the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Connecting Ocean Observations with Prediction
Abstract. Ocean prediction relies on the integration between models, satellite and in-situ observations through data assimilation techniques. Satellites offer nowadays high-resolution observations of essential ocean variables at the surface, widely adopted in combination with precise but sparse in-situ measurements that, from the surface to the deep ocean, can constrain large scale variability in models. Moreover, observations are a valuable source of information for validating and assessing model products, for improving them and for developing the next generation of machine learning algorithms aimed at enhancing the accuracy and scope of ocean forecasts. The authors discuss the role of observations in operational ocean forecasting systems, describing the state-of-the-art of satellite and in-situ observing networks and defining the paths for addressing multi-scale monitoring and forecasting.
- Preprint
(774 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Dec 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on sp-2024-36', Peter Oke, 18 Oct 2024
reply
Review of “Connecting Ocean Observations with Prediction”, by Le Traon et al.
This paper provides a concise description of the different observing platforms that are used for ocean forecasting. It is very light on any detail – in some places, it’s little more than a list of platforms – but perhaps that’s the intention. There is nothing new in this paper. But, for a reader that is not part of the ocean forecasting community, this paper could be an informative introduction. Some detailed comments are offered below that need to be addressed. Aside from these details, this paper is suitable for publication.
Detail comments
L28: “These dependencies depend on ocean dynamics and the scales of motion” is circular and should be revisited.
Figure 1 is not good quality. I like what the authors tried to do. But it’s also obviously a screen shot, with spelling mistakes (based on a dictionary that isn’t english) underlined.
L104: “More recent impact studies …”. The authors then cite a paper from 2016, which is not very recent.
L105: OneArgo … consider citing Roemmich et al. (2019; Frontiers)
L122: I don’t think “Benkiran et al., 2022” is an appropriate reference to credit “the development of operational swath altimetry”. Consider citing Morrow et al. (2019; Frontiers)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2024-36-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Pierre-Yves Le Traon, 25 Oct 2024
reply
Thanks for the review. We agree with all comments from the reviewer. The paper is indeed "light" as this is the format specification.
L28. "These dependencies depend on ocean dynamics and the scales of motion" replaced by "These dependencies vary according to ocean dynamics"
Figure 1 : updated figure included
L104: More recent removed.
L105. Reference Roemmich et al. added
L122. Reference Morrow et al. added. We kept Benkiran et al as the study dealt with a simulation study on operational swath altimetry
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2024-36-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Pierre-Yves Le Traon, 25 Oct 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
48 | 19 | 6 | 73 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 48
- PDF: 19
- XML: 6
- Total: 73
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1