the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A data-driven wind-to-current response function and application to Ocean surface current estimates
Abstract. This study investigates modeling the wind-driven current using observed wind stress and an empirically estimated impulse response function for the wind-driven current response to wind forcing. Convolution of the data-driven impulse response function with the wind forcing gives an estimate of the wind-driven part of the current. We estimate this data-driven convolution operator using ERA5 reanalysis winds and observations of surface currents from drifting buoys. The response of the currents to wind forcing is expected to depend on the ocean mixed-layer depth and the turbulent viscosity profile with spatio-temporal variations, but we only consider seasonally-modulated and spatial variations in the training. Despite this crude approximation, the simplified response function explains a significant portion of the current variability. Indeed, when the function is applied to the ERA5 wind-stress, the surface current estimate compares reasonably well with independent observations (not used in the training).
A practical application is the release of new total surface current estimates such as the Globcurrent CMEMS MOB-TAC based on the same datasets, but here containing also the unsteady part of the wind driven currents (the inertial currents). The characteristics of the response function (amplitudes and phases) reveal interesting properties of the upper-ocean variability. The function shows some similarities to one derived theoretically from a simple 1-layer (slab) model, but also differences that highlight the value of fitting the function to the data without the use of an explicit dynamical model. This opens perspectives for studying some dependencies between subsurface variables and the response function, particularly interesting in the context of future spaceborne Doppler scatterometers such as ODYSEA, expected to provide simultaneous wind and current observations: this instrument could indirectly probe subsurface properties through the synoptically-observed response function.
- Preprint
(2907 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1149', Jack Reeves Eyre, 01 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1149/egusphere-2025-1149-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Clément Ubelmann, 24 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1149/egusphere-2025-1149-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Clément Ubelmann, 24 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1149', Shane Elipot, 19 May 2025
This paper presents some results of fitting to surface drifter and wind stress data an empirical impulse response function assuming linear dynamics for the forcing of the upper ocean. These results form the basis of a model for unsteady wind-driven near-surface ocean current estimates which are distributed as part of the Globcurrent CMEMS MOB-TAC product.
General comments:
I think the text of this article is not very clear in terms of what the authors define as wind-driven currents, and this should be clarified. Various terms are used such as inertial oscillations, oscillations, unsteady Ekman currents, (WOC?) etc and it is not clear what the authors mean in each instance (see my detailed comments as an attached PDF). The impulse response function framework effectively extracts from the data the linearly forced response to the wind stress, in a manner which peaks at the inertial frequency, but it is broadband in frequency. I think that “time-varying wind-driven” currents or perhaps “unsteady Ekman” currents may be appropriate? There is maybe a need to further clarify the difference between the wind-driven currents derived in this study and the ones from “Globcurrent/CMEMS”.
I think the paper is a little bit light on the description of the calculations conducted in sections 3.2 and 3.3. As an example, I am not quite sure how the data were divided in time and in latitude (daily bins? 1 degree latitude bands?). In order for others to try to replicate your study, I believe you could provide more information. In particular, have you conducted any sensitivity on the length of the wind stress time series input? Is T= 10 days an optimal value? Could it depend on latitude and season?
In general, the mathematical notations could be made more rigorous. As an example, some symbols are written sometimes with bold fonts and sometimes without (examples in sections 3.2 and elsewhere). More importantly, I suggest to revise the formulation of the impulse response function in order to make clearly appear the convolution operation and to correctly deal with the bivariate nature of the various quantities. Examples can be found in Chapter 6 of Bendat and Piersol (cited by the authors) as well as in Elipot and Gille (2009) and Lilly and Elipot (2021).
Some more detailed (but not necessarily minor) comments are attached in a separate PDF document.
Once my comments are properly addressed I believe this article is worthy of publication because of its scientific content but also because it documents a product already available.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clément Ubelmann, 24 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1149/egusphere-2025-1149-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clément Ubelmann, 24 Jul 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1149', Bernadette Sloyan, 20 May 2025
The two reviewers suggest that the manuscript will be of interest to the community. However they find that the manuscript needs to be improved before it could be accepted for publication. I encourage the author to consider the referee comments and provide a brief response here, and then submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point reply to referee comments .
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1149-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Clément Ubelmann, 22 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1149/egusphere-2025-1149-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Clément Ubelmann, 22 Jul 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
429 | 72 | 24 | 525 | 17 | 31 |
- HTML: 429
- PDF: 72
- XML: 24
- Total: 525
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1