Click

Here

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C04021, doi:10.1029/2009JC005767, 2010

for

Full
Article

Annual cycle in coastal sea level from tide gauges and altimetry
Sergey V. Vinogradov1 and Rui M. Ponte1
Received 28 August 2009; revised 17 November 2009; accepted 4 December 2009; published 24 April 2010.

[1] Tide gauges provide a unique data set extending many decades back in time, but
coverage is restricted to continental boundaries and a few oceanic islands and the extent
to which the tide gauge records can be used to infer lowfrequency, largescale sea level
behavior remains unclear. Since 1992, satellite altimetry provides nearglobal coverage
of sea level variability, including coastal regions. We compare variability at 345
continental and island tide gauge coastal locations and adjacent shallow and deep oceans,
as inferred from altimetry. Initial focus is on the dominant annual cycle. On average,
annual amplitudes in tide gauges are comparable to but larger than those in the nearby
shallow ocean (<200 m). Substantial differences are found in areas adjacent to strong river
outflows and narrow coastal currents. The annual cycle in shallow areas is usually
enhanced relative to the open ocean, apart from areas with strong western boundary
currents offshore. Differences of 12 months in annual phases for coastal, shallow, and
deep ocean are typical. Our analysis points to the presence of considerable spatial
variability in the annual cycle across deep, shallow, and coastal regions, and to the
importance of both tide gauge and altimeter measurements for proper resolution and
interpretation of such variability.
Citation: Vinogradov, S. V., and R. M. Ponte (2010), Annual cycle in coastal sea level from tide gauges and altimetry, J.
Geophys. Res., 115, C04021, doi:10.1029/2009JC005767.

1. Introduction
[2] Given its direct importance to coastal populations, sea
level variability has been observed and documented over
decadal and even centennial time scales at many coastal and
island locations [e.g., Douglas, 1992], generally associated
with major sea ports and shipping routes. These records
provide an opportunity to study the lowfrequency variability in sea level, including the prominent seasonal cycle,
an important climate signal representing a dominant fraction
of the nontidal total sea level variance. The factors contributing to the sea level variability include density changes
due to temperature (thermosteric) and salinity (halosteric)
variations of the water column, along with mass changes
due to oceanic mass redistribution and mass input from
precipitation, evaporation and river runoff. In contrast to the
deep ocean, mass changes in coastal regions become significant as compared to steric contributions [e.g., Ponte,
1999; Vinogradova et al., 2007]. Wind and wave setup,
windinduced upwelling/downwelling, complex bathymetry, forcing by rivers and atmospheric pressure, and other
factors can be important for nearshore ocean dynamics.
[3] Pattullo et al. [1955] first described the sea level
seasonal variability on the global scale using tide gauge
1

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Lexington,

Massachusetts, USA.
Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.
01480227/10/2009JC005767

observations sparsely distributed along the continental

coasts and on some islands. They noticed an annual phase
reversal between the northern and southern hemispheres,
and about a 3 month phase difference between subtropical
and subpolar locations, as well as significant differences in
annual amplitudes at the opposite sides of even small land
areas. Based on a few density records taken in deep waters,
Pattullo et al. concluded that steric heights are generally in a
good agreement with seasonal cycle in sea level as measured by the tide gauges; however, a few locations had
noticeable discrepancies (Oregon/Washington coast, Sea of
Japan, Indonesia). Tsimplis and Woodworth [1994] updated
the Pattullo et al. findings using all available tide gauge
data; they concluded that the coastal and open ocean annual
sea level signals can differ significantly, and that the coastal
tide gauges should be used in conjunction with satellite
altimetry to infer the annual cycle in the open ocean.
[4] In the last decade, spaceborne satellite altimetry has
been used to estimate the details of the sea level variability
on a global scale [e.g., Stammer, 1997; Fukumori et al.,
1998; Vinogradov et al., 2008]. The alongtrack satellite
altimetry data in conjunction with tide gauge time series can
provide unprecedented insight on the spatial variability and
structure of the annual sea level in coastal and nearby
shallow and deep oceans. In this work, we take advantage of
the new satellite sea level observations to evaluate to what
extent the tide gauge records can be used to infer the large
scale annual cycle in sea level, what is the relation between
shallow and open ocean annual sea level signal, and what is
the relative usefulness of tide gauge and altimetry data for

C04021

1 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

Figure 1. Locations of the tide gauge stations used in this

study.
possible use in constraining models of the oceanic coastal
regions.

2. Data and Methods

[5] For the temporal period of analysis, we used the initial
years of the TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) altimetry mission
(1 January 1993 to 7 December 2001), during which the
satellite was in its nominal orbit. Spanning this period,
monthly records from 345 tide gauges from the Permanent
Service for Mean Sea Level (http://www.pol.ac.uk [e.g.,
Woodworth and Player, 2003]) yielded valid mean annual
cycles. Based on their geographical location relative to the
continental shelf, 204 tide gauges are defined as continental and 134 as island stations (Figure 1), depending
on whether a shelf break is present between the location and
a nearest continent. As the focus is on dynamically relevant
signals in sea level, the inverted barometer (IB) correction
has been applied by using the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric
Research reanalysis sea level pressure fields [Kalnay et al.,
1996]. Each sea level time series was detrended and 12
mean months were computed by averaging all the available
values for January,.., December; the mean annual fit was
found from this set of 12 mean months. We only used the
records containing a complete mean annual fit, that is, at
least one mean month should exist for this time series for
each of the 12 months.
[6] Altimetric T/P data obtained from the Physical
Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center, NASA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, cover the ocean from 66S to
66N, with repeat period of 10 days and alongtrack sampling
of 7 km. All standard environmental corrections (including
the IB correction) are applied to the raw T/P data [e.g.,
Benada, 1997]. The IB correction is essentially the same as
that used for the tide gauge records. We do not attempt any
special treatment of nearland retrievals, which are known to
suffer from noisier radar backscatter and radiometer readings.
Ongoing efforts to improve radar tracking and wet tropospheric delay algorithms, along with better tidal and nontidal

C04021

dealiasing corrections, promise to deliver cleaner coastal altimeter products in the near future. Here we assess present
standard products, which can provide a baseline for analysis
of forthcoming improved coastal data sets.
[7] Mean annual amplitudes and phases were computed
for monthly averaged altimetric sea level time series at every
point along the track in a way similar to the tide gauges
annual fit. All suitable T/P alongtrack data were collected
in the proximity of every tide gauge (TG). The selected
spatial radius for this work was 134 km for every TG, a
somewhat optimal coverage to include enough nearby
altimetry tracks. The collected T/P data were split into
shallow and deep groups relative to the 200 m isobath, a
typical outer limit of the continental shelf (Figure 2). Along
track annual cycles within each T/P group were averaged as
a sum of sine waves to produce mean shallow and deep
annual cycles. As a result, annual cycle estimates of coastal
(either continental or island TG), shallow, and deep sea level
have been computed and collected in the vicinity of every
TG.

3. Analysis
[8] The scatter plots in Figures 36 show the amplitudes
and phases of the annual cycle in both TG and corresponding
shallow and deep T/P locations. The range associated with
each T/P value in Figures 36 denotes its respective standard
deviation and provides a measure of how spatially variable
the annual cycle is along track. The correlation coefficients

Figure 2. An example of Humboldt Bay, California, tidal

station and averaging of the nearby altimetric data. Yellow
diamond is the location of the tide gauge. Color background
is the bathymetry. Blue (green) dots are alongtrack T/P observations that are in water deeper (shallower) than 200 m.
Annual signals at blue and green dots are averaged within
each group to produce mean deep and shallow offshore
annual sea level cycles as observed by the altimeter. Dashed
red circle shows the extent of the spatial averaging.

2 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

C04021

Figure 3. Scatter plots of the mean annual sea level amplitudes in TG (x axis) versus average (a) shallow
and (b) deep ocean annual cycles in T/P (y axis). Range plotted for each T/P value represents 1 standard
deviation of the alongtrack T/P shallow and deep values and can be interpreted as a measure of the respective spatial variability of the annual cycle as observed by T/P. The 1:1 line is also plotted.
inferred from the amplitude and phase scatter plots are summarized in Table 1.
3.1. Annual Amplitudes
[9] Tide gauges annual amplitudes are comparable with
nearby shallow altimetry data with correlation coefficient
R = 0.85 (Figure 3a). The observed amplitudes generally
range from just a few mm to 0.2 m, with some TG signals
reaching 0.40.5 m. The mean T/P annual amplitudes do not
exceed 0.26 m. The standard deviation of the estimated
mean T/P values may reach 60 mm but is usually smaller
than 50 mm.

[10] Continental TG amplitudes (red dots in Figure 3a) are

usually higher than nearby shallow T/P, particularly in
places where amplitudes are larger than 100 mm. The largest
discrepancies are found in the vicinity of the Ganges River
delta, where coastal amplitudes range from 0.3 to 0.5 m due
to extremely high monsoonaldriven river outflow, whereas
altimetry observes amplitudes of only 0.20.25 m over the
shallow continental shelf. The TG amplitudes are significantly larger than the shallow ocean amplitudes along the US
West Coast (up to 80 mm differences, with TG amplitudes
ranging from 100 to 150 mm), where the strong alongshore
California Current isolates coastal seasonal variability from

3 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

C04021

Figure 4. Annual amplitudes in T/P observations over the shelf and nearby open ocean. Range bars are
plotted as in Figure 3, depicting spatial variability associated with shallow and deep T/P values.
the open ocean. Some TG stations in Singapore (the southernmost tip of Malaysia Peninsula) observe 140 mm amplitudes whereas nearby altimetry measures only 6070 mm
annual signal in Malacca/Singapore Strait. There is a noticeable latitudinal change of the difference between coastal
and continental shelf annual amplitudes along the US East
Coast, associated with Gulf Stream moving further offshore;
TG amplitudes exceed nearby shallow T/P annual signal in
most TG stations in Florida, but this difference reverses
starting from Fort Pulaski, GA, and northward. Other areas
where offshore sea level has noticeably larger annual amplitudes relative to TG records are found at some stations in the
Gulf of Mexico, where persistent coastal jets separate relatively stable nearshore environments from the significant
mesoscale seasonal variability.
[11] Most island TG stations are located in the open
ocean, and they do not have a shallow T/P counterpart for
this analysis, because the ocean in proximity is mostly
deeper than 200 m. Those island locations that have shallow
T/P data in their vicinity are plotted as blue dots in
Figure 3a. Annual amplitudes do not exceed 150 mm. With
a few exceptions, shallow T/P annual mean amplitudes near
island TG stations have standard deviations smaller than
those near most continental TG; however the statistics for
the former are less significant due to a smaller number of
alongtrack points that constitute the shallow T/P groups
near island TG.
[12] Comparison of TG amplitudes with T/P data degrades
with increase in depth (R = 0.53). As expected, continental
TG have much smaller correlation (0.36) with deep than with

shallow T/P amplitudes. Most continental TG have annual

amplitudes higher than nearby deep ocean (red dots in
Figure 3b). The relative differences between continental TG
and deep T/P amplitudes have geographical patterns similar
to the previous comparison with shallow T/P, but in some
areas like California/Oregon/Washington coast, the discrepancies become larger. Another area of substantial differences is the South Australian coast, where deep ocean has
much smaller annual variability than coastal TG.
[13] The overall correlation between island TG (blue dots
in Figure 3b) and deep T/P values (0.79) is much higher
than that for continental TG. The most noticeable outlier is
the station at MinamiTorishima Atoll (153.98E, 24.30N);
TG records at this small Pacific island indicate an amplitude
of 162 mm compared to a T/P value no larger than 50 mm,
therefore implying a possible land locking of the tide
gauge, probably due to geomorphologic changes of the
instrument location (e.g., changes in geometry of the basin
and connections with open ocean), or some sort of hardware
problem. A similar discrepancy is found for Benoa station,
Indonesia (115.21E, 8.74S), which is positioned within a
shallow harbor and not expected to represent deep ocean
measurements, whereas midocean atolls like Minami
Torishima are usually considered suitable for direct measurements of sea level variability in the open ocean.
[14] Comparing mean T/P annual amplitudes over shallow
and deep areas in vicinity of TG locations yields a correlation of 0.64, with shallower waters usually having larger
amplitudes (Figure 4). From the standard deviations displayed in Figure 4, spatial variability of annual cycle over

4 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

C04021

likely due to land contamination from small islands in

shallow altimetric data.

Figure 5. Same as in Figure 3 but for annual phases,

shown as the time of the annual maximum. Dashed lines
show 3 month phase difference, whereas solid lines show
6 month phase difference. Axis tick marks correspond to the
middle of the month.
the shelf is generally larger than over the deep ocean. The
largest difference in the annual amplitudes between shallow
and deep data are found near the continental TG stations
(correlation is 0.58). Most notable differences occur at the
U.S./Canadian Pacific Northwest, where amplitudes can
decrease (on the scales of selected spatial radius) from
120 mm at the TG, to 80 mm in shallow areas, and to less
than 10 mm in deep ocean. Other sharp differences between
shallow and deep annual amplitudes are found along the
South Australian coast (e.g., for Esperance, amplitudes
decrease from 107 mm at the coast to 92 mm in shallow T/P
data, and to 47 mm in deep waters). The correlation between
shallow and deep amplitudes near islands (0.85) is much
higher than that for nearcontinental locations. Large spatial
variability over the continental shelf at Cilacap, South
Indonesian coast (standard deviation of 45 mm), is due to
inclusion of a few T/P data points on the north side of
Indonesia and reflects the difference of about 60 mm in
mean annual amplitudes on the opposite shores. Locations
with higher shallow T/P standard deviation (60+ mm) are

3.2. Annual Phases

[15] In most places, the difference between mean sea level
annual phases in TG and nearby shallow T/P data does not
exceed 1 month (Figure 5a). The total correlation is 0.92.
There is more phase discrepancy near continental TG than
near island TG, with some outliers having phase differences
of 35 months. Among continental stations (red dots in
Figure 5a, R = 0.92), most notable outlier is Puerto Quetza
on the Pacific coast of Guatemala (the leftmost point in
Figure 5a), where the time of the annual maximum changes
from September offshore to early March at the coast and
nearby shallow waters. Similar changes are observed at two
South African stations (Saldanha Bay on the Atlantic coast,
and East London on the Indian Ocean coast). For the island
stations (blue dots in Figure 5a, R = 0.94), the largest discrepancy of about 3 months between TG and shallow T/P
annual phases is found at Jolo Island, Philippines, which
essentially reflects mean annual sea level phase difference
between Sulu and Celebes Seas. Other large outliers are
found near the Antarctic Peninsula, where altimetry values
show large standard deviations, probably due to ice return
contamination.
[16] Larger phase discrepancies are seen between continental TG and deep T/P values (red dots in Figure 5b, R =
0.88), reflecting high spatial variability at places like
Charleston and Tofino in west North American coast,
Durban in South African East coast, Termisa in Brazil, in
addition to locations mentioned above in the coastal versus
shallow ocean comparison. Most island locations correlate
very well (0.93, blue dots in Figure 5b). Notable exception
is San Felix Island off the coast of Chile (80.13W 26.28S),
which lies near an area of large phase changes in the annual
cycle [e.g., see Vinogradov et al., 2008, Figures 3b and 3d].
Another large outlier is Macquarie Island midway between
Antarctica and New Zealand (158.96E 54.48S), in the area
of the Southern Ocean that has significant smallscale fluctuations in sea level annual phase as observed by altimetry.

Figure 6. Same as in Figure 4 but for annual phases. Axis

tick marks correspond to the middle of the month.

5 of 8

C04021

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

Table 1. Correlations in Annual Amplitudes and Phases Between Tide Gauges and Nearby Altimetry
Shallow T/P Versus TG

Deep T/P Versus TG

Shallow Versus Deep T/P

TG

No.

Amplitudes

Phases

No.

Amplitudes

Phases

No.

Amplitudes

Phases

Continental
Island
All

152
42
194

0.84
0.82
0.85

0.92
0.94
0.92

114
113
227

0.36
0.79
0.53

0.88
0.93
0.91

89
41
130

0.58
0.85
0.64

0.90
0.97
0.92

[17] Scatter plot in Figure 6 shows the discrepancies and

relative spatial variability in shallow and deep sea level
annual phases from T/P. Overall correlation is 0.92; along
track standard deviations are mostly higher in shallow
waters than in deep ocean. Most locations identified in
previous comparisons of altimetry with coastal sea level as
having noticeable differences or large spatial variability in
the annual phase also stand out in Figure 6. Large discrepancies in mean sea level annual phases are found near
some continental TG stations (R = 0.90, red dots in Figure 6),
in particular, along the US/Canada West coast, some near
South African and Kenyan TG, Imbituba in Brazil, and San
Juan station in Peru. Deep and shallow areas near island
TG are better correlated (R = 0.97, blue dots in Figure 6),
and they mostly have smaller alongtrack phase variations.
Largest discrepancies between deep and shallow phases are
found near some Indonesian islands, accompanied by large
spatial variability in both shallow and deep estimates.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

[18] Our findings indicate significant variability in annual
sea level cycle across the coastal ocean, from the immediate
coastline to the adjacent shallow and deep waters. The
complexity of coastal annual sea level patterns can be
illustrated by the example of the US/Canadian West Coast
(Figure 7). On the scale of 7 km sampled by the altimeter,
alongtrack amplitudes and phases exhibit consistent and
gradual changes that are still quite different from the coastal
TG. Approaching from the ocean, annual amplitudes in the
altimetry (Figure 7a) tend to increase to 7080 mm in the
vicinity of 100200 m isobaths, and decrease below 40 mm
closer to the coast, whereas all TG in this region north of
San Francisco have considerably larger amplitudes (90
140 mm). The annual cycle on the coast and over the
Californian continental shelf peaks during winter (Figure 7b),
but there is a distinct smallscale complete phase reversal in
altimetry data transitioning from the open ocean to shallow
waters just 7 to 30 km offshore. Although some of the features in the alongtrack data can be attributed to instrument
errors, such spatial variability is consistent with the complex
ocean circulation in the area, including a combination of the
strong alongshore California Current system and wind
driven coastal upwelling, which has been a subject of detailed
study [Strub and James, 2000; Veneziani et al., 2009]. The
large difference between TG and altimeter annual cycles right
near the coast is, however, quite striking and has not yet been
addressed in any detail.
[19] The annual cycle in sea level appears to have mostly
larger amplitudes and spatial variability in shallow areas,
with largest amplitudes right at the coast, except in the
vicinity of strong western boundary currents located just
offshore. These and other differences across the coastal

oceans can be attributed to many physical factors, resulting

from a combination of local and remote atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. The land/ocean boundary
exhibits sharp gradients in atmospheric fluxes and wind
patterns, the important drivers for sea level variability. The
differences in the atmosphere over land and water occur on
all scales, and can provide different annual forcing for the
ocean in the immediate vicinity of land and just offshore
[e.g., Haack et al., 2005]. Surface heating and cooling have
different impact on shallow (mixed from top to bottom)
circulation and offshore (more stratified) dynamics. The
seasonal upwelling also provides fine spatial details to the
offshore profile of annual sea level and does not necessarily
occur right at the coastline. Upwelling associated with
mesoscale ocean circulation may exhibit quasiannual
periodicity (e.g., Gulf of Mexico), and appear at some distance from the coast, depending on eddy dynamics and shape
of the continental shelf [Vinogradov et al., 2004]. The river
input is another significant factor, which relates to hydrological and atmospheric regimes far upstream (and inland)
from the river mouths. A good example is the Ganges River
delta with the largest annual amplitudes observed in TG data.
In addition to hydrological and atmospheric factors, the
dynamics of inner harbors, fjords and basins where TG are
sometimes located can be very different from the nearby open
ocean. Terrestrial impacts through sedimentation, coastline
changes, harbor construction, etc., can also affect the coastal
sea level measurement, but they are likely to be less important
than the hydrological and atmospheric factors mentioned
above.
[20] Observational errors in the TG and altimetry estimates contribute to some of the differences highlighted in
Figures 36. The two systems have very different sampling
properties in time, and the various data processing steps
(e.g., original smoothing, gap filling, and filtering of the
TG hourly records) can affect the annual fit computations.
In addition, the TG measures sea level with respect to a
fixed geolocation, whereas altimetry measures absolute
sea level relative to the geoid. Any land motions with an
annual component (e.g., from tidal or atmospheric pressure loading) could give rise to differences between the
TG and altimeter measurements. Annual amplitudes of a
few millimeters are possible [van Dam et al., 2007].
[21] The typical RMS errors for TG monthly mean data
are believed to be within 10 mm [Pugh, 2004]. Instrument
errors may also have a seasonal dependence. As for altimetry observations, besides instrument noise, a plethora of
corrections are applied to the raw data, including wet troposphere correction, IB removal, and tidal dealiasing that
are important for the coastal sea level observations. Ponte et
al. [2007] offer spacedependent RMS estimates of 24 cm
for the total altimetry error; uncertainties for the annual
period per se are likely to be much smaller. Present work to

6 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

C04021

Figure 7. California, Oregon, and Washington coast: (a) annual amplitudes (mm) and (b) time of annual
maximum in TG and T/P. Isobaths shown are 200 m (gray curve) and 1000 m (black curve).
improve corrections and dealiasing models and techniques
promises to deliver in the near future better altimetric estimates in the nearcoastal waters.
[22] Taking the uncertainty in the mean annual cycle
estimates from TG and altimeter data to be 12 cm, much
of the differences seen in Figures 36 are hard to explain
simply in terms of data noise and represent to some degree
the true spatial variability of the annual cycle in the coastal
ocean. We notice also that, in most of the areas studied, the
standard deviation of T/P mean amplitudes exceeds 23 cm.
Thus, the spatial variability sensed by the altimeter instru-

ment particularly in the shallow continental shelves seems to

be a robust feature of the annual sea level patterns.
[23] Land contamination and aliasing effects, typically a
concern in altimetric coastal measurements, are less of an
issue for our study of the annual cycle. The altimetric orbits
were designed to specifically reduce tidal aliasing at the
annual period and Ponte and Lyard [2002] show that the
annual cycle in sea level is probably less contaminated
(aliased) by other variability. Similarly, although we did not
apply any special algorithms to detect land contamination in
addition to what was performed on the original T/P data

7 of 8

C04021

VINOGRADOV AND PONTE: COASTAL VS OPEN OCEAN ANNUAL SEA LEVEL

processing, we have found only a few locations where land

returns may contribute outliers to the altimetry data, mostly
in the areas with many small islands (e.g., Indonesia, South
Florida). The results in Figures 36 and Table 1 suggest that
the altimeter measurements are still very useful in most
shallow regions, even very close to the land boundaries.
[24] The differences in annual sea level cycle between TG
and nearby altimetry limit the use of TG data for inferring
mean annual cycle in the adjacent shallow and open ocean.
One implication is that TG data can only provide a weak
constraint on coarseresolution ocean circulation models, as
they fail to capture physical processes behind fine spatial
gradients in annual sea level cycle that we found in along
track altimetry data. Highresolution ocean data assimilation
systems will benefit most from TG input, if they are capable
of resolving both oceanic and atmospheric shortscale
dynamics along the sea/land boundary. On the other hand,
alongtrack T/P sea level data have quite robust, stable and
consistent annual cycles in shallow waters, and can provide
strong constraints for both coarse and highresolution models
of the coastal regions.
[25] High spatial variability of the annual sea level cycle
in shallow areas indicates strong seasonally varying features
in local ocean and atmospheric circulation that need to be
studied in detail in a coupled highresolution modeling
framework. Coastal modeling systems that combine ocean,
atmosphere and terrestrial input (hydrology, inner basins,
land motion) can benefit from both altimetry and tide gauge
data in simulating the complexity of the nearcoastal circulation on annual and lower frequencies. Such integrated
modeling efforts will be essential for predictions of the
coastal environment on climate time scales.

C04021

References

Fukumori, I., R. Raghunath, and L.L. Fu (1998), Nature of global large

scale sea level variability in relation to atmospheric forcing: A modeling
study, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 54935512.
Haack, T., S. D. Burk, and R. M. Hodur (2005), U.S. West Coast surface
heat fluxes, wind stress, and wind stress curl from a mesoscale model,
Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 32023216.
Kalnay, E., et al. (1996), The NCEP/NCAR 40year reanalysis project,
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77, 437471.
Pattullo, J. G., W. H. Munk, R. Revelle, and E. Strong (1955), The seasonal
oscillation in sea level, J. Mar. Res., 14, 88155.
Ponte, R. M. (1999), A preliminary model study of the largescale seasonal
cycle in bottom pressure over the global ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 104,
12891300.
Ponte, R. M., and F. Lyard (2002), Effects of unresolved highfrequency
signals in altimeter records inferred from tide gauge data, J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol., 19, 534539.
Ponte, R. M., C. Wunsch, and D. Stammer (2007), Spatial mapping of
timevariable errors in Jason1 and TOPEX/POSEIDON sea surface
height measurements, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 24, 10781085.
Pugh, D. T. (2004), Changing Sea Levels, Cambridge Univ. Press, New
York.
Stammer, D. (1997), Steric and windinduced changes in TOPEX/
POSEIDON largescale sea surface topography observations, J. Geophys.
Res., 102(C9), 20,98721,009.
Strub, P. T., and C. James (2000), Altimeterderived variability of surface
velocities in the California Current System: Part 2. Seasonal circulation
and eddy statistics, Deep Sea Res. Part II, 47, 831870.
Tsimplis, M. N., and P. L. Woodworth (1994), The global distribution
of the seasonal sea level cycle calculated from coastal tide gauge data,
J. Geophys. Res., 99(C8), 16,03116,039.
van Dam, T., J. Wahr, and D. Lavalle (2007), A comparison of annual
vertical crustal displacements from GPS and Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment (GRACE) over Europe, J. Geophys. Res., 112, B03404,
doi:10.1029/2006JB004335.
Veneziani, M., C. A. Edwards, J. D. Doyle, and D. Foley (2009), A central
California coastal ocean modeling study: 1. Forward model and the influence of realistic versus climatological forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
C04015, doi:10.1029/2008JC004774.
Vinogradov, S., N. Vinogradova, V. Kamenkovich, and D. Nechaev
(2004), Temperature and salinity variability in the Mississippi Bight,
Mar. Tech. Soc. J., 38(1), 5260.
Vinogradov, S. V., R. M. Ponte, P. Heimbach, and C. Wunsch (2008), The
mean seasonal cycle in sea level estimated from a dataconstrained general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C03032, doi:10.1029/
2007JC004496.
Vinogradova, N. T., R. M. Ponte, and D. Stammer (2007), Relation
between sea level and bottom pressure and the vertical dependence of
oceanic variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L03608, doi:10.1029/
2006GL028588.
Woodworth, P. L., and R. Player (2003), The permanent service for mean
sea level: An update to the 21st century, J. Coastal Res., 19, 287295.

Benada, R. (1997), Merged GDR (TOPEX/POSEIDON) generation

B users handbook, Intern. Doc. D11007, Jet Propul. Lab., Pasadena,
Calif.
Douglas, B. C. (1992), Global sea level acceleration, J. Geophys. Res.,
97(C8), 12,69912,706.

R. M. Ponte and S. V. Vinogradov, Atmospheric and Environmental

Research, Inc., 131 Hartwell Ave., Lexington, MA 02421, USA.
(sergey@aer.com)

[26] Acknowledgments. This work is supported by NASA Physical

Oceanography program through contract NNH08CD67C. The authors
thank Charmaine King from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
for helping with initial data processing.

8 of 8