the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Jan 2024
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations
Abstract. In this study, we exploit autonomous underwater glider data to infer internal tide dynamics south of New Caledonia, an internal-tide generation hot spot in the southwestern tropical Pacific. By fitting a sinusoidal function to vertical displacements at each depth using a least-squares method, we simultaneously estimate diurnal and semidiurnal tides. Our analysis reveals regions of enhanced tidal activity, strongly dominated by the semidiurnal tide. To validate our findings, we compare the glider observations to a regional numerical simulation that includes tidal forcing. This comparison assesses the simulation’s realism in representing tidal dynamics and evaluates the glider’s ability to infer internal tide signals and their signature in sea surface height (SSH). The glider observations and a pseudo glider, simulated using hourly numerical model output with identical sampling, exhibit similar amplitude and phase characteristics along the glider track. Existing discrepancies are primarily explained by tidal incoherence induced by eddy-internal tide interactions. We infer the semidiurnal internal tide signature in steric SSH by the integration of vertical displacements. Within the upper 1000 m, the pseudo glider captures roughly 78 % of the steric SSH total variance explained by the full water column signal. This value increases to over 90 % when projecting the pseudo glider’s vertical displacements onto climatological baroclinic modes and extrapolating to full depth. Notably, the steric SSH from glider observations aligns closely with empirical estimates derived from satellite altimetry, highlighting the glider observations’ predominating coherent nature.
-
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
(19080 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(19080 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-247', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2024
Review
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations
Arne Bendinger et al.
Summary
This manuscript describes glider observations of internal tides and compares them with numerical models. Generally the comparison is good and discrepancies are explained via mesoscale eddy refraction. There are two major points that need to be addressed on the CTD and near inertial waves, but otherwise the manuscript is generally clear and to the point. A nice feature is that observations from a glider are compared to the model which is selectively sampled as the glider did the ocean.
Major comments
1. The glider CTD inlet is located on top and so upward profiles experience clean flow. Downward profiles experience distorted flow. Some justification/statistics are needed to show downward profiles are not contaminated (i.e., both raw and binned data, T-S plots of upward vs downward profiles, rms difference vs p, evidence of hysteresis, and so on).
For future consideration, even if the downward profiles are ok, their advantage is limited. There is no gain in resolution at the turning points; there is a factor of 2 increase in resolution at the mid point; and everywhere else it’s in between. So at best the noise is reduced by a factor of √2. Then there is the energy use for marginal gain in my opinion, which could be used instead to extend the sampling with clean, upward profiles.
2. (a) From Fig 5 it looks like you should also fit at the inertial period ~ 29 hrs, even though this will overlap with the diurnal signal though for the 3-day window because the frequency resolution is 1/(3 days). This raises two points. (b) In line 316, this is linked to submesoscale dynamics, which appears to ignore the inertial signal, which is also expected to be larger also in the upper ocean. Since the near-inertial displacements are similar in size to the semidiurnal displacements, the near-inertial signal will have much more kinetic energy and may then be much more energetic internal wave signal than the semi diurnal signal. (c) Any comparison with the model should be a comparison of semi diurnal and not individual constituents, ie M2, S2, which it seems to me is done most/all of the time.
Minor comment
3. It would be worth mentioning how the internal tides near New Caledonia show up in previous global models and observations by Zhao, Niwa and Hibiya, Ray and Cartwright, etc. and how your models and observations compare.
4. For interference patterns there is a paper by Rainville et al about Hawaii.
Comments by line
44 - The smearing of temporal variability into spatial variability by slowly moving gliders has been examined by Rudnick & Cole (2011). You can extract some wavelengths based on your dominant diurnal and semidiurnal periods. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247
48 - Could lead with the advantages of using gliders for studying internal waves and then follow with limitations (line 37).
58 - This paragraph could benefit from the addition of some of the original references related to Hawaii, theory, altimetry, interference, and coherence.
127 - Some more explanation is needed of how forcing by tidal potential and at the boundaries works. Usually only one type of forcing is used because the 2 methods may provide conflicting information, which would produce spurious waves at the boundaries and perhaps elsewhere. Or perhaps only at certain times when the mismatches are more apparent.
148 - Absolute geostrophic currents referenced to glider depth mean velocity can be calculated too.
168 - Also smearing of the semidiurnal signal goes into scales < 30 km (Rudnick & Cole, 2011) and so averaging should be done over larger scales.
265 - This isn’t a big deal because it’s the time differences (ie, ~ 6 hrs) between profiles that is the main thing.
275 - It would be helpful to see the full depth structure of modes 1-2.
Fig 7- no advantage to using grey shading
Fig 11 - there are some spurious signals in the model or interpolating it onto the glider path especially near 15/8, 8/10 and 16/10.
Fig 11 - explain why the upper 100 m is missing.
310 - semi diurnal displacement variance. See comment 2 about total internal wave signal.
405- Do these variance include the upper 100 m which are missing in Fig 11? If not, then this is where the residual/possibly near internal wave variance is largest
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Arne Bendinger, 27 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-247', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2024
Review
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations
Summary
This paper describes an effort to investigate internal tide structure using glider observations. I found this paper to be interesting and not hard to follow.
I have no major comments, only several minor comments, and they are listed below
Line 8-9 – eddy-internal tide interactions are certainly one source of discrepancy. I don’t discount this mechanism, but there are other potential sources of error as well (such as topography and stratification). What about those?
Line 14 – “glider observations’ predominating coherent nature”. Why would this be the case? I assume there isn’t something intrinsic about the glider observations that would make them have a coherent nature. Is the observation record too short to observe much incoherence, was this a time period of low variability or some other reason?
Lines 44-46 – problems separating high and low frequency signals. Can these be separated enough to get insight into the coherent/incoherent question?
Line 121 - the numerical model used, has it been compared against other models and/or observations to show it is sufficiently accurate/realistic to aid in this study?
Line 127 – tidal forcing along boundary. It appears you’re forcing with FES along the boundary. This is barotropic forcing only. Mazloff et al (2020-JGR) talk about the importance of remote forcing for regional modeling of internal waves. Can you comment on the results of this paper and either it’s relevance or lack of relevance to this work?
Figure 7 – I find this gray scale plot hard to interpret. The other plots in the paper are color, was there a reason why gray scale was used? I may be missing something that this color bar choice was intended to help convey.
Line 255 – “have never been used the SSH signature” doesn’t read right. Did you intend to convey “have never been used to derive the SSH signature”?
Line 344 – There are other sources of potential disagreement as well, such as forcing, topography and stratification errors and unconstrained variability. Have you explored or considered those?
I had some additional thoughts, but those were enumerated by reviewer 1, so I'll omit including those.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Arne Bendinger, 27 May 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-247', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2024
Review
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations
Arne Bendinger et al.
Summary
This manuscript describes glider observations of internal tides and compares them with numerical models. Generally the comparison is good and discrepancies are explained via mesoscale eddy refraction. There are two major points that need to be addressed on the CTD and near inertial waves, but otherwise the manuscript is generally clear and to the point. A nice feature is that observations from a glider are compared to the model which is selectively sampled as the glider did the ocean.
Major comments
1. The glider CTD inlet is located on top and so upward profiles experience clean flow. Downward profiles experience distorted flow. Some justification/statistics are needed to show downward profiles are not contaminated (i.e., both raw and binned data, T-S plots of upward vs downward profiles, rms difference vs p, evidence of hysteresis, and so on).
For future consideration, even if the downward profiles are ok, their advantage is limited. There is no gain in resolution at the turning points; there is a factor of 2 increase in resolution at the mid point; and everywhere else it’s in between. So at best the noise is reduced by a factor of √2. Then there is the energy use for marginal gain in my opinion, which could be used instead to extend the sampling with clean, upward profiles.
2. (a) From Fig 5 it looks like you should also fit at the inertial period ~ 29 hrs, even though this will overlap with the diurnal signal though for the 3-day window because the frequency resolution is 1/(3 days). This raises two points. (b) In line 316, this is linked to submesoscale dynamics, which appears to ignore the inertial signal, which is also expected to be larger also in the upper ocean. Since the near-inertial displacements are similar in size to the semidiurnal displacements, the near-inertial signal will have much more kinetic energy and may then be much more energetic internal wave signal than the semi diurnal signal. (c) Any comparison with the model should be a comparison of semi diurnal and not individual constituents, ie M2, S2, which it seems to me is done most/all of the time.
Minor comment
3. It would be worth mentioning how the internal tides near New Caledonia show up in previous global models and observations by Zhao, Niwa and Hibiya, Ray and Cartwright, etc. and how your models and observations compare.
4. For interference patterns there is a paper by Rainville et al about Hawaii.
Comments by line
44 - The smearing of temporal variability into spatial variability by slowly moving gliders has been examined by Rudnick & Cole (2011). You can extract some wavelengths based on your dominant diurnal and semidiurnal periods. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247
48 - Could lead with the advantages of using gliders for studying internal waves and then follow with limitations (line 37).
58 - This paragraph could benefit from the addition of some of the original references related to Hawaii, theory, altimetry, interference, and coherence.
127 - Some more explanation is needed of how forcing by tidal potential and at the boundaries works. Usually only one type of forcing is used because the 2 methods may provide conflicting information, which would produce spurious waves at the boundaries and perhaps elsewhere. Or perhaps only at certain times when the mismatches are more apparent.
148 - Absolute geostrophic currents referenced to glider depth mean velocity can be calculated too.
168 - Also smearing of the semidiurnal signal goes into scales < 30 km (Rudnick & Cole, 2011) and so averaging should be done over larger scales.
265 - This isn’t a big deal because it’s the time differences (ie, ~ 6 hrs) between profiles that is the main thing.
275 - It would be helpful to see the full depth structure of modes 1-2.
Fig 7- no advantage to using grey shading
Fig 11 - there are some spurious signals in the model or interpolating it onto the glider path especially near 15/8, 8/10 and 16/10.
Fig 11 - explain why the upper 100 m is missing.
310 - semi diurnal displacement variance. See comment 2 about total internal wave signal.
405- Do these variance include the upper 100 m which are missing in Fig 11? If not, then this is where the residual/possibly near internal wave variance is largest
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Arne Bendinger, 27 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-247', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2024
Review
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations
Summary
This paper describes an effort to investigate internal tide structure using glider observations. I found this paper to be interesting and not hard to follow.
I have no major comments, only several minor comments, and they are listed below
Line 8-9 – eddy-internal tide interactions are certainly one source of discrepancy. I don’t discount this mechanism, but there are other potential sources of error as well (such as topography and stratification). What about those?
Line 14 – “glider observations’ predominating coherent nature”. Why would this be the case? I assume there isn’t something intrinsic about the glider observations that would make them have a coherent nature. Is the observation record too short to observe much incoherence, was this a time period of low variability or some other reason?
Lines 44-46 – problems separating high and low frequency signals. Can these be separated enough to get insight into the coherent/incoherent question?
Line 121 - the numerical model used, has it been compared against other models and/or observations to show it is sufficiently accurate/realistic to aid in this study?
Line 127 – tidal forcing along boundary. It appears you’re forcing with FES along the boundary. This is barotropic forcing only. Mazloff et al (2020-JGR) talk about the importance of remote forcing for regional modeling of internal waves. Can you comment on the results of this paper and either it’s relevance or lack of relevance to this work?
Figure 7 – I find this gray scale plot hard to interpret. The other plots in the paper are color, was there a reason why gray scale was used? I may be missing something that this color bar choice was intended to help convey.
Line 255 – “have never been used the SSH signature” doesn’t read right. Did you intend to convey “have never been used to derive the SSH signature”?
Line 344 – There are other sources of potential disagreement as well, such as forcing, topography and stratification errors and unconstrained variability. Have you explored or considered those?
I had some additional thoughts, but those were enumerated by reviewer 1, so I'll omit including those.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-247-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Arne Bendinger, 27 May 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations Arne Bendinger https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10174169
Model code and software
Internal tides vertical structure and steric sea surface height signature south of New Caledonia revealed by glider observations Arne Bendinger https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10174311
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 438 | 115 | 31 | 584 | 20 | 15 |
- HTML: 438
- PDF: 115
- XML: 31
- Total: 584
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Sophie Cravatte
Lionel Gourdeau
Luc Rainville
Clément Vic
Guillaume Sérazin
Fabien Durand
Frédéric Marin
Jean-Luc Fuda
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(19080 KB) - Metadata XML