Noumea: A new multi-mission Cal/Val site for past and future altimetry missions?

Chupin, Clémence; Ballu, Valérie; Testut, Laurent; Tranchant, Yann-Treden; Aucan, Jérôme

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514

Preprints

27 Jul 2022

| 27 Jul 2022

Noumea: A new multi-mission Cal/Val site for past and future altimetry missions?

Clémence Chupin, Valérie Ballu, Laurent Testut, Yann-Treden Tranchant, and Jérôme Aucan

Abstract. To better understand sea level evolution in coastal areas, one needs to link and combine global observations from altimetry satellites with the scattered but long-term tide gauges measurements. In New-Caledonia, the Noumea lagoon is an example of this challenge as altimetry, coastal tide gauge and vertical land movements from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) do not provide consistent information. The GEOCEAN-NC 2019 field campaign tries to address this question with the deployments of in situ instruments in the lagoon, with a particular interest for the crossing point of three different altimetry tracks (Jason/Sentinel-3a). Thanks to GNSS buoy and pressure gauge observations, we propose a method to virtually transfer the Noumea tide gauge offshore, to obtain a long-term sea surface height (SSH) time series at the altimetry crossover point. We also reprocess the 20 Hz along-track data from Jason and Sentinel-3a Geophysical Data Records (GDR) with the best correction parameters in the area. These two SSH time series (i.e. in situ and altimetry) allow us to compute the altimeter biases time series over the entire Jason and Sentinel-3a period. With our 3 weeks field campaign, we reanalyse about 20 years of altimetry observations and find inter-mission biases consistent with historical calibration sites, thus further increasing our knowledge of the local sea level rise in this region. This offers many opportunities to develop Cal/Val activities in the lagoon, which is also the subject of several experiments for the scientific calibration phase of the future large-swath altimetry mission SWOT.

Received: 20 Jun 2022 – Discussion started: 27 Jul 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3985 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (3985 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Aug 2023

Nouméa: a new multi-mission calibration and validation site for past and future altimetry missions?

Clémence Chupin, Valérie Ballu, Laurent Testut, Yann-Treden Tranchant, and Jérôme Aucan

Ocean Sci., 19, 1277–1314, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1277-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1277-2023, 2023

Short summary

Clémence Chupin et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-514', Christopher Watson, 15 Nov 2022

Title: Noumea: A new multi-mission Cal/Val site for past and future altimetry missions.

Authors: Chupin et al.

Comments:

This paper presents an analysis of various types of in situ data from the Noumea lagoon in New-Caledonia in order to assess the utility of the site for ongoing altimetry validation purposes. The work replicates a method whereby a suite of in situ measurements are used involving a bottom pressure gauge, surface GNSS buoy and coastal tide gauge. In addition, a novel towed sea carpet is used to assess local geoid slope. The work is generally presented to a high standard, making a strong case for the suitability of the site for this purpose. A number of areas within the manuscript would benefit from some revision and clarification - I therefore consider that the manuscript warrants publication following consideration of the following comments. I have summarised my more substantive comments below and have attached an annotated PDF which contains many more minor comments/suggestions throughout the manuscript.

1) One of the characteristics of existing validation facilities is a robust understanding of vertical land motion. In this paper, I felt that review of the land based GNSS sites and existing VLM time series was lacking - VLM was mentioned at various stages in the manuscript (including divergent estimates from ALT-TG records) but I felt this needed greater context and quantitative information presented to the reader. I was left feeling uncertain regarding the geophsyical context (e.g. proximity to co-/post-seismic signals), and wanted more of a sense of what the current GNSS record shows in terms of linearity/noise etc. Some additional review of previous work, plus perhaps some plots of GNSS time series in the appendices/supp material would be of benefit.

2) The hydrodynamical characteristics of the lagoon were of interest to me given these would often generate a gradient in sea level observed at the coast, at the location of a bottom pressure gauge and then further ofshore at an altimeter measurement location. Given the agreement between the tidally corrected tide gauge and BPR locations, this doesn't appear to be a major issue for this site. I feel more could be made of this point - further, more detail could be provided regarding the quality of the tide gauge record (e.g. RSL trend(s), description of dominant non-tidal variability etc).

3) Several aspects of the GNSS buoy solution appeared to lack explanation. Variability in the GNSS solution is perhaps higher than I expected - I also expected to see greater comparison of the buoy v tide gauge when deployed in the harbour. The buoy data appears to be 1 sample per 10 seconds (I initially thought 10 Hz but statements in the appendix confirm 2 epochs = 20 seconds). Given this is slower than the wave period, there is significant scope for aliasing here - this choice needs to be defended, or the liklihood of aliasing further explored. There are also some furhter clarifications required on the GNSS processing settings used (eg Kalman filter configuration, mapping function selection etc) - see the annotated PDF for further details.

4) The magnitude and subsequent removal of trends in BiasAlt time series (Figure 9) requires further explanation and defence. The trend for Jason-1 is ~-4 mm/yr which is noticably different to Jason-2 and Jason-3. Is there an explanation for this? and coming back to point #1, could VLM be involved? Also relating to Figure 9, there appeared a number of outliers in the bias time series that warrant further investigation and possible discussion - e.g. three records for Jason-2 undoubtedly bias the standard deviation of this record and could be removed with justification. Are these symptomatic of erroneous altimeter data or do they provide insight to the lagoon dynamics? Comment on this would be insightful given the focus of the paper.

5) The absolute bias series presented are ~46 mm higher than other validation facilities. I wonder if the permanent component of the solid Earth tide has been appropriately considered in the analysis? This amounts to be ~34 mm at this latitude. The sign of this term would reduce the difference (assuming it has not already been applied). Without correcting for this bias, some of the statements made in the conclusions are not quite appropraitely defended and require revision (see annotated copy). Regardless of the permanent component of the solid Earth tide, the conclusion needs to make it quite clear that the absolute datum for this work is obtained from just a single buoy deployment - some mention of the likely uncertainty associated with the aboslute datum is therefore required.

6) I feel the abstract lacks quantitative statements to best represent its claims - I at least expected statements around the level of variability observed in the absolute bias time series and stability of the vertical datum in order to make the case for the location. Uncertainty also requires some mention in the abstract (e.g. the buoy issue raised in the previous point). I also note that the final comment in the short summary about sea level evolution in the lagoon is not covered in the abstract - these should be revised to be more consistent.

7) The paper could be strengthened by further elucidating the case for why further cal/val sites would be of benefit to the altimetry community. The rationale for altimetry validation is important - it is a fundamental component of mission design and takes many forms. I would like to see the authors address this point which would assist to build the justification behind the publication.

Please see attached PDF for further comments/suggestions. Well done, nice work.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Christopher Watson,
  Thanks for your high interest in our study, and for your detailed proofreading which allowed us to point out inconsistencies and omissions in the original paper, and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-514', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2023
Chupin et al. assess a variety of different measurements (tide gauge, satellite along-track data, GNSS, etc.) in the Noumea lagoon. The area is of interest as a long-term validation site altimetry missions. The results reveal new insights into sea-level changes in the area. The methods are generally sound and the study should eventually be published. However, as a non-expert is some of the different measurement systems, I feel that the manuscript could benefit from a couple of clarifications. This can certainly be achieved by a few minor adjustments. Please find below 2 general and a few specific comments:

The analysis of vertical land motion could be done a little more thoroughly. First, the authors provide ideas why their estimate might differ from the conclusion reached in Aucan et al. (2017). However, this can easily be proved by comparing the rates (over their overlapping periods) derived from gridded and along-track data. Second, I think the comparison to GNSS could also be done over overlapping periods to see how time-dependent it is.

I feel that the paper is written very technically, which is ok for the topic, but I think it would be beneficial for the wider audience if the authors could significantly reduce the number abbreviation and explain all terminology (e.g., SWOT, DT-INSU, etc.) used. The latter might be obvious to experts, but certainly not to a wider audience that might be interested in this research.

Specific comments:

Line 35: or propagating signals that are trapped to the coast (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-019-09535-x).

Line 92: Could you please specify in 1-2 sentences what a CALNAGeo GNSS carpet is?

Line 95: What’s DT-INSU?

Line 135: What’s the GINS software? Please specify.

Line 142: What is “time-dependent vertical scale”?

Figure 3: I guess S3a is Sentinel? If so, I would suggest just using “Sentinel”

Line 198: fly over the area (is) for about 10 seconds

Line 215: What are the EUMETSAT portals; please add link

Line 224: remove s from integrates

Line 244: The sentence is unclear to me. What does “before the altimeter measurements” mean?

Line 273: Is the abbreviation for Mean Quadratic Error really needed?

Line 354: What’s the time span over which Ballu et al. (2019) estimated this trend, and how does it compare to the trend from your series over the same time span?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thanks for your interest in our study and results and for your comments which highlight some omissions in the original paper and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thanks for your interest in our study and results and for your comments which highlight some omissions in the original paper and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-514', Christopher Watson, 15 Nov 2022

Title: Noumea: A new multi-mission Cal/Val site for past and future altimetry missions.

Authors: Chupin et al.

Comments:

This paper presents an analysis of various types of in situ data from the Noumea lagoon in New-Caledonia in order to assess the utility of the site for ongoing altimetry validation purposes. The work replicates a method whereby a suite of in situ measurements are used involving a bottom pressure gauge, surface GNSS buoy and coastal tide gauge. In addition, a novel towed sea carpet is used to assess local geoid slope. The work is generally presented to a high standard, making a strong case for the suitability of the site for this purpose. A number of areas within the manuscript would benefit from some revision and clarification - I therefore consider that the manuscript warrants publication following consideration of the following comments. I have summarised my more substantive comments below and have attached an annotated PDF which contains many more minor comments/suggestions throughout the manuscript.

1) One of the characteristics of existing validation facilities is a robust understanding of vertical land motion. In this paper, I felt that review of the land based GNSS sites and existing VLM time series was lacking - VLM was mentioned at various stages in the manuscript (including divergent estimates from ALT-TG records) but I felt this needed greater context and quantitative information presented to the reader. I was left feeling uncertain regarding the geophsyical context (e.g. proximity to co-/post-seismic signals), and wanted more of a sense of what the current GNSS record shows in terms of linearity/noise etc. Some additional review of previous work, plus perhaps some plots of GNSS time series in the appendices/supp material would be of benefit.

2) The hydrodynamical characteristics of the lagoon were of interest to me given these would often generate a gradient in sea level observed at the coast, at the location of a bottom pressure gauge and then further ofshore at an altimeter measurement location. Given the agreement between the tidally corrected tide gauge and BPR locations, this doesn't appear to be a major issue for this site. I feel more could be made of this point - further, more detail could be provided regarding the quality of the tide gauge record (e.g. RSL trend(s), description of dominant non-tidal variability etc).

3) Several aspects of the GNSS buoy solution appeared to lack explanation. Variability in the GNSS solution is perhaps higher than I expected - I also expected to see greater comparison of the buoy v tide gauge when deployed in the harbour. The buoy data appears to be 1 sample per 10 seconds (I initially thought 10 Hz but statements in the appendix confirm 2 epochs = 20 seconds). Given this is slower than the wave period, there is significant scope for aliasing here - this choice needs to be defended, or the liklihood of aliasing further explored. There are also some furhter clarifications required on the GNSS processing settings used (eg Kalman filter configuration, mapping function selection etc) - see the annotated PDF for further details.

4) The magnitude and subsequent removal of trends in BiasAlt time series (Figure 9) requires further explanation and defence. The trend for Jason-1 is ~-4 mm/yr which is noticably different to Jason-2 and Jason-3. Is there an explanation for this? and coming back to point #1, could VLM be involved? Also relating to Figure 9, there appeared a number of outliers in the bias time series that warrant further investigation and possible discussion - e.g. three records for Jason-2 undoubtedly bias the standard deviation of this record and could be removed with justification. Are these symptomatic of erroneous altimeter data or do they provide insight to the lagoon dynamics? Comment on this would be insightful given the focus of the paper.

5) The absolute bias series presented are ~46 mm higher than other validation facilities. I wonder if the permanent component of the solid Earth tide has been appropriately considered in the analysis? This amounts to be ~34 mm at this latitude. The sign of this term would reduce the difference (assuming it has not already been applied). Without correcting for this bias, some of the statements made in the conclusions are not quite appropraitely defended and require revision (see annotated copy). Regardless of the permanent component of the solid Earth tide, the conclusion needs to make it quite clear that the absolute datum for this work is obtained from just a single buoy deployment - some mention of the likely uncertainty associated with the aboslute datum is therefore required.

6) I feel the abstract lacks quantitative statements to best represent its claims - I at least expected statements around the level of variability observed in the absolute bias time series and stability of the vertical datum in order to make the case for the location. Uncertainty also requires some mention in the abstract (e.g. the buoy issue raised in the previous point). I also note that the final comment in the short summary about sea level evolution in the lagoon is not covered in the abstract - these should be revised to be more consistent.

7) The paper could be strengthened by further elucidating the case for why further cal/val sites would be of benefit to the altimetry community. The rationale for altimetry validation is important - it is a fundamental component of mission design and takes many forms. I would like to see the authors address this point which would assist to build the justification behind the publication.

Please see attached PDF for further comments/suggestions. Well done, nice work.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Christopher Watson,
  Thanks for your high interest in our study, and for your detailed proofreading which allowed us to point out inconsistencies and omissions in the original paper, and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-514', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2023
Chupin et al. assess a variety of different measurements (tide gauge, satellite along-track data, GNSS, etc.) in the Noumea lagoon. The area is of interest as a long-term validation site altimetry missions. The results reveal new insights into sea-level changes in the area. The methods are generally sound and the study should eventually be published. However, as a non-expert is some of the different measurement systems, I feel that the manuscript could benefit from a couple of clarifications. This can certainly be achieved by a few minor adjustments. Please find below 2 general and a few specific comments:

The analysis of vertical land motion could be done a little more thoroughly. First, the authors provide ideas why their estimate might differ from the conclusion reached in Aucan et al. (2017). However, this can easily be proved by comparing the rates (over their overlapping periods) derived from gridded and along-track data. Second, I think the comparison to GNSS could also be done over overlapping periods to see how time-dependent it is.

I feel that the paper is written very technically, which is ok for the topic, but I think it would be beneficial for the wider audience if the authors could significantly reduce the number abbreviation and explain all terminology (e.g., SWOT, DT-INSU, etc.) used. The latter might be obvious to experts, but certainly not to a wider audience that might be interested in this research.

Specific comments:

Line 35: or propagating signals that are trapped to the coast (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-019-09535-x).

Line 92: Could you please specify in 1-2 sentences what a CALNAGeo GNSS carpet is?

Line 95: What’s DT-INSU?

Line 135: What’s the GINS software? Please specify.

Line 142: What is “time-dependent vertical scale”?

Figure 3: I guess S3a is Sentinel? If so, I would suggest just using “Sentinel”

Line 198: fly over the area (is) for about 10 seconds

Line 215: What are the EUMETSAT portals; please add link

Line 224: remove s from integrates

Line 244: The sentence is unclear to me. What does “before the altimeter measurements” mean?

Line 273: Is the abbreviation for Mean Quadratic Error really needed?

Line 354: What’s the time span over which Ballu et al. (2019) estimated this trend, and how does it compare to the trend from your series over the same time span?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thanks for your interest in our study and results and for your comments which highlight some omissions in the original paper and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Clémence Chupin, 24 Apr 2023
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thanks for your interest in our study and results and for your comments which highlight some omissions in the original paper and certainly improve the quality of our study. Please find in the attached PDF file a point-by-point response to the main comments. As we also update sections and results, we also provide PDF files of the updated paper and appendix with responses to your short comments.
  Kind regards,
  Clémence Chupin
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-514-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Clémence Chupin on behalf of the Authors (04 May 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 May 2023) by John M. Huthnance

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Jun 2023)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Jun 2023) by John M. Huthnance

Dear Authors
Thank-you again for the revised manuscript. As forecast, I attempted to send it back to the reviewers to check that they are happy. As you may recall, both referees initially recommended minor revision but did agree to see your revised manuscript. Unfortunately the referee with more extensive comments did not respond to the request for re-review. However, the other referee, whose opinion I respect, has recommended acceptance as is, reinforcing my own opinion that you addressed the first-round comments thoroughly. Therefore I am now accepting your manuscript subject to "technical corrections" (as below; I think I may have sent these to you already). After dealing with these, you should please upload your re-revised manuscript for publication in Ocean Science. I do not need to see it again. Please be aware that (i) all the reviewer and editor comments (including those below) will be available to readers of the published paper; they will be able to see how you have responded to the comments; (ii) the manuscript will be copy-edited by Copernicus and you should check that your intended meaning remains.
Thank-you for publishing in Ocean Science
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance (editor).

"Technical corrections"
Line 10. “leaves” –> “lives”
Line 43. “confident” –> “confidence”
Line 65. “multiply the” –> “multiple”?
Line 174. “dependant” –> “dependent”
Line 175. “approximate with” –> “approximated by”?
Line 184 and 318. “overfly” –> “overflight”?
Figure 3. You should define S3a at first use.
Line 204. “tie” –> “tied”.
Equations (1) and (2) seem only to “take” the tide gauge series to the pressure gauge 4 km south of the cross over location (∆𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑢m is labelled TG→PG) omitting the offset with the GNSS series (step 2 and section 3.3). Where is the “altimeter comparison point” (line 232)?
Line 236. “fly” –> “flight”
Line 317 and equation (4). Either both or neither should have “∆” before “Bias”
Line 325. Please define MQE at first use.
Lines 373-374. Better “(2 mm lower) and slightly higher than the Corsica (by +8 mm) and Bass-Strait results (by +16 mm)”?
Lines 426 to 428 are not consistent. “For example” (Line 427) suggests that Noumea subsides as found for New-Caledonia more generally (lines 426-427). But a negative value -1.3 for subsidence (line 428) is uplift!
Data availability. “. . sensor data used in this paper are available from the authors upon request . .” This might be acceptable if this refers only to the characteristics/settings of the sensors. However, time series measurements should be held in a recognised data bank so that access does not depend on an individual’s availability. Please see https://www.ocean-science.net/policies/data_policy.html and the “Statement on the availability of underlying data” there.
Appendix A line 72. “nor” –> “neither”
Appendix B line 129. “the sensor” – better to be explicit – 2019r? Likewise line 133 – 2019x sinks?
Appendix E lines 215, 216. Better “E1” –> “E1 right panels”
The Appendix E text does not refer to figure E2?
Appendix G Line 288. “on” –> “or”?
Figure G1. The legend D>30km dot is much larger than shown on the satellite tracks

Hide

AR by Clémence Chupin on behalf of the Authors (23 Jun 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Aug 2023

Nouméa: a new multi-mission calibration and validation site for past and future altimetry missions?

Clémence Chupin, Valérie Ballu, Laurent Testut, Yann-Treden Tranchant, and Jérôme Aucan

Ocean Sci., 19, 1277–1314, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1277-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-1277-2023, 2023

Short summary

Clémence Chupin et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 561 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
358	176	27	561	10	6

HTML: 358
PDF: 176
XML: 27
Total: 561
BibTeX: 10
EndNote: 6

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	41	13	5	59
Aug 2022	35	19	2	56
Sep 2022	22	8	0	30
Oct 2022	36	9	1	46
Nov 2022	39	15	3	57
Dec 2022	13	8	1	22
Jan 2023	44	19	2	65
Feb 2023	23	15	0	38
Mar 2023	15	13	0	28
Apr 2023	41	17	6	64
May 2023	12	8	1	21
Jun 2023	17	10	3	30
Jul 2023	13	14	3	30
Aug 2023	7	8	0	15
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	41	13	5	59
Aug 2022	35	19	2	56
Sep 2022	22	8	0	30
Oct 2022	36	9	1	46
Nov 2022	39	15	3	57
Dec 2022	13	8	1	22
Jan 2023	44	19	2	65
Feb 2023	23	15	0	38
Mar 2023	15	13	0	28
Apr 2023	41	17	6	64
May 2023	12	8	1	21
Jun 2023	17	10	3	30
Jul 2023	13	14	3	30
Aug 2023	7	8	0	15
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 563 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 563 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Jan 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3985 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Altimetry satellite are essential to monitor and understand sea level evolution around the world with rates accuracy of mm/year. But these systems must also be qualified and controlled, especially approaching the coast. Using long-term sea level time series from Noumea tide gauge (New-Caledonia) and in situ data collected during the GEOCEAN-NC campaign, we propose a method to re-analyse about twenty years of altimetry observations and re-address the question of sea level evolution in the lagoon.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Noumea: A new multi-mission Cal/Val site for past and future altimetry missions?

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)