Also, any reason why we aren’t including CO2 fluxes and pCO2 values?
The only reason I can think of for daily would be to calculate variability as @cbull suggested here. I’m not sure if that would be contaminated by tidal signals though.
However, monthly data may be sufficient, e.g. Fig 6d of Kiss et al 2020 used the detrended standard deviation data /g/data3/hh5/tmp/cosima/observations/original/AVISO_Mean_Std/aviso_ssh_monthly_anom_clim9314_GMSLtrend_removed.timstd.nc which the metadata says was calculated from monthly sea level anomaly data:
:history = "Tue Nov 13 10:41:59 2018: cdo timstd aviso_ssh_monthly_anom_clim9314_GMSLtrend_removed.nc aviso_ssh_monthly_anom_clim9314_GMSLtrend_removed.timstd.nc\n",
"FERRET V6.84 9-Jun-15" ;
I’m not sure if this file is a DUACS product or whether we calculated it. Does anyone remember? @AndyHoggANU
The best option would be a DUACS detrended SLA standard deviation product if it exists.
1 Like
Hi All,
I am currently reviewing support for the ESACCI Sea Ice product within ESMValTool, as part of our ongoing work to develop diagnostics for the CMIP REF (Rapid Evaluation Framework). In this process, I’ve downloaded the dataset to our staging project. While I’m not an expert in sea ice data, it appears that the ESACCI dataset is more complete and potentially more useful than the NSIDC dataset for our purposes. Several colleagues are already working on evaluation recipes using the ESACCI data.
I’d like to gather feedback from the Sea Ice community here—do you think we should add this dataset to the list of supported products in ESMValTool? It’s quite a large dataset, so I wanted to get your thoughts on its inclusion.