2025-07-18T06:33 AM
Hi Sylvain,
I am sorry but I do not have the competencies to think about "your next step". Please remember I am a 77-year physical oceanographer using satellite data only to better understand in situ ones.
I decided to write a few-page note reporting the experiences of a standard user of SLA data made available from the ESA website.
I will emphasize:
1) The interest of daily interpolated nadir data to make statistics and follow a given oceanic structure.
2) The accuracy of the 250-m SLA SWOT data that allows evidencing, in particular, a small scale geodesic variability that should have been removed
3) The efficiency of computing mean data to specify this small scale variability and the interest to remove it from original data to get the oceanic variability
4) The evidence that many SLA data actually rejected because too large do correspond to purely oceanic structures, hence should not be rejected.
As a general comment about your last computations, I would say that I prefer by far dealing with the data as we did (in your last series of plots, the ones in the left are much more pleasant to deal with).
Finally:
Would you accept reading and correcting my note?
Could you propose a journal where to submit it?
Cheers,
Claude
I am sorry but I do not have the competencies to think about "your next step". Please remember I am a 77-year physical oceanographer using satellite data only to better understand in situ ones.
I decided to write a few-page note reporting the experiences of a standard user of SLA data made available from the ESA website.
I will emphasize:
1) The interest of daily interpolated nadir data to make statistics and follow a given oceanic structure.
2) The accuracy of the 250-m SLA SWOT data that allows evidencing, in particular, a small scale geodesic variability that should have been removed
3) The efficiency of computing mean data to specify this small scale variability and the interest to remove it from original data to get the oceanic variability
4) The evidence that many SLA data actually rejected because too large do correspond to purely oceanic structures, hence should not be rejected.
As a general comment about your last computations, I would say that I prefer by far dealing with the data as we did (in your last series of plots, the ones in the left are much more pleasant to deal with).
Finally:
Would you accept reading and correcting my note?
Could you propose a journal where to submit it?
Cheers,
Claude