洋潮汐模型与东亚边缘海验潮仪的比较
为加强风暴潮预报,建立渤海、黄海和东海潮汐和潮流精细数值模拟的开放边界条件,本研究基于该区域 41 个验潮资料,评估了 8 个全球和区域验潮模式(EOT20、FES2014、NAO.99Jb、TPXO9、DTU16、HAMTIDE12、OSU12 和 GOT4.10c)的精度。潮汐模式与 8 个离岸验潮站之间的差异显著,M2 站的均方根值为 12.67 至 25.97 厘米,S2 站为 6.09 至 13.73 厘米,K1 站为 2.96 至 6.56 厘米,O1 站为 2.50 至 4.20 厘米。在离岸站方面,NAO.99Jb模式表现优异,在八个潮汐模式中的平方根和值(RSS)为12.63厘米。在岛屿和沿海站点,EOT20 模式在 M2 站的表现最好(均方根值 13.03 厘米),FES2014 模式在 S2 站的表现最好(均方根值 6.26 厘米),DTU16 模式在 K1 和 O1 站的表现最好(均方根值分别为 2.73 厘米和 2.26 厘米)。总体而言,在 24 个岛屿和沿岸站点的 8 个模式中,EOT20 模式的 RSS 值最低(15.22 厘米)。在所有 32 个验潮站中,EOT20 模式的 RSS 值为 14.88 厘米,略高于其他模式。在萨氏潮汐分量方面,潮汐常数(TICON)谐波常数数据与验潮仪之间存在很大差异。其原因是,根据验潮数据得出的 Sa 潮汐分量的杜森数受气象因素影响,应为(0,0,1,0,0,0),而 TICON 谐波常数数据采用的是与基本天文变量相对应的杜森数(0,0,1,0,0,-1)。提出了一种校正方法来调整不一致的杜德逊数中的潮汐常数。通过与 28 个沿海潮汐站的 Sa 潮汐分量谐波常数进行比较,发现 NAO.99b、FES2014 和 EOT20 模型的误差较大,均方根值分别为 19.03、22.08 和 13.61 厘米。因此,在使用这些海洋潮汐模式的 Sa 结果时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sea Research
Journal of Sea Research 地学-海洋学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sea Research is an international and multidisciplinary periodical on marine research, with an emphasis on the functioning of marine ecosystems in coastal and shelf seas, including intertidal, estuarine and brackish environments. As several subdisciplines add to this aim, manuscripts are welcome from the fields of marine biology, marine chemistry, marine sedimentology and physical oceanography, provided they add to the understanding of ecosystem processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信