Ocean bottom pressure (pb) is critical for monitoring and understanding ocean variability, yet global observations from GRACE and GRACE Follow-On suffer from limited spatiotemporal coverage. State estimation methods allow for the dynamical interpolation of sparse data by optimally combining observations with models. Here we examine the effects of assimilating GRACE data (local pb anomalies and global mean), along with other datasets, on state estimates produced by the project for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO). The ECCO optimization leads to large adjustments in pb fields at monthly and longer timescales. A substantial part of those adjustments is directly induced by GRACE constraints, with largest impacts occurring at high latitudes. Additionally, the mean ocean mass constraint is essential for mitigating large imbalances in freshwater fluxes derived from atmospheric reanalyses (used as prior forcing) and for producing a realistic barystatic sea level curve. Interpretation of remaining ECCO and GRACE differences highlights issues with non-oceanographic data signals. Our findings indicate that GRACE data contain information complementary to that available in other datasets, quantifying their value for determining pb and associated circulation fields.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration80NSSC24K1154National Aeronautics and Space Administration80NM0018D0004Introduction
Extensive knowledge and understanding of the ocean surface pressure field, as given by the difference between sea level and the geoid, has accumulated since the advent of high-quality satellite altimetry in the early 1990s e.g.,. Much less is known, however, about the ocean bottom pressure fields pb. In contrast with the numerous altimeter missions flown since 1992, GRACE and GRACE Follow-On , hereafter referred to simply as GRACE, are the only space-based missions delivering variable pb fields on the global scale since 2002. Available in situ pb measurements offer extremely limited spatial and temporal coverage and are also susceptible to long-term drift. The GRACE observations of pb have been very useful to monitor and understand changes in sea level e.g.,, ocean heat content e.g.,, ocean circulation e.g.,, and other important climate-related issues. Nevertheless, their relatively coarse spatial resolution can be a limiting factor when trying, for example, to close regional sea level budgets e.g., or measure changes in circulation involving narrow boundary currents e.g.,.
Models can provide dynamical interpolation of sparse data in both space and time. In particular, formal data assimilation methods allow for the optimal combination of observations and models to address some of the shortcomings of both. While altimeter data are routinely assimilated in most ocean analyses, relatively few efforts have used space-based pb fields in a similar way. Early attempts by used GRACE monthly data constraints for the period 2003–2007 to demonstrate their significant impact on pb variability and related barotropic streamfunction and transports, particularly in subtropical gyres, near boundary currents, and also in polar latitudes. Their findings indicated that GRACE data can contain information not otherwise available in altimetry and hydrography data, in part because of the vastly different eddy “noise” affecting the various datasets. focused on daily GRACE data and a slightly longer period (2003–2009) and confirmed the substantial effects of pb constraints in the high latitudes, primarily associated with induced changes in barotropic wind-driven dynamics. Their ensemble Kalman filter was also able to filter out the correlated data errors (“striping”) that plagued many of the early spherical harmonic GRACE data products .
Despite these early findings, most widely used ocean reanalyses still do not assimilate any GRACE data . A notable exception is the project for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean ECCO;. In addition to using local pb anomalies, ECCO also uses GRACE-based estimates of global ocean mean mass to constrain the net freshwater flux into the oceans and associated changes in barystatic sea level . The latest publicly released ECCO solution assimilates the whole GRACE record, along with many other ocean datasets. Such estimates provide an excellent opportunity to reexamine the value of space-based pb data for improving our grasp of the global pb fields, in the broader context of the variable ocean circulation.
In this study, we first determine the effects of the comprehensive ECCO optimization on the pb fields by comparing a recent ECCO solution to its corresponding forward-model run that is not constrained by any data. We examine separately local pb anomalies relative to the spatial means, which are relevant for the study of the ocean circulation and dynamics (Sect. ), and the spatial means themselves associated with barystatic sea level (Sect. ). Comparisons with GRACE establish the positive effects of the optimization in reducing differences with the data, which are discussed in the context of assumed data errors (Sect. ). After analyzing the spatiotemporal characteristics of the adjustments to the pb fields resulting from the full optimization (Sect. ), the direct influence of GRACE data constraints on the ECCO solution is ascertained by contrasting pb adjustments during periods with and without GRACE data (Sect. ). The importance of GRACE constraints on barystatic sea level are discussed in Sect. . Interpretation of GRACE misfits remaining after the optimization is offered in Sect. . A section with a summary of results and brief discussion of some future implications concludes the paper.
Model, data and methods
We deal primarily with pb fields in this work. For convenience, throughout the rest of the paper we express pb values in terms of manometric sea level , in units of length (equivalent water thickness). The conversion involves division of pressure values by a mean seawater density (1029 kg m−3) and the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m s−2) .
ECCO solution
provide a comprehensive treatment of ECCO Version 4 as a framework for global ocean state estimation. The ECCO Version 4 system combines the Massachusetts Institute of Technology general circulation model with a variety of ocean observations to produce estimates of the global ocean and sea ice state that are both a “best” fit to the data and an exact solution of the model equations. The non-linear optimization procedure is based on the method of Lagrange multipliers (aka adjoint method) and involves iterations of forward and adjoint model runs to minimize a cost function representing misfits of all observations and the model. The minimization is achieved through adjustments in control parameters, which in the case of ECCO Version 4 include atmospheric forcing fields, initial conditions, and internal mixing coefficients. For full details on the ECCO Version 4 assimilation platform, please refer to .
In the minimization procedure, the cost function terms are based on the variance of the model-data differences divided by the square of the data errors. The latter, aside from instrument noise, include representation errors – “true” signals in the data that cannot be represented by the model (e.g., mesoscale eddies missing in coarse resolution models). In the particular case of the GRACE data relevant to our analysis, the estimated error standard deviation used in the optimization, shown in Fig. a, was derived by comparing the GRACE data against previous ECCO solutions following the methods detailed in and . Errors vary from a minimum of 1 cm, explicitly set to match typical GRACE error estimates e.g.,, to a few centimeters. Large values in the eastern tropical Indian Ocean, Gulf of Thailand, and near Japan, are the imprints of the strong Sumatra-Andaman and Tohoku earthquakes that are not fully corrected in the GRACE inversions and thus leak into the pb fields – a clear example of representation error. Another example of such errors is the enhanced values in regions such as the Argentine Basin and the Agulhas Retroflection, which seem to be affected by ocean intrinsic variability associated with eddies and other nonlinear processes that cannot be represented in the coarse grids (nominally 1°) of the model used in the ECCO estimates . Enhanced values in other areas (Red Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, Baffin Bay, Kara Sea) may reflect higher data noise related to similarly enhanced pb variability (Fig. b) or other representation issues as discussed in Sect. .
Standard deviation of (a) estimated GRACE error, and pb fields for (b) GRACE data, (c) control run and (d) ECCOv4r5, based on their overlapping period, all in units of cm. Global spatial means have been removed from all the fields prior to the calculation of standard deviations.
The present analyses are based on the ECCO Version 4 Release 5 (ECCOv4r5) product – a basic extension of the publicly available Release 4 described in detail by . Major differences in ECCOv4r5 include: an extended analysis period (January 1992–December 2019; Release 4 ends in December 2017); atmospheric forcing fields optimized from the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications Version 2 MERRA-2; as the first guess; an adjointable sea ice thermodynamics model; Antarctica iceberg melting; and explicit treatment of ice shelf cavities . The ECCOv4r5 solution is constrained by most available observations listed in . Aside from sea level, sea surface temperature and salinity data from satellites, and extensive use of in situ observations from Argo and other platforms, ECCOv4r5 includes pb fields derived from GRACE and also GRACE Follow-On, which launched in May 2018. The pb data, processed as detailed in , were assimilated as monthly fields with respective global spatial means removed but otherwise retaining full temporal variability including trends. In the ECCO estimate, the effective spatial resolution of the GRACE data is approximately 300 km, achieved through the method described in Appendix E of . All GRACE data, including those near coastal regions, are used to constrain the estimate. In addition to the GRACE and other datasets documented in , ECCOv4r5 is also constrained by estimates of Antarctic ice-shelf melt by adjusting the heat transfer coefficient between ice-shelf and ocean ; these adjustments affect the freshwater flux (and heat flux) associated with the ice-shelf melt, but not salt flux because the salinity of ice-shelves is assumed to be zero.
For comparison with the optimized ECCOv4r5 solution, we also consider output from the respective control run (ECCOctrl), which consists of a forward model simulation using prior (unadjusted) estimates of the control parameters. Differences between ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl quantify the impact of the data constraints and optimization procedures on the estimated fields. In the same manner, we use Version 4 Release 1 and its control run, described in detail by , to examine pb adjustments in an optimization that involved most of the data constraints applied in ECCOv4r5 but excluded the GRACE data.
Bottom pressure data
We use global pb estimates from GRACE mass concentration (mascons) fields provided by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL; Version RL06Mv02V; filename GRCTellus.JPL.200204_202001.GLO.RL06M.MSCNv02CRI.nc;. These data were used to constrain ECCOv4r5 and are thus most appropriate for our analyses. We note that version RL06Mv02V has since been retired and replaced by more recent versions, but changes between different versions are relatively small and calculations using more recent versions did not lead to any meaningful differences in our findings. In this context, because the barystatic sea-level curve corresponding to the RL06Mv02V mascon fields could not be found in the GRACE Tellus archives, we chose to use one from the dataset, which is a more recent version of JPL mascon fields but similar to the RL06Mv02V dataset. The global ocean mass is computed by summing up mass anomalies over the ocean and removing the mass of the atmosphere.
Variability in pb estimates derived from GRACE can be related to non-oceanographic geophysical processes, such as those due to changes in gravity, rotation and deformation (GRD) effects defined in and associated with variable mass loads (air, water and ice) over land. To evaluate the impact of these processes on our ECCOv4r5 and GRACE analyses, we take advantage of recent estimates of GRD effects by . The product provides global, monthly gridded solutions to the sea level equation (GRD components), derived from JPL CRI-filtered GRACE mascon surface mass anomalies from April 2002 to present. (These GRD corrections were not available at the time ECCOv4r5 solution was derived. Thus, uncorrected GRACE data was used in the ECCOv4r5 optimization.)
Analysis of local <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields
In this section, we examine gridded pb anomalies defined relative to the respective global means discussed in Sect. 4. The anomalies are used as separate constraints on ECCOv4r5 and represent the dynamically relevant pb variability associated with changes in ocean circulation.
Basic effects of optimization on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields
The standard deviations of the local pb anomalies for GRACE, ECCOctrl and ECCOv4r5 fields (Fig. b–d) are mostly consistent, in terms of spatial patterns and amplitudes. Maxima occur in shallow coastal regions, along the Southern Ocean (particularly in the Bellingshausen and Australian-Antarctic Basins) and in the Arctic, and minima are present over most of the tropics. There are, however, visible differences in variability between ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl over many regions (e.g., weaker ECCOv4r5 variability in the Barents Sea, Hudson Bay, Australian-Antarctic Basin, stronger in the Beaufort Gyre, Indian Ocean). Many of these differences make ECCOv4r5 amplitudes more consistent with those of GRACE, but the opposite can also be true (e.g., relatively large variability near the Weddell Sea).
In areas of western boundary currents (e.g., Agulhas retroflection, Gulf Stream extension, Argentine Basin), GRACE fields look more energetic than both ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl, consistent with the presence in GRACE of the effects of intrinsic variability . The imprint of eddies on pb variability in these regions has been documented in studies based on in situ pb observations e.g.,. Such intrinsic signals occur on a variety of spatiotemporal scales and can affect the GRACE data even if not fully resolved by the measurements. They cannot be represented in either ECCOv4r5 or ECCOctrl, however, and thus constitute representation errors that (1) partly contribute to the enhanced data errors in regions of strong unstable currents noted in Fig. a and (2) effectively down-weight the GRACE data in those areas during the optimization.
Apart from boundary current regions, strongest amplitude differences between GRACE and ECCO fields are found in the eastern tropical Indian Ocean and near Japan, however. The large GRACE variability, absent in both ECCOv4r5 or ECCOctrl, is the imprint of the large Sumatra-Andaman and Tohoku earthquakes discussed in relation to Fig. a.
Changes in pb arising from vertical motion of the bottom during earthquakes are possible but cannot be represented in the ECCOv4r5 setup, which uses a model with a fixed bottom. In any case, apart from the rapid barotropic adjustment to the initial perturbation, changes in pb related to the long term changes in local depth are likely much smaller than the implied opposite changes in the solid earth, given difference in density of the latter compared to that of sea water.
Results in Fig. hint at the impact of the optimization on the pb anomaly fields, but a more quantitative assessment can be gleaned from the root-mean-square difference (RMSD; based on demeaned time series here and throughout the paper) between GRACE, ECCOctrl and ECCOv4r5 (Fig. ). Differences between ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl (Fig. c) are not negligible compared to their variability in most of the global oceans (cf. Fig. c and d). Largest changes are seen in the Mediterranean Sea, Arctic Ocean and various sectors of the Southern Ocean, as well as several shallow, enclosed seas and gulfs. These regions also correspond to some of the largest decreases in RMSD in GRACE - ECCOv4r5 compared to GRACE - ECCOctrl (Fig. d). More generally, the mostly negative values in Fig. d (∼88 % of all the grid points) imply that RMSD values for GRACE - ECCOv4r5 are smaller than those for GRACE - ECCOctrl, i.e., ECCOv4r5 is for the most part closer to the GRACE data than ECCOctrl. Values <-0.5 cm amount to 27 % of the grid points in Fig. d, and values over the Arctic and Southern Ocean average to -1.6 and -0.5 cm, respectively. The correlations of GRACE with ECCOv4r5 (not shown) are also higher on average by ∼0.1 than those with ECCOctrl. Thus, the RMSD and correlation analyses reveal relatively large changes in pb fields and a closer fit to GRACE data brought about by the ECCO optimization.
Standard deviation of the difference pb fields (a) GRACE - ECCOv4r5, (b) GRACE - ECCOctrl and (c) ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5, based on their overlapping period. Global spatial means have been removed from all the fields. The difference (a) minus (b) is shown in (d). Negative values imply ECCOv4r5 is closer to the GRACE data than ECCOctrl. Units are cm.
Focusing on the RMSD for GRACE - ECCOv4r5 (Fig. a), largest values of ∼5 cm coincide with areas of large variability (e.g., Bay of Bengal/Andaman Sea, around Japan, Arctic coastal regions) and smallest values (<1 cm) occur over most of the tropics where variability is weakest (Fig. ). These RMSD values are not small compared to the variability in either GRACE or ECCOv4r5, but they are for the most part comparable to the data errors used to weight the gravity data in the ECCOv4r5 optimization (Fig. a).
The costs, i.e., the normalized quadratic misfits that constitute the cost function described in Sect. 2.1, calculated as
variance(GRACE-ECCO)(GRACEerror)2
(i.e., the square of the ratio of values in Fig. b and c to those in Fig. a) and shown in Fig. , provide a quantitative measure of how the optimization has consistently reduced differences to the data within respective data uncertainties. The relatively large costs (>2) in ECCOctrl observed at polar and subpolar latitudes, coastal areas and marginal seas are substantially reduced in ECCOv4r5 to values closer to 1, as expected in a converged optimized solution. There are, however, several areas with ECCOv4r5 costs considerably >1 (e.g., Siberian Shelf, Bering and Chukchi Seas, Hudson Bay, North Sea) that may suggest only partial convergence and/or underestimated data errors. The latter is plausibly the case for the large ECCOv4r5 cost values seen in the areas affected by the Sumatra-Andaman and Tohoku earthquakes. In contrast, there are many ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl cost values < 1 (histograms display peaks at values of ∼0.45 and 0.65, respectively; not shown) and particularly in tropical latitudes. This points to the possibility of overestimated data errors, which were set to a minimum of 1 cm (Fig. a).
Costs calculated as the variance of the differences between GRACE and (a) ECCOctrl and (b) ECCOv4r5 (i.e., values in Fig. a and b squared) divided by the square of the data error (values in Fig. a squared).
Nature of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> adjustments
A more detailed examination of the changes in pb fields brought about by the ECCO optimization can provide useful insight on the characteristics of some of the major errors in the ECCOctrl estimate and elucidate various important aspects of the optimization. We first examine separately the linear trends and mean seasonal cycle as two major components of the pb variability.
Trends in Fig. exhibit for the most part basin-scale patterns of the same sign but are considerably different among the three fields. In particular, ECCOctrl has largest trends in the Arctic, the Mediterranean, and several shallow seas and coastal regions (e.g., Hudson Bay and a substantial part of the eastern North American and Patagonian shelves), which are not present in the GRACE data. There are also relatively large trends tightly trapped to some coastal regions (e.g., southern Africa and southern Australia; Fig. c) that appear to be too small scale to be representable in GRACE. All these large ECCOctrl trends are mostly adjusted by the optimization, with ECCOv4r5 considerably closer to GRACE than ECCOctrl in those regions (cf. Fig. d and e). Strong large-scale adjustments can also be seen in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, where the mostly negative trends in ECCOctrl become positive in ECCOv4r5, mimicking more of the trend pattern seen in GRACE.
Trends of pb fields for (a) GRACE, (b) ECCOv4r5, and (c) ECCOctrl, and respective differences (d) GRACE - ECCOv4r5, (e) GRACE - ECCOctrl, and (f) ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5, all in units of cm yr−1 and based on the ECCO and GRACE overlapping period.
In contrast, relatively large GRACE trends in the eastern tropical Indian Ocean and near Japan are not present in either ECCOctrl or ECCOv4r5. The apparent rejection of these GRACE trends in the optimization is consistent with the data weights in Fig. a and the non-oceanographic, earthquake-related nature of these signals, as already discussed. Similar rejection of GRACE trends occurs in other areas such as Baffin Bay and the eastern North Atlantic. These trends are partly related to GRD effects discussed in Sect. , which are present in the data but not physically modeled in ECCO. Yet other areas show trend changes from ECCOctrl to ECCOv4r5 that increase (rather than decrease) the differences with GRACE (e.g., shift from negative to positive trends in the Argentine Basin). Thus, observational constraints other than those from GRACE can also have an impact on the pb trends, which is not necessarily consistent with the GRACE data.
The seasonal cycle is a main component of pb variability e.g.,Fig. 3. The mean seasonal cycle is defined as the average of all values for each calendar month from January to December. The standard deviations of the resulting 12-month mean series are similar among GRACE, ECCOctrl and ECCOv4r5 (Fig. a–c). Values range from <1 cm over most of the oceans to higher values (typically 1–3 cm) in subtropical and subpolar gyres, the Arctic and the Southern Oceans, and many coastal regions. The optimization produces sizable changes in the mean seasonal cycle (Fig. f)
Aside from the changes in magnitude that can be inferred from Fig. , examination of the month of maximum value (not shown) suggests that the optimization also leads to changes in the phase of the mean seasonal cycle.
, particularly in those higher variability regions, with ECCOv4r5 considerably closer to GRACE than ECCOctrl (Fig. d and e). The improved data fit for ECCOv4r5 implies both stronger (e.g., Beaufort Gyre) and weaker (e.g., Australia-Antarctic basin) seasonal cycles produced by the optimization.
Standard deviations of the mean seasonal cycle in pb fields for (a) GRACE, (b) ECCOv4r5, and (c) ECCOctrl, and of their respective differences (d) GRACE - ECCOv4r5, (e) GRACE - ECCOctrl, and (f) ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5, all in units of cm and based on the ECCO and GRACE overlapping period.
Similar findings arise when examining the residual pb variability upon removal of linear trends and mean seasonal cycles (Fig. ). Again adjustments to ECCOctrl (Fig. f) are comparable in magnitude to the variability (Fig. b and c) and ECCOv4r5 is for the most part a better fit to GRACE (cf. Fig. d and e). Large differences in variability seen in the eastern tropical Indian Ocean and near Japan indicate remaining earthquake signals, which as expected are not removed by simply detrending over the full length of the GRACE record.
Standard deviations of the residual pb time series obtained by removing the trends and the mean seasonal cycle for (a) GRACE, (b) ECCOv4r5, and (c) ECCOctrl, and of their respective differences (d) GRACE - ECCOv4r5, (e) GRACE - ECCOctrl, and (f) ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5, all in units of cm and based on the ECCO and GRACE overlapping period.
Taken together, Figs. – indicate that adjustments in pb occur over the full range of timescales contained in the records. Empirical ortoghonal function (EOF) analysis provides a concise description of not only the temporal but also the spatial nature of the pb adjustments. Here, we use Python package “eofs v2.0.0” to calculate EOFs for the full ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 fields (extending over 1992–2019) for completeness, but an analysis restricted to the GRACE period, as in Figs. -, yields similar results. When using the raw ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 fields, the first EOF basically reproduces the long-term trend pattern in Fig. f and accounts for ∼2/3 of the total variance (not shown). To focus on the remaining variability, the EOFs calculated using detrended fields are shown in Fig. . The seasonal cycle is dominant in modes 1 and 2, which contribute ∼38 % of the total variance; modes 3 through 5 account for another ∼20 % of the variance, with their principal components containing more mixed seasonal and nonseasonal variability compared to modes 1 and 2. In particular, mode 3 shows a strong loading in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean and a change in trend around 2002, reflecting in part the effects of GRACE constraints on the trends in that region, discussed in relation to Fig. .
First five empirical orthogonal functions of the detrended ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 pb fields based on the full 28-year record (1992–2019). Time series of principal components (PC) are in units of cm.
In terms of spatial structure, all EOFs in Fig. exhibit basin-scale, same-sign patterns. For example, mode 1 consists mostly of an out-of-phase pattern between high latitudes and low and mid latitudes, and similarly for mode 2 between the Southern and Indian Oceans and the rest of the ocean. Similar large scale patterns are present in modes 3 through 5. The Arctic and Southern Oceans as well as some coastal regions feature prominently in the modes, with the loadings generally consistent with the magnitudes of the pb adjustments in Figs. f and f.
Impact of GRACE data on optimization
Whether the pb adjustments described in Figs. – can be associated with the impact of GRACE data constraints remains an important question. Common methods to examine such questions include data withdrawal experiments, where one might compare solutions optimized with and without GRACE constraints e.g.,. In this study, we do not use such specific experiments but instead take advantage of the fact that GRACE record only starts in 2002 and contains several gaps since its inception. This allows us to evaluate the pb adjustments during periods when GRACE data is available versus when it is not. Notably, the principal components of all the EOFs in Fig. generally show different and enhanced variability after around 2002 (e.g., larger seasonal adjustments in mode 1, marked change in trend in mode 3), which coincides with the beginning of GRACE observations.
To ascertain the effect of the GRACE constraints, we calculate the spatial standard deviations of the ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 fields as a function of time (Fig. ). Results based on the raw fields over the global ocean (Fig. a) show a bowl-shaped pattern of larger adjustments at the end points and minimum values in the middle of the record. This shape coincides with the behavior of the standard deviation of ECCOctrl pb fields, also shown in Fig. a, in contrast with the rather flat nature of the standard deviation of ECCOv4r5 fields. Results based on detrended fields (Fig. b) show no bowl-shape characteristics for any curves. The changes to the linear trends in ECCOctrl brought about by the optimization (Fig. ) are thus the main reason behind the larger adjustments at the end points for ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 curve in Fig. a.
Time series of the spatial standard deviation (cm) of the ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 pb fields (green), calculated based on (a) full values and (b) detrended values. Black curve in (b) denotes the standard deviation of differences between ECCOv4r1 and respective control run for comparison. Shaded areas denote periods with GRACE data availability. Standard deviations of the corresponding pb fields for ECCOctrl (orange) and ECCOv4r5 (blue) are also shown for context.
Once ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 fields are detrended, there is a clear tendency for larger pb adjustments after GRACE data becomes available (Fig. b). The average value over months with GRACE data is 1.20 cm compared to 0.85 cm for months without it. Values over the ∼1-year gap between GRACE and GRACE-FO average to 0.72 cm, similar to levels prior to the onset of GRACE in 2002. Moreover, local minima tend to coincide with multiple shorter data gaps that occur particularly after 2011 until the demise of the GRACE mission in 2017. The consistently lower pb adjustments over most data gaps, including that between GRACE and GRACE-FO, are strong evidence of the impact of the gravity data in ECCOv4r5. Calculations restricted to various latitude bands (not shown) yielded similar results, pointing to the effects of GRACE constraints over most regions.
Apart from the introduction of GRACE data in 2002, a major change in the observing system was the deployment of Argo floats, which started in the early 2000s and reached maturity during the second half of the decade. To assess whether such development could also contribute to the enhanced pb adjustments after 2002, Fig. b shows the spatial standard deviations of the pb adjustments based on the earlier Version 4 Release 1 fields, which included all the Argo data but not the GRACE data. The pb adjustments for Release 1 show no visible enhanced values after the onset of Argo deployments and typical values similar to those associated with ECCOv4r5 results for periods without GRACE data. Thus impact of Argo data constraints on pb are deemed not essential for explaining the behavior observed in the ECCOv4r5 results.
For a complementary analysis detailing regional influences, we calculate the difference in the temporal standard deviations of detrended ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 fields for periods with and without GRACE observations (Fig. ). Again larger pb adjustments are observed over most of the global ocean (∼87 % of the grid points) for periods with available GRACE data. Differences in adjustments > 0.5 cm are seen for ∼13 % of values, with largest differences occurring in the Arctic (near Franz Josef Land and in Beaufort Sea) and Southern Oceans and some marginal seas and coastal regions (e.g., Siberian Shelf, Bering and Chukchi Seas, Hudson Bay, North Sea, Japan/East Sea, Gulf of Thailand/South China Sea).
Difference in the temporal standard deviations of detrended ECCOctrl - ECCOv4r5 pb fields, calculated for periods with and without GRACE observations. Positive values indicate larger pb adjustments for periods with GRACE data.
The behavior of pb adjustments implied in Figs. and (and also Fig. ) is thus consistent with a direct impact of the GRACE data on the optimization of the ECCOv4r5 pb fields. The differences in GRACE - ECCOv4r5 variability between periods with and without GRACE data are sizable compared to that of the pb adjustments (cf. Figs. , f and f). While the influence of GRACE data on constraining long-term trends in pb cannot be elucidated by our analysis, the impact on timescales ranging from monthly to interannual seems clear.
Global ocean mean mass analysis
The spatial mean of the pb fields derived from GRACE provides an estimate of the changes in the global ocean mass including floating ice and snow, once effects of atmospheric mass over the ocean and other known geophysical effects like glacial isostatic adjustment are accounted for. In ECCOv4r5, total ocean mass is directly tied to precipitation, evaporation and runoff forcing, including exchange with icebergs and ice shelf cavities. The model employs the correction to ensure mass conservation. In the ECCOv4r5 optimization, global mean ocean mass and sea level were simultaneously brought into agreement with GRACE and altimetry estimates by adjusting the precipitation fields with a time-varying, spatially constant factor, while ensuring that such modified forcing did not incur any substantially larger costs for all the other data constraints in the system.
The spatial means representing total ocean mass estimated from GRACE, ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl are shown in Fig. , expressed in terms of the corresponding changes in barystatic sea level . The ECCOctrl series exhibits a very different behavior from GRACE series, which reflects large imbalances in the net freshwater flux into the ocean, as estimated from the forcing fields provided by MERRA-2 reanalysis. The large negative trend in ECCOctrl series implies an ocean mass loss equivalent to a barystatic sea level drop of ∼30 cm over less than 2 decades, which is unrealistic in both sign and amplitude when compared to GRACE.
Global spatial means of raw pb fields for GRACE data (blue), ECCOv4r5 (orange) and ECCOctrl (green), expressed as values of barystatic sea level in units of cm. The ECCO spatial means have been corrected for spurious changes resulting from the Boussinesq model physics and reflect the true net mass change due to net freshwater fluxes from evaporation, precipitation and river runoff, as well as from ice shelf cavities and icebergs.
In contrast, the ECCOv4r5 estimate of ocean mass is much more consistent with the observations, implying a barystatic sea level rise of ∼5 cm over the period examined (Fig. ). There is also good agreement in their respective annual cycles. The RMSD between ECCOv4r5 and GRACE is ∼3 mm, similar to the estimated errors in GRACE of ∼2 mm . Thus, ECCOv4r5 provides a reasonable fit to the GRACE series within its expected uncertainty.
Interpretation of GRACE misfits
The focus in previous sections has been on contrasting ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl results to evaluate the impact of GRACE and all other data constraints on the ECCO optimization of pb fields. Here we turn to exploring the nature of the GRACE - ECCOv4r5 differences (Fig. a), which is important to better understand remaining data and model issues and improve future GRACE-constrained ECCO solutions. In principle, the misfits in Figs. a, d, d and d can be due to data noise, representation errors or model errors resulting from an incomplete optimization. discussed ECCOv4r5 and GRACE misfits in the context of the mean seasonal cycle in pb, which were partly attributed to: (1) data noise, particularly related to resolution and leakage issues that tend to contribute to larger misfits around the boundaries (cf. Fig. d); (2) representation errors associated with GRD effects and intrinsic ocean variability . We revisit these issues here expanding the analysis to include trends and nonseasonal variability.
First five empirical orthogonal functions of the GRACE - ECCOv4r5 pb fields. Time series of principal components (PC) are in units of cm.
(a) Trends (cm yr−1) and (b) standard deviations (cm) of the GRD fields, and (c, d) the percentage of variance in GRACE - ECCOv4r5 pb fields explained by GRD, based on full fields (c) and detrended fields (d).
Using an EOF decomposition of the GRACE - ECCOv4r5 fields, the first five modes (Fig. ) account for ∼2/3 of the total variance, and nearly 1/3 of the variance is associated with mode 1, mostly related to long-term trends in the fields. Mode 1 is clearly affected by the great Sumatra-Andaman and Tohoku earthquakes, with changes in behavior of its principal component evident in 2004 and 2011, but there are strong loadings in other places (e.g., Arctic, North Atlantic, near Antarctica). The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and to a lesser extent the Tohoku earthquake seem to affect also mode 2, which includes more of the seasonal component that is predominant in modes 3 and 4. More mixed monthly to interannual variability relates to mode 5, with an apparent large change across the GRACE and GRACE-FO gap. Loading patterns in modes 3–5 are mostly basin scale, with enhanced magnitudes near some continental boundaries (e.g., around South America in mode 4).
The long-term trends highlighted by the EOFs in Fig. can be partly due to representation errors associated with geophysical processes of non-oceanographic origin. Earthquakes typically involve large step-like, co-seismic jumps and post-seismic nonlinear temporal behavior e.g.,. These signals can be modeled empirically and removed from the GRACE fields, as done for several products recently made available e.g.,. Although not available for the GRACE product employed in this work, such an earthquake correction, based on the model of , is currently being developed and is planned for inclusion in the next release of the JPL mascon solutions (David Wiese, personal communication, 2025). Given a focus on pb and ocean dynamics, future GRACE data constraints might make use of fields that have been corrected for all major earthquake signals.
Other geophysical factors that can contribute to GRACE - ECCOv4r5 fields include GRD effects and glacial isostatic adjustment GIA;. Expanding on the treatment of the mean seasonal cycle discussed by , here we make use of the recent GRD estimates by to examine their possible effects on GRACE - ECCOv4r5 fields. Trends in GRD fields (Fig. a) are relatively large around Greenland and west Antarctica and related to the melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Other GRD variability (Fig. b) is also seen around many continental boundaries (e.g., western North America, South America, Southeast Asia), which is mostly related to the seasonal cycle in land hydrology.
There are considerable seasonal GRD effects associated with air masses over land, particularly around Eurasia e.g.,see their Fig. 2, but these are not included in the fields from .
The percentage of variance in GRACE - ECCOv4r5 misfits explained by GRD effects (Fig. c), calculated as
1-variance(GRACE-ECCOv4r5-GRD)variance(GRACE-ECCOv4r5)×100%,
is substantial in some of these areas. Differences between results using full versus detrended fields (Fig. c and d) indicate the importance of trends in Baffin Bay, eastern subpolar North Atlantic, and the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea sectors of coastal Antarctica, where values of percentage variance explained are largest (>50 %). Aside from trends, GRD variability mostly associated with the seasonal hydrological cycle in the Amazon can also explain >50 % of the variance in detrended misfits around South America (Fig. d). Similar results apply to other coastal regions like western North America. These latter findings are consistent with those in .
Unlike GRD effects, GIA is solely related to long-term trends . Although such trends are modeled and removed from GRACE fields , uncertainties in the models can also contribute to differences between ECCOv4r5 and GRACE. Estimates of GIA trend errors by , on the order of 1 mm yr−1 away from the main glaciation regions, are not negligible compared to differences in GRACE, ECCOv4r5 trends in Fig. d. Moreover, enhanced GIA errors in parts of the Arctic (Kara, Barents and Beaufort Seas) and in coastal Antarctica cf. Fig. 3, coincide with regions of relatively large differences between ECCOv4r5 and GRACE. Although estimated uncertainties in GIA trends can depend on the methodologies used to derive them e.g.,, both the pattern and magnitudes of GIA trends and their uncertainties cf. Fig. 3, suggest that errors in modeled GIA trends can contribute to the results in Figs. and d, particularly near the glaciation regions and in the Arctic.
All the geophysical signals discussed so far can be regarded as representation errors that are best removed from the GRACE observations, if suitable corrections are available. Other representation errors implicit in the ocean model should also be noted. We have already mentioned the effects of intrinsic variability associated with eddies and other nonlinear dynamics, which arise at scales not resolved by the ECCOv4r5 setup but can affect pb variability at the scales observed by GRACE . The studies of and are consistent with the influence of intrinsic signals on the enhanced misfits in regions such as the Argentine Basin and the Agulhas Retroflection (Figs. a, d and d). Similar effects may be active in other regions of large eddy activity (e.g., near the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio). Issues of resolution can also lead to representation errors in coastal regions where relatively small-scale boundary geometry and bathymetry features are important. For example, poorly resolved connections between the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Pacifc or Hudson Bay and the Atlantic are likely to hamper the ability to faithfully represent pb variability in those regions.
Summary and concluding remarks
Ocean bottom pressure (pb) is a key variable for tracking changes in the state of the oceans and climate, but space gravity data from GRACE provides relatively limited resolution in space and time. Ocean models can help fill data gaps but are prone to errors. This study uses the ECCO state estimation framework to assess the impact of data constraints, in particular those provided by both local and global mean GRACE data, on optimizing model-based solutions and determining “best estimates” of pb fields. Based on comparisons of ECCOv4r5 and ECCOctrl fields (Sect. ), the full data constraints lead to substantial adjustments of local pb fields. Largest changes occur at polar/subpolar and coastal regions, where pb variability is also largest. The optimized pb fields in ECCOv4r5 are mostly closer to the GRACE data, within expected uncertainties. Modifications to the pb fields occur over all timescales, from monthly to multi-decadal, and tend to have large, basin scales (Sect. ).
The pb adjustments for periods with GRACE constraints are notably larger than those for periods without GRACE data (Sect. ). Differences in their respective standard deviations of order 1 cm (Fig. ) are equivalent to changes in the barotropic streamfunction of a few Sverdrups (1 Sv = 106 m3 s−1) over the deep ocean e.g.,. Larger differences of a few centimeters in many coastal regions also imply substantial changes in circulation. Our results indicate the importance of GRACE constraints in the ECCO optimizations for determining local pb variations and associated circulations and extend previous findings by and , which were inherently limited by the shortness and relatively higher noise of the early GRACE data records. What is more, the novel GRACE constraint on global mean pb described in this study helps correct freshwater flux errors in the MERRA-2 atmospheric reanalysis, leading to more realistic barystatic sea level estimates in ECCOv4r5 (Sect. ).
The remaining differences between ECCOv4r5 and GRACE point to potential issues with geophysical (non-oceanographic) signals present in GRACE data used in our study (Sect. ). Recent derivation of “corrections” for effects of earthquakes and GRD and continued developments in GIA modeling shall prove crucial in improving the quality of GRACE data for pb estimation. In addition to GRD, GIA and earthquakes, other geophysical signals of more speculative origin, having to do with deep gravity anomalies associated with core and mantle dynamics, may also play a role in the GRACE - ECCOv4r5 residuals e.g.,and references therein. Such signals are not well understood, however, and thus not ripe for forward modeling as with GRD and GIA.
From a broader geophysical perspective, insofar as ECCOv4r5 yields a valid estimate of pb variability related to ocean dynamics, the GRACE - ECCOv4r5 fields can serve as a refined estimate of non-oceanographic gravity anomalies, which can then be studied in further detail e.g.,. A more advanced possibility would involve the joint estimation of pb and other geophysical parameters by bringing together models of the different components (solid Earth, hydrology, cryosphere, ocean) and other relevant datasets (e.g., laser altimetry of the ice sheets).
Estimation of “best” pb fields can also benefit from developments on the modeling and estimation side. Some of our results suggest that GRACE errors used in ECCOv4r5 might have been both underestimated (e.g., in the regions of the large earthquakes) and overestimated (e.g., in the low and mid latitudes). Continuous refinement of GRACE data weights will be needed, as non-oceanographic signals and more generally data noise are removed in future data releases. More advanced data weighing involving non-diagonal covariance terms is also possible, although their estimation is challenging. On the modeling side, increased resolution should help with representation of bathymetric features such as continental slopes and connections to marginal seas (e.g., Bab el-Mandeb, Gibraltar, and Hudson Straits), which are important in modulating pb variability in such regions. Shallow coastal domains (e.g., Arctic shelves) may also benefit from finer resolution as well as modified parameterizations of bottom friction (future optimizations could include bottom friction parameters as part of the “controls”). Note, however, that higher resolutions that allow realistic eddy fields will present other challenges in estimating large-scale pb fields, particularly where non-negligible intrinsic pb variability is expected .
Our analyses are based on the ECCO framework, with specific estimation methodogy, model settings, and data products. highlight the substantial differences in pb estimates produced by several available data assimilation systems, none of which consider the use of GRACE constraints. Hopefully, this study can stimulate the inclusion of GRACE data in future ocean reanalysis and state estimation efforts and serve as a baseline for exploring the influence of such data on the behavior of pb and associated circulation fields. The use of dedicated data withholding experiments e.g., would help to further quantify the impact of GRACE data constraints in pb estimation. Such analyses are relatively easy to implement in an ECCO framework but can be computationally slow and expensive and are left for future study.
Code and data availability
Ocean bottom pressure data from the GRACE and GRACE-FO missions (Mascon Release RL06 v2) used in the analysis are publicly available at https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/TELLUS_GRAC-GRFO_MASCON_CRI_GRID_RL06_V2 (last access: October 2024) from the NASA Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO.DAAC). Monthly global ocean mass time series from GRACE and GRACE-FO JPL RL06.3Mv4 Mascon Solution is available at https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/ocean-mass/ (last access: May 2025). GRACE and GRACE-FO monthly Gravitational Rotational Deformation (GRD) data are available at https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset/HOMAGE_GGFO_MSC_CRI_SALGRD_v01 (last access: December 2025) from the NASA PO.DAAC. Ocean bottom pressure data from the ECCO Version 4 Release 5 (v4r5) and control simulations are available at https://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/drive/files/Version4/Release5/diags_monthly/OBP_mon_mean (last access: October 2024) and https://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/drive/files/Version4/Release5/other/control_run/diags_monthly (last access: October 2024), respectively. The code used to produce the figures in this study is openly available at https://github.com/nishsilva/GRACE_ECCO (last access: 15 July 2026) and 10.5281/zenodo.21380710.
Author contributions
RMP came up with concept and methodology for the study, with help from IF, and wrote the first draft. ENSS performed all calculations and figures, with help from MZ. OW and IF provided support on ECCO analyses. All authors participated in the writing of the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.
Disclaimer
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant 80NSSC24K1154 (NASA GRACE Follow‐On Science Team) to AER. Part of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004).
Financial support
This research has been supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Headquarters (grant no. 80NSSC24K1154) and through a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (contract no. 80NM0018D0004).
Review statement
This paper was edited by Karen J. Heywood and reviewed by Detlef Stammer and Don Chambers.
ReferencesAndrosov, A., Boebel, O., Schröter, J., Danilov, S., Macrander, A., and Ivanciu, I.: Ocean Bottom Pressure Variability: Can It Be Reliably Modeled?, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 125, e2019JC015469, 10.1029/2019JC015469, 2020.Bonin, J., Pie, N., Tamisiea, M. E., Chambers, D., and Save, H.: GRACE and GRACE-FO mascons for ocean dynamic applications, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 3481–3505, 10.5194/essd-18-3481-2026, 2026.Caron, L., Ivins, E. R., Larour, E., Adhikari, S., Nilsson, J., and Blewitt, G.: GIA Model Statistics for GRACE Hydrology, Cryosphere, and Ocean Science, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2203–2212, 10.1002/2017GL076644, 2018.Dahle, C., Boergens, E., Sasgen, I., Döhne, T., Reißland, S., Dobslaw, H., Klemann, V., Murböck, M., König, R., Dill, R., Sips, M., Sylla, U., Groh, A., Horwath, M., and Flechtner, F.: GravIS: mass anomaly products from satellite gravimetry, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 611–631, 10.5194/essd-17-611-2025, 2025.Dawson, A.: eofs: A Library for EOF Analysis of Meteorological, Oceanographic, and Climate Data, J. Open Res. Softw., 4, e14, 10.5334/jors.122, 2016.Etige, N.: nishsilva/GRACE_ECCO: ECCO-GRACE-codes v1.0.0 (Version ECCO-GRACE), Zenodo [computer software], 10.5281/zenodo.21380710, 2026.Forget, G., Campin, J. M., Heimbach, P., Hill, C. N., Ponte, R. M., and Wunsch, C.: ECCO version 4: an integrated framework for non-linear inverse modeling and global ocean state estimation, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3071–3104, 10.5194/gmd-8-3071-2015, 2015.Fukumori, I., Fenty, I., Forget, G., Heimbach, P., King, C., Nguyen, A., Piecuch, C., , Ponte, R., Quinn, K., Vinogradova, N., and Wang, O.: Data sets used in ECCO Version 4 Release 3., Tech. Rep., http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/120472 (last access: 31 July 2025), 2018.Fukumori, I., Wang, O., Fenty, I., Forget, G., Heimbach, P., and Ponte, R. M.: ECCO version 4 release 4, Tech. Rep., Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3765929, 2019.Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suárez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L., Randles, C. A., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy, L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da Silva, A. M., Gu, W., Kim, G.-K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D., Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M., Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30, 5419–5454, 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1, 2017.Gill, A. and Niller, P.: The theory of the seasonal variability in the ocean, Deep-Sea Res. Oceanogr. Abstr., 20, 141–177, 10.1016/0011-7471(73)90049-1, 1973.Gouranton, C. G., Panet, I., Greff-Lefftz, M., Mandea, M., and Rosat, S.: GRACE Detection of Transient Mass Redistributions During a Mineral Phase Transition in the Deep Mantle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, e2025GL116408, 10.1029/2025GL116408, 2025.Greatbatch, R. J.: A note on the representation of steric sea level in models that conserve volume rather than mass, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 99, 12767–12771, 10.1029/94JC00847, 1994.Gregory, J. M., Griffies, S. M., Hughes, C. W., Lowe, J. A., Church, J. A., Fukimori, I., Gomez, N., Kopp, R. E., Landerer, F., Le Cozannet, G., Ponte, R. M., Stammer, D., Tamisiea, M. E., and van de Wal, R. S. W.: Concepts and Terminology for sea Level: Mean, Variability and Change, Both Local and Global, Surv. Geophys., 40, 1251–1289, 10.1007/s10712-019-09525-z, 2019.Hakuba, M. Z., Fourest, S., Boyer, T., Meyssignac, B., Carton, J. A., Forget, G., Cheng, L., Giglio, D., Johnson, G. C., Kato, S., Killick, R. E., Kolodziejczyk, N., Kuusela, M., Landerer, F., Llovel, W., Locarnini, R., Loeb, N., Lyman, J. M., Mishonov, A., Pilewskie, P., Reagan, J., Storto, A., Sukianto, T., and von Schuckmann, K.: Trends and Variability in Earth's Energy Imbalance and Ocean Heat Uptake Since 2005, Surv. Geophys., 45, 1721–1756, 10.1007/s10712-024-09849-5, 2024.Han, S.-C., Riva, R., Sauber, J., and Okal, E.: Source parameter inversion for recent great earthquakes from a decade-long observation of global gravity fields, J. Geophys. Res.-Solid, 118, 1240–1267, 10.1002/jgrb.50116, 2013.Hughes, C. W., Stepanov, V. N., Fu, L.-L., Barnier, B., and Hargreaves, G. W.: Three forms of variability in Argentine Basin ocean bottom pressure, J. Geophys. Res., 112, C01011, 10.1029/2006JC003679, 2007.Köhl, A., Siegismund, F., and Stammer, D.: Impact of assimilating bottom pressure anomalies from GRACE on ocean circulation estimates, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, 10.1029/2011JC007623, 2012.Landerer, F. and Wiese, D.: GRACE/GRACE-FO Level-4 Monthly Gravitational-Rotational-Deformation version 01 from NASA MEaSUREs HOMaGE, NASA, 10.5067/HMOGD-4JM01, 2025.Landerer, F. W., Wiese, D. N., Bentel, K., Boening, C., and Watkins, M. M.: North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation variations from GRACE ocean bottom pressure anomalies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 8114–8121, 10.1002/2015GL065730, 2015.Landerer, F. W., Flechtner, F. M., Save, H., Webb, F. H., Bandikova, T., Bertiger, W. I., Bettadpur, S. V., Byun, S. H., Dahle, C., Dobslaw, H., Fahnestock, E., Harvey, N., Kang, Z., Kruizinga, G. L. H., Loomis, B. D., McCullough, C., Murböck, M., Nagel, P., Paik, M., Pie, N., Poole, S., Strekalov, D., Tamisiea, M. E., Wang, F., Watkins, M. M., Wen, H.-Y., Wiese, D. N., and Yuan, D.-N.: Extending the Global Mass Change Data Record: GRACE Follow-On Instrument and Science Data Performance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088306, 10.1029/2020GL088306, 2020.Makowski, J. K., Chambers, D. P., and Bonin, J. A.: Using ocean bottom pressure from the gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) to estimate transport variability in the southern Indian Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 4245–4259, 10.1002/2014JC010575, 2015.Na, H., Watts, D. R., Park, J.-H., Jeon, C., Lee, H. J., Nonaka, M., and Greene, A. D.: Bottom pressure variability in the Kuroshio Extension driven by the atmosphere and ocean instabilities, J. Geophys. Res.- Oceans, 121, 6507–6519, 10.1002/2016JC012097, 2016.Nakayama, Y., Malyarenko, A., Zhang, H., Wang, O., Auger, M., Nie, Y., Fenty, I., Mazloff, M., Köhl, A., and Menemenlis, D.: Evaluation of MITgcm-based ocean reanalyses for the Southern Ocean, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8613–8638, 10.5194/gmd-17-8613-2024, 2024.Nilsson, J., Gardner, A. S., and Paolo, F. S.: Elevation change of the Antarctic Ice Sheet: 1985 to 2020, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 3573–3598, 10.5194/essd-14-3573-2022, 2022.Ponte, R. M.: A preliminary model study of the large-scale seasonal cycle in bottom pressure over the global ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 104, 1289–1300, 10.1029/1998JC900028, 1999.Ponte, R. M. and Schindelegger, M.: Seasonal Cycle in Sea Level Across the Coastal Zone, Earth Space Sci., 11, e2024EA003978, 10.1029/2024EA003978, 2024.Ponte, R. M., Zhao, M., and Schindelegger, M.: How well do we know the seasonal cycle in ocean bottom pressure?, Earth Space Sci., 11, e2024EA003661, 10.1029/2024EA003661, 2024.Quinn, K. J. and Ponte, R. M.: Estimating weights for the use of time-dependent gravity recovery and climate experiment data in constraining ocean models, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 113, 10.1029/2008JC004903, 2008.Rignot, E., Jacobs, S., Mouginot, J., and Scheuchl, B.: Ice-Shelf Melting Around Antarctica, Science, 341, 266–270, 10.1126/science.1235798, 2013.Saynisch, J., Bergmann-Wolf, I., and Thomas, M.: Assimilation of GRACE-derived oceanic mass distributions with a global ocean circulation model, J. Geod., 89, 121–139, 10.1007/s00190-014-0766-0, 2015.Simon, K. M. and Riva, R. E. M.: Uncertainty Estimation in Regional Models of Long-Term GIA Uplift and Sea Level Change: An Overview, J. Geophys. Res.-Solid, 125, e2019JB018983, 10.1029/2019JB018983, 2020.Stammer, D. and Cazenave, A. (Eds.): Applications of satellite altimetry over oceans and land surfaces, CRC Press, p. 643, 10.1201/9781315151779, 2017.Storto, A., Chierici, G., Pfeffer, J., Barnoud, A., Bourdalle-Badie, R., Blazquez, A., Cavaliere, D., Lalau, N., Coupry, B., Drevillon, M., Fourest, S., Larnicol, G., and Yang, C.: Variability in manometric sea level from reanalyses and observation-based products over the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans and the Mediterranean Sea, in: 8th edition of the Copernicus Ocean State Report (OSR8), edited by: von Schuckmann, K., Moreira, L., Grégoire, M., Marcos, M., Staneva, J., Brasseur, P., Garric, G., Lionello, P., Karstensen, J., and Neukermans, G., Copernicus Publications, State Planet, 4-osr8, 12, 10.5194/sp-4-osr8-12-2024, 2024.Swenson, S. and Wahr, J.: Post-processing removal of correlated errors in GRACE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 10.1029/2005GL025285, 2006. Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M., and Reigber, C.: The gravity recovery and climate experiment: Mission overview and early results, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 10.1029/2004GL019920, 2004.Vinogradova, N. T., Ponte, R. M., Tamisiea, M. E., Quinn, K. J., Hill, E. M., and Davis, J. L.: Self-attraction and loading effects on ocean mass redistribution at monthly and longer time scales, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 116, 10.1029/2011JC007037, 2011.Watkins, M. M., Wiese, D. N., Yuan, D.-N., Boening, C., and Landerer, F. W.: Improved Methods for Observing Earth's Time Variable Mass Distribution with GRACE Using Spherical Cap Mascons: Improved Gravity Observations from GRACE, J. Geophys. Res.-Solid, 120, 2648–2671, 10.1002/2014JB011547, 2015.WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group: Global sea-level budget 1993–present, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1551–1590, 10.5194/essd-10-1551-2018, 2018.Whitehouse, P. L.: Glacial isostatic adjustment modelling: historical perspectives, recent advances, and future directions, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 401–429, 10.5194/esurf-6-401-2018, 2018.Wiese, D. N., Yuan, D.-N., Boening, C., Landerer, F. W., and Watkins, M. M.: JPL GRACE and GRACE-FO Mascon Ocean, Ice, and Hydrology Equivalent Water Height Coastal Resolution Improvement (CRI) Filtered Release 06 Version 02, NASA, 10.5067/TEMSC-3JC62, 2019.Wiese, D. N., Yuan, D.-N., Boening, C., Landerer, F. W., and Watkins, M. M.: JPL GRACE and GRACE-FO Mascon Ocean, Ice, and Hydrology Equivalent Water Height CRI Filtered RL06.3Mv04, NASA, 10.5067/TEMSC-3JC634, 2024.Wunsch, C., Heimbach, P., Ponte, R. M., Fukumori, I., and Members, T. E.-G. C.: The Global General Circulation of the Ocean Estimated by the ECCO-Consortium, Oceanography, 22, 10.5670/oceanog.2009.41, 2009.Zhao, M., Ponte, R. M., Penduff, T., Close, S., Llovel, W., and Molines, J.-M.: Imprints of Ocean Chaotic Intrinsic Variability on Bottom Pressure and Implications for Data and Model Analyses, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL096341, 10.1029/2021GL096341, 2021.Zhao, M., Ponte, R. M., and Penduff, T.: Global-scale random bottom pressure fluctuations from oceanic intrinsic variability, Sci. Adv., 9, eadg0278, 10.1126/sciadv.adg0278, 2023.