Technical note: Two types of absolute dynamic ocean topography

Chu, Peter C.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-14-947-2018

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-14-947-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-14-947-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

Technical note

| Highlight paper

|

04 Sep 2018

Technical note | Highlight paper |

| 04 Sep 2018

Technical note: Two types of absolute dynamic ocean topography

Peter C. Chu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Sep 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 23 May 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee#1 's comments', Peter Chu, 09 Jun 2018
- AC2: 'Responses to Reviewer #1's comments', Peter Chu, 28 Jul 2018
RC2: 'Review of Chu manuscript', C. K. Shum, 10 Jul 2018
- AC3: 'Responses to Reviewer #2 (Prof. Shum) 's comments', Peter Chu, 28 Jul 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (03 Aug 2018) Author's response

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (15 Aug 2018) by John M. Huthnance

Dear Dr Chu
Thank-you for your revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comment. I am now asking just for some “Technical Corrections” after which you will be dealing with the Copernicus Editorial system without my intervention. There will be copy editing and you should check that your intended meaning is retained. Thank-you for submitting to Ocean Science.
Yours sincerely
John Huthnance

My comments for consideration
Page 1
Line 10. Better “to be” -> “being”
Lines 11-12. Better “to be . . determined” -> “being satellite-determined”
Line 15. Better “. . marine geoid, correspondingly also has two types. . .”
Line 16. Better “. . due to water being at”
Lines 18-19. Better “. . relative to flow on the the second type marine geoid. Difference . .”

Page 3
Line 64. “coastlines”
Line 68. “basis”

Page 5
Lines 92-93. Better “. . observed with uniquely sampled temporal and spatial resolutions by high-precision altimetry . .”? (Referee 2 suggestion re “sampled . .”)
Line 108. “temporally” -> “temporal”

Page 6
Line 111. “. . water is at rest . .”
Lines 112-113. Better “. . difference, treating horizontal gradients of the second type DOT also as the absolute surface . .”
Lines 115-116. Better “. Its . .” -> “; its . .”
Line 127. “implications”

Page 12.
Line 241. Delete “for”
Lines 242, 243. “for” -> “form of” (twice)
Line 244. Better “such as” -> “e.g.”

Page 13 line 248. Delete “i.e.”

Page 14.
Line 274. Delete “almost”
Lines 278, 280. “classically”

Page 15 line 297. “of” -> “as”

Page 16 line 318. “base” -> “basis”

Hide

Short summary

Two types of marine geoid exist with the first type being the average level of sea surface height if the water is at rest (classical definition), and the second type being satellite-determined with the condition that the water is usually not at rest. The associated absolute dynamic ocean topography (DOT) also has two types. Horizontal gradients of the two DOTs are different with the 1st (2nd) type representing the absolute (relative) surface geostrophic currents.