Assessing the impact of multiple altimeter missions and Argo in a global eddy-permitting data assimilation system

Verrier, Simon; Le Traon, Pierre-Yves; Remy, Elisabeth

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-13-1077-2017

Articles | Volume 13, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-13-1077-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-13-1077-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 6

Research article

|

18 Dec 2017

Research article |

| 18 Dec 2017

Assessing the impact of multiple altimeter missions and Argo in a global eddy-permitting data assimilation system

Simon Verrier, Pierre-Yves Le Traon, and Elisabeth Remy

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Dec 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2017
- AC1: 'Answer review1', Simon Verrier, 31 May 2017
RC2: 'Manuscript review', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Mar 2017
- AC2: 'Answer review2', Simon Verrier, 31 May 2017
RC3: 'Referee Report', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Apr 2017
- AC3: 'Answer review3', Simon Verrier, 31 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Simon Verrier on behalf of the Authors (31 May 2017) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Jun 2017) by Markus Meier

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (28 Jul 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (30 Jul 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper is much improved from the first version.
I still find a lack of any deeper perspective or discussion. In particular there are two factors about the setup which can prevent the results being any better than they are
1) This is a non-identical twin experiment. Even though the models are very similar, differing only in resolution (although presumably some parameters are different), they have been spun up differently and therefore the initial T,S hydrography is going to be quite different
2) The ssh observations are given a rather arbitrary error of 3cm white noise.
Both types of error would be present in any realistic situation, but I would ask the authors to add some discussion of these two factors and say which they think is more important. How much better might the results be if these errors were reduced?
The results still do not address any discussion on the role of Argo alone. As a final comment perhaps the authors should consider what would happen if the order of the experiments were reversed?
1 Argo with no altimetry
2 Argo with 1 altimeter
3 Argo with 2 altimeters
4 Argo with 3 altimeters (This has already been done of course)
I would hazard that by assimilating Argo 1st most of the differences due to being a “non-identical twin” would be removed so that altimetry would then be assimilated into a much more realistic hydrography. Does the relative impact of 1,2,3 altimeters then change and by how much and why?
Small additional comments
Abstract should explicitly say 7 day forecasts
Last sentence of section 2.1 is not clear
The reduction of errors in Fig2 appears in the high energy region which are a small total area. Do the addition of multiple altimeters make a difference in areas of lower variability? Fig 2 legend should also make clear the period June-Dec 2009.
It is unclear from the text and the legend whether Fig 12 only represents surface velocities, i.e. top level?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (13 Aug 2017) by Markus Meier

AR by Simon Verrier on behalf of the Authors (04 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Sep 2017) by Markus Meier

AR by Simon Verrier on behalf of the Authors (04 Oct 2017)