Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 65, pp.

335 to 347, 2009

Accurate Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska and

Large Tidal Dissipation around Glacier Bay
D AISUKE INAZU1*, TADAHIRO S ATO2, SATOSHI MIURA2, YUSAKU O HTA2, KAZUYUKI N AKAMURA1,
H IROMI FUJIMOTO2, C HRISTOPHER F. LARSEN3 and TOMOYUKI HIGUCHI1
1
The Institute of Statistical Mathematics/Japan Science and Technology Agency,
Minami-Azabu, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8569, Japan
2
Research Center for Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions, Graduate School of
Science, Tohoku University, Aramaki-Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan
3
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Koyukuk Dr, Fairbanks, AK 99775, U.S.A.

(Received 19 September 2008; in revised form 8 December 2008; accepted 16 January 2009)

An accurate prediction of ocean tides in southeast Alaska is developed using a re- Keywords:
gional, barotropic ocean model with a finite difference scheme. The model skill is ⋅ Bathymetry,
verified by the observational tidal harmonics in southeast Alaska including Glacier ⋅ bottom friction,
Bay. The result is particularly improved in Glacier Bay compared to the previous ⋅ Glacier Bay,
⋅ tidal energy
model described by Foreman et al. (2000). The model bathymetry dominates the model
dissipation.
skill. We re-estimate tidal energy dissipation in the Alaska Panhandle and suggest a
value for tidal energy dissipation of 3.4 GW associated with the M2 constituent which
is 1.5 times the estimation of Foreman et al. (2000). A large portion of the M2 energy
budget entering through Chatham Strait is dissipated in the vicinity of Glacier Bay.
Moreover, it is shown that the developed model has the potential to correct the ocean
tide loading effect in geodetic data more efficiently than the model of Foreman et al.
(2000), especially around Glacier Bay.

1. Introduction tion in each specified area leads to a better estimation

There are many coastal and inland seas with compli-
cated coastlines and bathymetry around the Gulf of
Alaska. Ocean tides are strongly confined by the coast-
lines and bathymetry in the seas. The Gulf of Alaska is
known to be a region with large tidal energy dissipation
due to bottom friction (e.g., Miller, 1966; Le Provost and
Lyard, 1997; Foreman et al., 2000; Egbert and Ray, 2003).
Estimations of the M 2 tidal dissipation in the Gulf of
Alaska involve relative differences from 30 (Foreman et
al., 2000) to 70 (Lyard and Le Provost, 1997) GW, which
leaves much room for improvement. Almost all the tidal
energy in the Gulf of Alaska is dissipated in limited ar-
eas: central Alaska and Cook Inlet, Alaska Panhandle,
northern British Columbia, and around Vancouver Island.
A more accurate estimation of the tidal energy dissipa-
* Corresponding author. E-mail: inazud@aob.geophys.tohoku.
ac.jp
Present address: Research Center for Prediction of Earthquakes and
Volcanic Eruptions, Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University,
Aramaki-Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan.
Copyright©The Oceanographic Society of Japan/TERRAPUB/Springer
over the Gulf of Alaska. Foreman et al. (2000) estimated
that the M2 tidal energy dissipation in central Alaska and
Cook Inlet exceeds 70% of the total tidal energy dissipa-
tion in the Gulf of Alaska, and 7% of the total energy is
dissipated in the Alaska Panhandle. The portion of the
tidal energy dissipated in the Alaska Panhandle is not
necessarily negligible. On the other hand, land elevations
due to the post glacial rebound and present-day ice melt-
ing around Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska have been
investigated by geodetic measurements (e.g., Larsen et
al., 2003, 2004; Sato et al., 2008). The GPS and gravim-
eter data include ocean tide components derived in the
Alaska Panhandle, which needs appropriate correction in
order to investigate the dynamics of the solid Earth. The
development of an accurate ocean tide model in the Alaska
Panhandle is needed to estimate the tidal energy dissipa-
tion and to correct the geodetic data.
Global and regional ocean tide models cover the
Alaska Panhandle. One of the global models resolving
the Alaska Panhandle is FES2004 (Lyard et al., 2006).
However, the FES2004 model yields inaccurate tidal vari-
ations in the Alaska Panhandle; for example, the observed
M 2 tidal elevation amplitude and phase at Ketchikan

335
(Skagway) are 188.2 (203.5) cm and 270.1° (283.9°), re-
spectively, while the modeled amplitude and phase are
250.8 (376.3) cm and 276.2° (79.6°), respectively. On the
other hand, Foreman et al. (2000, henceforth F00) devel-
oped an accurate ocean tide model and estimated tidal
energy dissipation due to bottom friction in the northeast
Pacific Ocean including the Alaska Panhandle; however,
the F00 model was not validated in Glacier Bay. Larsen
et al. (2004) conducted ocean tide observations in the
vicinity of Glacier Bay, and the observed tidal harmonics
do not show good agreement with the F00 model; the
observed M2 tidal elevation amplitude and phase at Com-
posite Island are 204.3 cm and 299.7°, respectively, while
the F00 model shows the amplitude and phase to be 176.9
cm and 286.6°, respectively. Therefore, the model result
of F00 may be inappropriate for estimating the tidal en-
ergy dissipation rate around Glacier Bay and removing
the ocean tide components from the geodetic data. In this
study we develop a more accurate ocean tide model, esti-
mate the tidal energy dissipation in the Alaska Panhandle
including Glacier Bay, and show the contribution of the Fig. 1. Computational domain, tide gauges, an ocean bottom
developed ocean tide model to the geodetic aspect. The pressure gauge, GPS stations used in this study, and bottom
topography in meters drawn from the GINA bathymetric
primary purpose is the accurate ocean tide modeling at
data. Open circles, a black circle, and diamonds denote the
the regional scale rather than smaller scales of each harbor
tide gauges, the ocean bottom pressure gauge, and the GPS
and inlet. stations, respectively. An example of the model grids around
Glacier Bay is shown in upper right of the figure.
2. Model Description

2.1 Tidal equation

The numerical model used in the present study is
configured below. A non-linear, single-layer shallow wa-
ter model (Hirose and Yoon, 1996; Kim and Yoon, 1996)
is used to simulate the ocean tides in southeast Alaska.
Barotropic motions of seawater in spherical coordinates
are governed by the following equations of momentum
and continuity:
∂u uu
+ (u ⋅ ∇)u + f × u = − g∇η − γ b + AH ∇ 2 u, (1)
∂t H
∂η
+ ∇ ⋅ (uH ) = 0. (2 )
∂t
A vector u is the horizontal depth-integrated velocity, η
is the sea surface elevation, f is the Coriolis parameter, g
is the gravitational acceleration (=9.8 m sec –2), and H is
the total depth of the water column. Dissipation terms
are parameterized by two coefficients: γ b for quadratic
bottom friction, and AH for horizontal viscosity. The bot-
tom topography is set in Subsection 2.2. Dissipation pa-
rameters are usually determined empirically. Since the
Alaska Panhandle is characterized by complicated coast-
lines with shallow banks and fjordic systems, both bot-
tom drag and horizontal eddy viscosity are expected to
impede water motions in the inland sea. The coefficients
of the bottom friction and the horizontal eddy viscosity
are optimized in Subsection 3.2.
The differential equations are discretized by a sec-
ond-order finite difference scheme to adapt to the stag-
gered Arakawa-C grid system which is favorable to wa-
ter mass conservation (Arakawa and Lamb, 1981). The
time integration is accomplished using a second-order
leapfrog scheme associated with the Asselin filter
(Asselin, 1972) to suppress high-frequency numerical
noise.
2.2 Bathymetry
Wave propagations and water exchanges are strongly
dissipated by the bottom friction through the shallow
straits. The coastlines must be carefully drawn to enable
seawater to flow appropriately through narrow channels
and straits. The model grid spacing is set to 1′ × 1′ and
the coastlines are based on GTOPO30 topographic data
(http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/gtopo30/
gtopo30.html). The computational domain is shown in
Fig. 1. Although some inlets with spatial scales less than
a few kilometers are not well resolved in the model, our
primary purpose is the accurate modeling of the ocean

336 D. Inazu et al.

 Longitude
136 W 134 W 132 W
59 N
58 N
Latitude
57 N
56 N
55 N
m Fig. 3. Model dependence on tidal elevation conditions and
−300 −200 −100 0 100 200 300
Fig. 2. Difference between GINA and the multibeam-derived
data in meters. Blue (red) indicates that the multibeam-de-
rived data is deeper (shallower) than GINA. Thick gray ar-
eas denote no multibeam-derived data.
tides and tidal dissipation at regional scales, such as a
strait and/or bay. For example, Cross Sound, Glacier Bay,
and Icy Strait are managed to be represented by the spa-
tial resolution. A no-slip condition is assumed along the
coastlines. River inputs are not included at the coastal
boundary.
Uncertainties and errors in bathymetric data directly
affect the computed wave propagation. The bottom bound-
ary condition is basically given by GINA (Lindquist et
al., 2004; Marks and Smith, 2006), which is originally
interpolated to a 30-second resolution from ETOPO2
(Smith and Sandwell, 1997) by a bicubic method (K.
Engle, personal communication, 2007). On the other hand,
the Alaska Panhandle is mostly covered by a large number
of the multibeam-derived depth data under NGDC (NOS
Hydrographic Survey Data). In addition, Carlson et al.
(2002) conducted an extensive multibeam bathymetric
observation in the vicinity of Glacier Bay. These
multibeam-derived data are compiled to the gridded data
by spatial averaging within each model grid. The com-
piled multibeam-derived data are compared to GINA (Fig.
2). Large bathymetric errors in GINA are found in the
Alaska Panhandle and on the shelf edge in the deep ocean.
The multibeam bathymetry is deeper overall than GINA
in the Alaska Panhandle. The deeper multibeam
bathymetry in the shallow region is possibly supported
by a report of Japan Hydrographic Association (JHA,
130 W
coefficients of the horizontal eddy viscosity with the im-
proved model bathymetry as a function of the coefficient
of the bottom friction. Solid lines indicate simulations with
the tidal elevation condition given by merging the F00 and
F93 models, and dashed line indicates that only the F00
model is used for the tidal elevation condition. Black, red,
and blue lines denotes the cases of AH = 1, 0.1, and 10
m 2 sec–1, respectively. The vertical axis indicates the total
rms difference of the four major constituents (M2, S 2, K1,
and O 1) at the 15 sites.
1999), which noted that multibeam-derived depth tends
to be deeper than depth estimated by satellite-derived
gravity data in areas shallower than about 1000 m. The
accuracy of the depth estimation from the satellite
altimetry worsens at the coastal region, partly due to
ambiguities in determination of the gravimetric geoid and
the dimensions of spherical harmonics (e.g., Sandwell and
Smith, 2001; Rodríguez and Sevilla, 2002).
Figure 2 indicates that the use of the original GINA
bathymetry apparently leads faulty ocean modeling in the
Alaska Panhandle, where overall depth is basically shal-
lower than a few hundred meters. Therefore we reflect
the multibeam-derived data in the model bathymetry. The
GINA bathymetry is replaced at model grids where the
multibeam-derived data are obtained, and the accurate
model bathymetry is prepared. The shallowest depth of
the ocean grids is limited to 5 m for stable computations.
The bathymetry of the F00 model also includes
multibeam-derived data, and the model bathymetry of our
study and F00 probably has many common features. How-
ever, certain differences should be considered. For ex-
ample, only our model includes the depth observation
conducted by Carlson et al. (2002). As described later,
the bathymetric condition is most crucial to the model
Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 337
Table 1. Accuracy of the F93 and F00 models for the M2 and K 1 constituents in Dixon Entrance. D (cm) is defined by Eq. (3). The
observed tidal harmonics are derived from table 2 of F93.

M2 K1

Site Longitude (°W) Latitude (°N) F93 F00 F93 F00

Dixon Entrance 132.94 54.56 1.1 6.0 1.0 2.5
Security Cove 132.85 54.75 1.2 7.2 0.7 1.3
Cape Muzon 132.69 54.64 1.8 6.5 0.4 1.7
Egeria Bay 132.97 54.23 6.5 4.9 2.9 1.5
Dixon Rose Spit 131.95 54.26 2.4 6.1 1.1 1.2
Nichols Bay 132.13 54.72 8.1 14.0 4.7 3.5
Cape Chacon 132.03 54.67 2.0 6.6 0.8 1.7
McLean Arm 131.97 54.79 5.0 6.7 1.4 1.6
Kelp Island 131.30 54.88 1.0 6.8 1.4 0.4
Foggy Bay 130.96 54.94 8.3 6.2 2.2 0.8
Brundige Inlet 130.85 54.62 8.6 10.4 2.6 1.8
Qlawdzeet 130.77 54.22 7.2 5.9 2.9 1.4
Prince Rupert 130.33 54.32 4.7 6.0 2.7 0.7

Average 4.5 7.2 1.9 1.6

accuracy, rather than the dissipation parameters and the
open boundary condition of the tidal elevation.
2.3 Tidal elevation condition
The open boundary condition of the model domain
must be as accurate as possible. The F00 model covers
the northeast Pacific Ocean, and seems to be appropriate
in its representation of the tidal elevation thanks to the
assimilation of satellite altimeter data in the open sea.
Foreman et al. (1993, henceforth F93) computed the ocean
tides surrounding the Queen Charlotte Islands with spa-
tial resolutions finer than those used in F00. We compare
both the results and ascertain that the F93 model is more
accurate in Dixon Entrance than the F00 model (Table
1). The F93 model shows the M2 constituent more accu-
rately than the F00 model, while the accuracy of the K1
constituent modeled by F00 is comparable to that given
by F93. The result of F00 is thus used for the northeast
Pacific region and the result of F93 for Dixon Entrance.
These tidal elevation conditions are linearly connected
around the meridian 134°E for the eight major constitu-
ents (M2, S2, K1, O1, N2, K2, P1, and Q1), which forces
the computational boundary. Root-mean-square differ-
ences (the definition is stated below, Eq. (3)) between
the Foreman’s models and the observed tidal harmonics
of M 2 are several centimeters at coasts outside the Alaska
Panhandle. In addition, the boundary condition of the tidal
elevation does not include the non-linear, shallow water
tides which are concerned at the head of Dixon Entrance
by F93. Therefore, the model accuracy in this study is
not expected to be drastically improved compared to the
previous F00 model. We aspire to achieve the accuracy
of the modeled tidal harmonics within several centimeters
for each constituent in the Alaska Panhandle. The advan-
tage of merging the F00 and F93 models for the open
boundary condition is shown quantitatively in Subsec-
tion 3.2.
3. Model Validation
3.1 Observed tidal harmonics
Ocean tides have been observed to obtain tidal har-
monics at permanent and temporary coastal sites, and an
ocean bottom pressure gauge (OBPG). The coastal sta-
tions are administered by NOAA or the University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF, Larsen et al., 2004). The OBPG
is under Tohoku University, Japan. The tidal harmonics
at the sites shown in Fig. 1 are used for model validation
since some inlets are insufficiently represented in the
model due to its spatial resolution. At the UAF stations,
the sea level was recorded during periods of less than one
month (Larsen et al., 2004), and the tidal harmonics of
the four major constituents (M2, S2, K1, and O1) were
calculated by a tidal analysis program, BAYTAP-G
(Tamura et al., 1991). This program selects the optimal
grouping of tidal constituents based on the Bayesian in-
ference (Akaike, 1980), and preferentially calculates the
dominant constituent within the group with reduced con-
tamination by the other minor constituents (Ishiguro et
al., 1983). We use long tide gauge time series to test sta-

338 D. Inazu et al.

 Table 2. Tide gauges and OBPG used in this study.

Site Longitude (°W) Latitude (°N) Agency Duration (days)

1 Skagway 135.33 59.45 NOAA
2 Juneau 134.41 58.30 NOAA
3 Lynn Canal (OBPG) 135.04 58.58 Tohoku Univ. 365
4 Composite Island 136.57 58.89 UAF 28
5 Willoughby Island 136.12 58.61 UAF 14
6 False Bay 134.94 57.97 NOAA
7 Warm Spring Bay 134.83 57.09 NOAA
8 Petersburg 132.98 56.80 NOAA
9 Entrance Island 133.79 56.81 NOAA
10 Port Alexander 134.65 56.25 NOAA
11 Thoms Point 132.08 56.12 NOAA
12 Ketchikan 131.63 55.33 NOAA
13 Elfin Cove 136.34 58.19 NOAA
14 Sitka 135.34 57.05 NOAA
15 Craig 133.14 55.49 NOAA

bility of the tidal harmonics calculated by BAYTAP-G in
various durations of the time series. Differences in the
time series duration from one year to two weeks have
been found to yield small errors within 3% in amplitude
and 3° in phase to the calculated tidal harmonics of the
four major constituents. The record length of the OBPG
is one year. Thus the tidal harmonics obtained at the fol-
lowing 15 sites are used to validate the modeled tidal
harmonics: the 12 stations of NOAA, the 2 temporary sta-
tions of UAF in Glacier Bay, and the OBPG (Table 2).
3.2 Sensitivity of the model skill to boundary conditions
and dissipation parameters
We compare the tidal harmonics obtained by the tide
gauge observations with those of the simulations in this
subsection. The model skill is evaluated by calculating
the total root-mean-square (rms) difference between the
observed and the modeled tidal harmonics of the four
major constituents at the 15 sites. The rms difference of
each tidal constituent at each tide gauge and OBPG is
defined as:
bathymetry and the tidal elevation at the computational
boundary have been described in the previous section.
Here the contribution of the improved boundary condi-
tions to the model skill is evaluated as well as the de-
pendence of the model skill on the dissipation parameters.
Figure 3 shows the model skill in cases of tidal elevation
conditions and coefficients of the horizontal eddy viscos-
ity using the improved bathymetric condition as a func-
tion of the bottom friction coefficient. The total rms dif-
ference is smallest in the case of the tidal elevation con-
dition obtained by merging the F00 and F93 models with
the dissipation parameters γb = 0.02 and AH = 1 m2 sec –1.
The model dependence is apparent on the bottom friction
coefficient and is fairly slight on the horizontal eddy vis-
cosity coefficient. The model skill worsens when the F00
result is used for the tidal elevation condition. This model
dependence on the tidal elevation condition is caused by
the model accuracy at Clarence Strait. If the original GINA
bathymetry is applied to the model, the total rms differ-
ence is around 0.8–1.0, which indicates that the model
skill is absolutely sensitive to the model bathymetry. The
dependence on the spatial resolution is also an important

{( A
issue. The F00 model employs a finite element grid sys-
)
2
Dc, s = c, s cos Bc, s − ac, s cos bc, s tem, and its spatial resolution is partially finer than our
model, especially in the heads of channels and bays. Nev-
)}
2 12
(
+ Ac, s sin Bc, s − ac, s sin bc, s , (3) ertheless, the original calculation of F00 yields the model
skill of 0.276 which is less accurate than the simulation
using the F00 condition. The discrepancy between the two
where Ac,s (ac,s) and Bc,s (bc,s) are the modeled (observed) is mainly caused by the difference of the model skill in
amplitude and phase of each tidal constituent (c) at each Glacier Bay (not shown), which possibly arises from the
tide gauge (s). The sum of the relative error (Dc,s/ac,s) of difference of the model bathymetry noted in Subsection
the four major constituents at the 15 sites is used to cal- 2.2. The model skill probably depends more strongly on
culate the total rms difference, the model skill. the model bathymetry than on the spatial resolution. Since
The accurate conditions of the multibeam-derived the model dependence on the bottom friction coefficient

Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 339

340
D. Inazu et al.
Table 3. Observed and modeled tidal harmonics for the M2 and K 1 constituents at the 15 sites shown in Fig. 1. D is defined by Eq.
(3). Accuracy of the F00 model is listed as well as the Inazu model.

M2 K1
Observed Inazu model F00 Observed Inazu model F00
Amplitude Phase Amplitude Phase D D Amplitude Phase Amplitude Phase D D
Site (cm) (deg. UTC) (cm) (deg. UTC) (cm) (cm) (cm) (deg. UTC) (cm) (deg. UTC) (cm) (cm)
1 Skagway 203.5 283.9 205.6 282.0 7.0 8.0 52.7 265.4 54.7 264.5 2.1 1.2
2 Juneau 199.5 282.5 194.5 279.7 10.7 9.8 52.0 265.0 53.2 263.7 1.7 0.8
3 Lynn Canal (OBPG) 194.3 281.6 194.3 281.6 0.0 0.1 52.1 264.5 53.7 264.2 1.6 1.9
4 Composite Island 204.3 299.7 199.3 301.7 8.7 51.1 53.6 273.8 54.7 275.0 1.6 5.1
5 Willoughby Island 216.7 298.5 196.0 301.7 23.5 58.8 59.0 273.2 54.5 275.0 4.9 9.0
6 False Bay 181.2 283.2 184.3 281.1 7.3 7.9 50.5 263.4 52.7 263.9 2.2 2.8
7 Warm Spring Bay 164.3 279.3 165.2 278.6 2.3 8.7 48.7 262.3 50.6 262.9 1.9 3.3
8 Petersburg 193.0 285.5 190.1 279.0 21.8 25.8 50.4 268.1 52.9 263.7 4.7 3.1
9 Entrance Island 175.4 279.7 170.3 278.1 6.8 9.4 48.1 265.8 51.3 263.2 4.0 2.9
10 Port Alexander 123.3 276.1 120.1 274.9 4.1 3.0 47.2 264.1 47.4 261.8 1.9 0.8
11 Thoms Point 197.9 272.3 198.9 269.5 9.6 10.0 52.0 261.7 52.2 261.1 0.5 1.3
12 Ketchikan 188.2 270.1 185.4 267.7 8.2 12.7 51.3 261.1 51.1 260.5 0.6 2.1
13 Elfin Cove 124.9 276.1 124.5 276.6 1.2 3.3 47.8 263.9 47.7 263.9 0.2 1.2
14 Sitka 110.6 273.8 108.7 273.8 1.9 3.9 46.2 259.9 46.3 262.4 2.0 2.1
15 Craig 113.5 268.1 117.3 268.1 3.8 4.1 44.7 262.2 46.7 259.4 3.0 1.9
Average 7.8 14.4 2.2 2.6
 Fig. 4. Computed M2 (a) amplitude and (b) phase. Contour intervals are (a) 10 cm and (b) 5°.

Fig. 5. Computed K 1 (a) amplitude and (b) phase. Contour intervals are (a) 2 cm and (b) 2°.

shows total rms differences around 0.2–0.3, the model
skill seems to be sensitive to the model bathymetry, the
bottom friction coefficient, and the spatial resolution in
this order.
The grid spacing of 1′ × 1′ employed in the present
study is expected to be a minimal resolution to represent
the connections of the narrow straits in the Alaska Pan-
handle, and coarser resolution is insufficient to retain the
connections of the straits. The simulation model with the
finite difference grid system would not reasonable to in-
vestigate the model dependence on the resolution while
retaining the connection of the straits. The present study
therefore does not demonstrate the model dependence on
the spatial resolution which will need to be investigated
with a simulation model using the finite element grid sys-
tem. In the context of the ocean tide modeling with the

Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 341

 Fig. 6. (a) Mean M2 energy flux and (b) energy dissipation due to bottom friction.
finite element grid, Lefèvre et al. (2000) described that
accurate model bathymetry is essential in order to im-
prove the ocean tide model over the Yellow and East China
Seas. They also showed the importance of tuning the bot-
tom friction coefficient and a minor effect of the mesh
refinement. This case is similar to the ocean tide modeling
in the present study. The discussions above will be help-
ful in general debate on accurate coastal ocean modeling.
As mentioned above, the most accurate ocean tide
representation is achieved with γ b = 0.02 and A H = 1
m2 sec–1 under the improved conditions of the boundary
tidal elevation and the model bathymetry. This simulated
result of the ocean tide model is called the Inazu model
hereafter. The coefficient γb = 0.02 is set as the optimal
coefficient of the bottom friction of our model, since both
the semidiurnal and diurnal constituents show the small-
est rms differences around γb = 0.02 and the bottom fric-
tion coefficient second largely dominates the model skill
after the model bathymetry. The model skill hardly de-
pends on the coefficient of the horizontal eddy viscosity,
and the coefficient AH = 1 m2 sec–1 is employed for the
model based on the Richardson’s four thirds law. The
optimal bottom friction coefficient larger than a typical
value (0.003) is possibly due to wall friction (Colbo,
2006), form drag (Edwards et al., 2004), internal tide
generation (e.g., Gargett, 1976; Pawlowics, 2002) in the
complex channel/strait system, and effects of tidewater
glaciers (e.g., Prinsenberg, 1988) in the northern part of
the Alaska Panhandle. Recently, Tanaka et al. (2007)
quantitatively evaluated the drag due to internal tides
within the Kuril Islands by a simple parameterization (St.
342 D. Inazu et al.
Laurent and Garrett, 2002; St. Laurent et al., 2002). The
evaluation requires the spatial distribution of the buoy-
ancy frequency at ocean bottom. However, water tem-
perature and salinity data derived from World Ocean At-
las (Levitus and Boyer, 1994; Levitus et al., 1994) in-
volves an insufficient spatial resolution and incorrect
depth for the Alaska Panhandle, and the effect of the in-
ternal tides is not quantitatively evaluated in the present
study.
Table 3 shows the model accuracy at each station
for the M2 and K1 constituents of the Inazu and the F00
models. The model skill is highly improved in Glacier
Bay compared to F00 for both the M2 and K1 constitu-
ents. A slight improvement is found at Ketchikan. We can
not clarify the reasons for the differences of the model
skill between the Inazu and the F00 models, but the dif-
ference of the model bathymetry may be one reason even
though the spatial resolution of our model in the Alaska
Panhandle is partly coarser than that of F00. The improve-
ment at Ketchikan is probably due to the use of the F93
result instead of the F00 result in Dixon Entrance. The
observed M2 and K1 phase at Petersburg lags relatively
behind the modeled phase as well as F00. Although addi-
tional local dissipation seems to be needed, it is not in-
vestigated in detail here. A large rms difference is also
found at Willoughby Island, which possibly arises from
the short record length of only two weeks (Table 2).
Nevertheless, the model accuracy in the overall Alaska
Panhandle is achieved with the rms difference within sev-
eral centimeters for each major constituent. These fea-
tures of the model improvements are similar for the S2
and O1 constituents.
The M 2 and K 1 tidal harmonics computed from the
Inazu model are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. We see that the
phase lag of the M2 (K1) constituent notably changes from
285° to 300° (268° to 275°) at the entrance to Glacier
Bay. The change of the phase lag of both the constituents
is mostly equivalent in the time domain. The change of
the phase lag seems to arise from the shallow depth less
than 50 m of the entrance to Glacier Bay derived from
the observation of Carlson et al. (2002). Cokelet et al.
(2004) conducted a surface current observation in the vi-
cinity of Glacier Bay. The observed current is mostly ac-
counted for by tidal currents and shows a large spatial
change near the entrance to Glacier Bay, which possibly
indicates the robust change of the phase lag of tidal el-
evation in Glacier Bay. The change of the phase lag of
the M2 (K1) constituent at the entrance to Glacier Bay is
substantially greater than that of F00 which computed a
phase lag of 290° (270°) in Glacier Bay. The disagree-
ment of the phase lag suggests that the tidal energy dissi-
pation due to bottom friction should be reevaluated be-
cause the phase lag in the shallow region is strongly af-
fected by the bottom friction.
4. Energy Flux and Dissipation
The representation of the regional ocean tides in the
Alaska Panhandle is improved particularly in the vicin-
ity of Glacier Bay as demonstrated in the previous sec-
tion. F00 suggested that tidal energy dissipation due to
bottom friction is large at the entrance to Glacier Bay
and Cross Sound (see their plate 5). It is worth
reinvestigating the tidal energy dissipation in the Alaska
Panhandle owing to the improvement given by the Inazu
model. The tidal energy flux is calculated by the follow-
ing formula (e.g., Kowalik and Proshutinsky, 1993; Lyard,
1997; Lyard and Le Provost, 1997):
F = ρH  u 2 + gη u,
1 entrance to Glacier Bay and Cross Sound, and the remain-
2 
( 4)
where ρ is seawater density (=1028 kg m–3), H is the
depth, g is the gravitational acceleration (=9.8 m sec–2),
η is the sea surface elevation, and u is the horizontal
depth-integrated velocity. The average of Eq. (4) over the
tidal period gives the mean energy flux of the constitu-
ent. The mean M2 energy flux over one period is shown
in Fig. 6(a), which is similar to the result of F00. The
mean M2 energy flux entering the Alaska Panhandle is
calculated by the line integrals similar to F00, which re-
veals 1.5 and 2.8 GW entering through Clarence Strait
and Chatham Strait, respectively, and 0.5 and 0.3 GW
leaving through Sumner Strait and Cross Sound, respec-
tively. Another line integral evaluates 2.1 GW inflow en-
tering Icy Strait from Chatham Strait. The results indi-
cate that the remainder of the M2 energy flux entering
through Clarence Strait and Chatham Strait after frictional
dissipation exceeds or offsets the energy inflows through
Sumner Strait and Cross Sound, respectively. The Inazu
model shows an energy flux of 2.8 GW entering through
Chatham Strait, which is quite larger than the F00 esti-
mation of only 0.6 GW. The difference in the estimation
probably arises because the line integral crossing Chatham
Strait by F00 includes both Chatham Strait and Sumner
Strait (M. G. G. Foreman, personal communication,
2008).
We now specify the region of the energy sink in the
Alaska Panhandle. The energy dissipation due to bottom
friction at each model grid is calculated by the following
formula (e.g., Le Provost and Lyard, 1997):
1 T
Db = ∫0 ργ b u
3
dt, (5)
T
where ρ is seawater density (=1028 kg m–3), T is the tidal
period, γ b is the bottom friction coefficient of the Inazu
model (=0.02), and u is the horizontal depth-integrated
velocity. Figure 6(b) shows the M 2 dissipation due to
bottom friction, which is similar to plate 5(a) of F00. Large
dissipation is identified at the mouth of Chatham Strait,
the overall Sumner Strait, and the entrance to Glacier Bay.
A notable difference is found as larger dissipation around
the entrance to Glacier Bay.
The results mentioned above are summarized as fol-
lows. The M2 energy flux of 1.5 GW entering through
Clarence Strait is mainly dissipated at the head of Clarence
Strait and Sumner Strait. The remainder of the M2 energy
flux from Clarence Strait is likely to exceed the energy
flux entering from Sumner Strait because of the mean
runoff of 0.5 GW. The M2 energy flux of 2.8 GW enters
through Chatham Strait. The large portion of the energy
flux (2.1 GW) enters through Icy Strait, dissipates at the
der of 0.3 GW leaves Cross Sound. Consequently, the M2
tidal energy is dissipated at a rate of 3.4 GW in the Alaska
Panhandle. A notable advantage of the Inazu model over
F00 is the accurate tidal prediction in the vicinity of Gla-
cier Bay, which is expected to improve the evaluation of
the tidal energy dissipation. The evaluated M2 tidal dissi-
pation is 1.5 times the F00 estimation (2.24 GW). The K1
tidal dissipation is estimated to be 0.08 GW by the simi-
lar manner. The value is mostly equivalent to the F00 es-
timation (0.07 GW) though the accuracy of the K1 con-
stituent is also improved in the vicinity of Glacier Bay as
well as the M2 constituent.
5. Prediction of Tidal Signal in Geodetic Measure-
ment
In this section, an efficiency of the Inazu model is
Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 343
 verified by predicting the tidal signals in two GPS dis-
placement time series. The GPS sites used here are lo-
cated at a station QUIC under UAF, and a station AB50
under Plate Boundary Observatory (Fig. 1). The observed
tidal signal of GPS consists of two parts. One is a direct
(cm)

0.09
0.11
D
effect called the body tide which is the surface deforma-
tion of the solid Earth by the Newtonian attraction due to
displacement for the M2 and O1 constituents. The phase shows the local phase lag behind the equilibrium tide at each site. D
Table 4. Observed and predicted tidal signals in the vertical displacement at the GPS sites. The amplitude indicates the vertical

the moon and sun. The other is an indirect effect mainly

Phase

293.3
293.4
(deg.)
−6.2

−7.1
−7.3

0.0
due to the oceanic tide loading (OTL). The OTL effect in
O1

southeast Alaska is known to exceed one half of the body

AB50 (134.55°W, 58.42°N)

Amplitude

tide effect (Sato et al., 2008). The accuracy of the ocean

5.74

5.73
5.73

5.38

0.78
0.77
(cm)

tide model is an important issue for investigating the dy-

namics of the solid Earth. We then evaluate the skill of
the Inazu model to predict the tidal signals in the GPS
data by comparing our ocean tide model with F00.
(cm)

0.08
0.06

Vertical and horizontal components of the surface

D

displacement are decomposed from the original GPS data

is the rms difference defined by Eq. (3) between the observed and the predicted tidal signals.

by a “precise point positioning” (PPP) method which was

Phase

187.4
186.8
(deg.)
−8.2

−10.9
−10.2

0.0

initially introduced by Zumberge et al. (1997). The cal-

M2

culation is performed by a software “GpsTools ver. 0.6.3”

(Takasu and Kasai, 2005; Takasu, 2006) which is a GPS/
Amplitude

GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) analysis

1.65

1.66
1.63

4.03

2.41
2.44
(cm)

package. The detailed PPP analysis strategies are same

as Sato et al. (2008), which enables one to extract pre-
cise displacement time series from raw GPS data. The
semidiurnal and diurnal constituents in the displacement
(cm)

0.17
0.17
D

time series are calculated by BAYTAP-G.

Based on Farrell (1972), the OTL effect is estimated
293.5
293.3
Phase
(deg.)
−5.9

−7.6
−7.6

0.0

by the convolution integral of mass loading over global

oceans with Green’s function. The preliminary Earth
O1

model of Dziewonski and Anderson (1981) is applied to

QUIC (136.59°W, 58.91°N)

Amplitude

the Green’s function. Here the Earth model assumes the

5.72

5.71
5.71

5.33

0.82
0.82
(cm)

elastic and hydrostatic Earth (Dehant et al., 1999), and

the instantaneous response of the solid Earth to tide-gen-
erating force (e.g., Kantha and Clayson, 2000), namely
zero phase lag of the body tide behind the equilibrium
(cm)

0.09
0.18

tide. The computation of the body tide and the OTL ef-
D

fect to predict the GPS displacement are performed by a

program GOTIC (Sato and Hanada, 1984). The OTL ef-
187.7
184.6
Phase
(deg.)

−17.5
−16.4

−10.7

0.0

fect at the GPS sites is absolutely derived from the Inazu

M2

model or the F00 model in the Alaska Panhandle. The

global FES2004 model is used to estimate the contribu-
Amplitude

1.23
1.32

1.19

3.92

2.77
2.75

tion to the OTL effect from outside the Alaska Panhan-

(cm)

dle.
The observed and predicted tidal signals at the GPS
sites are compared in Table 4. The vertical component of
Inazu model

Inazu model

the displacement is used for the comparison since the

Observation

Body tide

vertical displacement shows the OTL effect larger than

Total

F00

F00

the horizontal displacement at the GPS sites. The skill of

OTL

the prediction is evaluated for the M2 and O1 constitu-

ents. For the diurnal constituent, the O1 constituent is
compared rather than the K1 constituent since it is well
known that the K 1 constituent observed from GPS is
strongly biased associated with the satellite orbital error

344 D. Inazu et al.

(e.g., Hatanaka et al., 2001; Allinson et al., 2004; Choi et
al., 2004).
The result of Table 4 is as follows. In the case using
the Inazu model instead of the F00 model, the observed
M2 signal at QUIC is accurately predicted while the M2
prediction may slightly worsen at AB50. This is why the
Inazu model is more accurate in the vicinity of Glacier
Bay than the F00 model, and may be a little inaccurate
near Juneau (Table 3). For the O1 constituent, the accu-
racy is mostly equivalent at the two GPS sites in the cases
of both the ocean tide models since the Inazu model is
just as accurate as the F00 model for the diurnal constitu-
ents. As well as the representation of the ocean tide shown
in Table 3, the advantage of the Inazu model over the F00
model has been demonstrated in terms of the geodetic
aspect, especially for the M2 constituent and in the vicin-
ity of Glacier Bay. Thus the Inazu model is probably a
prospect of the ocean tide correction for the geodetic data,
and is expected to be used for geodetic, seismic, and tec-
tonic researches in the Alaska Panhandle.
6. Summary and Discussion
An accurate, regional ocean tide model in southeast
Alaska has been developed. The model accuracy for the
semidiurnal and diurnal constituents is within several
centimeters in the overall Alaska Panhandle including
Glacier Bay with an optimal coefficient of the bottom fric-
tion under accurate conditions of the bathymetry and the
boundary tidal elevations. The dependence of the model
skill has been evaluated on the boundary conditions and
the dissipation parameters. The model accuracy shows a
crucial sensitivity to the model bathymetry, and also ap-
parent dependence on the bottom friction coefficient. The
developed ocean tide model is highly improved in the
vicinity of Glacier Bay compared to F00. The improve-
ment may be thanks to the model bathymetry though the
detailed reason can not be clarified.
The developed ocean tide model gives an estimation
of the M2 tidal energy dissipation due to bottom friction
that is 1.5 times larger than that of F00 while the K 1 tidal
energy dissipation is as much as F00. A large portion of
the tidal energy flux entering through Chatham Strait is
dissipated in the vicinity of Glacier Bay. If the total M2
tidal energy dissipation in the Gulf of Alaska is 33.5 GW
as indicated by F00, the M2 tidal energy dissipation in
the Alaska Panhandle estimated by the developed ocean
tide model accounts for 10% of the total energy dissipa-
tion while the F00 model accounts for 7% of the total
energy dissipation. Such a difference seems considerable
and may be expected in other regions in the Gulf of
Alaska. The developed ocean tide model is also shown to
contribute to more accurate prediction of the tidal sig-
nals of the GPS time series than the F00 model. The im-
provement is more notable in the vicinity of Glacier Bay
than the other region in southeast Alaska as well as seen
in the ocean tide representation. The ocean tide correc-
tion in the GPS and gravimeter data is expected to be
performed throughout southeast Alaska to elucidate the
Earth’s load response and tectonic motions.
The bottom friction coefficient optimized in the
present study is 0.02 which is larger than the typical value
of 0.003. The Alaska Panhandle is formed not only by
the main channel/strait system but also by many small
inlets which are not resolved by the developed ocean tide
model. Specific dissipation mechanisms as mentioned in
Subsection 3.2 which our barotropic model does not ex-
plicitly capture are needed to be clarified to explain fur-
ther accurate tidal energy dissipation. In southeast Alaska,
the glacier yields the tidewater glaciers but does not form
ice shelves (e.g., Meier and Post, 1987). It is worth in-
vestigating effects of sea ice on ocean tides and tidal cur-
rents in the Alaska Panhandle as well as Hudson Bay
(Prinsenberg, 1988) and Okhotsk Sea (Ono et al., 2008)
though the sea-ice effects may not be robust. The current
observation in Glacier Bay was conducted in summer by
Cokelet et al. (2004). However, all-year current and/or
conductivity-temperature-depth observations are prefer-
able in order to investigate the effects of the tidewater
glaciers or sea ice on the tidal currents. Observations that
can distinguish brief features of internal structures in each
bay and strait are likely required for quantitative evalua-
tion of the drag due to the internal wave which is em-
ployed by Tanaka et al. (2007). In addition, long-term
and robust observations of the sea level are also expected.
The duration of the sea level observations in Glacier Bay
under UAF is less than one month. Table 3 shows that the
observed tidal elevation amplitude of the M2 and K 1 con-
stituents at Composite Island is smaller than that at
Willoughby Island. On the contrary, the observed ampli-
tude of the S2 and O 1 constituents at Composite Island is
larger than that at Willoughby Island (not shown). The
reason for the odd relationship among the semidiurnal
and diurnal tides in Glacier Bay is not clarified but the
short duration of the observation data may give rise to
misunderstanding. In order to gain more accurate under-
standing and representation of the ocean tide, the quality
and quantity of the observation data should be highly
ensured as much as possible.
There are thus many essential problems for profound
understanding of the ocean tides. Also, stratification and
form drag in the inlets can increasingly cause further tidal
energy dissipation (e.g., Stigebrandt, 1999; Edwards et
al., 2004; Cushman-Roisin et al., 2005). Local long phase
delay at Petersburg seems an interesting problem (Table
3), which is not appropriately represented by either F00
or our model. Such highly accurate ocean tide modeling
postulates a sophisticated grid system (e.g., Chen et al.,
2003) and accurate boundary conditions of bathymetry
Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 345
and tidal elevation, as well as elucidating the dissipation
mechanisms. It is finally remarked that the ocean
modeling should be validated not only by oceanographic
but also by geodetic observations.
Acknowledgements
Comments by anonymous reviewers on an earlier
version of this manuscript were helpful and constructive.
The authors wish to thank Dr. K. Ichikawa of Kyushu
University for his valuable comments. Thanks also to Dr.
N. Hirose of Kyushu University for his help with our
numerical operations. Most calculations were performed
on the NEC SX-6 system at The Institute of Statistical
Mathematics. Funding was provided by a CREST (Core
Research for Evolutional Science and Technology) pro-
gram of Japan Science and Technology Agency, and a
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17253003) of
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology) of the Japanese government. A US par-
ticipant was supported by the National Science Founda-
tion grant EAR-9870144 and University of Alaska.
References
Akaike, H. (1980): Likelihood and Bayes procedure. p. 1–13.
In Bayesian Statistics, ed. by J. M. Bernardo, M. H. De
Groot, D. V. Lindley and A. F. M. Smith, University Press,
Valencia.
Allinson, C. R., P. J. Clarke, S. J. Edwards, M. A. King, T. F.
Baker and P. R. Cruddace (2004): Stability of direct GPS
estimates of ocean tide loading. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31,
L15603, doi:10.1029/2004GL020588.
Arakawa, A. and V. R. Lamb (1981): A potential enstrophy and
energy conserving scheme for the shallow water equations.
Mon. Wea. Rev., 109, 18–36.
Asselin, R. (1972): Frequency filter for time integrations. Mon.
Wea. Rev., 100, 487–490.
Carlson, P. R., P. Hooge, G. Cochrane, A. Stevenson, P. Dartnell
and K. Lee (2002): Multibeam bathymetry and selected
perspective views of main part of Glacier Bay, Alaska. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-391. Available at
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-391
Chen, C., H. Liu and R. C. Beardsley (2003): An unstructured
grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional, primitive equations
ocean model: Application to coastal ocean and estuaries. J.
Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 20, 159–186.
Choi, K., A. Bilich, K. M. Larson and P. Axelrad (2004): Modi-
fied sidereal filtering: Implications for high-rate GPS posi-
tioning. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L22608, doi:10.1029/
2004GL021621.
Cokelet, E. D., A. D. Jenkins and L. L. Etherington (2004): A
transect of Glacier Bay ocean currents measured by acous-
tic Doppler current profiler (ADCP). Proc. 4th Glacier Bay
Science Symp., 80–83.
Colbo, K. (2006): Lateral Reynolds stress and eddy viscosity
in a coastal strait. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 36, 770–783.
Cushman-Roisin, B., A. J. Willmott and N. R. T. Biggs (2005):
Influence of stratification on decaying surface seiche modes.
346 D. Inazu et al.
Cont. Shelf Res., 25, 227–242.
Dehant, V., P. Defraigne and J. M. Wahr (1999): Tides for a
convective Earth. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 1035–1058.
Dziewonski, A. M. and D. L. Anderson (1981): Preliminary
reference Earth model. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 25, 297–
356.
Edwards, K. A., P. MacCready, J. N. Moum, G. Pawlakd, J. M.
Klymake and A. Perline (2004): Form drag and mixing due
to tidal flow past a sharp point. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 34,
1297–1312.
Egbert, G. D. and R. D. Ray (2003): Semi-diurnal and diurnal
tidal dissipation from TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 30, 1907, doi:10.1029/2003GL017676.
Farrell, W. E. (1972): Deformation of the Earth by surface loads.
Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 10, 761–797.
Foreman, M. G. G., R. F. Henry, R. A. Walters and V. A.
Ballantyne (1993): A finite element model for tides and reso-
nance along the north coast of British Columbia. J. Geophys.
Res., 98, 2509–2531.
Foreman, M. G. G., W. R. Crawford, J. Y. Cherniawsky, R. F.
Henry and M. R. Tarbotton (2000): A high-resolution as-
similating tidal model for the northeast Pacific Ocean. J.
Geophys. Res., 105, 28629–28651.
Gargett, A. E. (1976): Generation of internal waves in the Strait
of Georgia, British Columbia. Deep-Sea Res., 23, 17–32.
Hatanaka, Y., A. Sengoku, T. Sato, J. M. Johnson, C. Rocken
and C. Meertens (2001): Detection of tidal loading signals
from GPS permanent array of GSI Japan. J. Geod. Soc. Ja-
pan, 47, 187–192.
Hirose, N. and J.-H. Yoon (1996): Barotropic response to the
wind in the Japan Sea. Proc. 4th CREAMS Workshop, 39–
43.
Ishiguro, M., H. Akaike, M. Ooe and S. Nakai (1983): A
Bayesian approach to the analysis of Earth tides. p. 283–
292. In Proc. 9th Int. Symp. Earth Tides, ed. by J. T. Kuo,
E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlangsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart.
Japan Hydrographic Association (1999): Research on bottom
topography using satellite altimeter data. Japan
Hydrographic Association Survey Research Report, 96, 89
pp. (in Japanese).
Kantha, L. H. and C. A. Clayson (2000): Numerical Models of
Oceans and Oceanic Processes. Academic Press, San Di-
ego, 940 pp.
Kim, C.-H. and J.-H. Yoon (1996): Modeling of the wind-driven
circulation in the Japan Sea using a reduced gravity model.
J. Oceanogr., 52, 359–373.
Kowalik, Z. and A. Y. Proshutinsky (1993): Diurnal tides in the
Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 16449–16468.
Larsen, C. F., K. A. Echelmeyer, J. T. Freymueller and R. J.
Motyka (2003): Tide gauge records of uplift along the north-
ern Pacific-North American plate boundary, 1937 to 2001.
J. Geophys. Res., 108, 2216, doi:10.1029/2001JB001685.
Larsen, C. F., R. J. Motyka, J. T. Freymueller, K. A. Echelmeyer
and E. R. Ivins (2004): Rapid uplift of southern Alaska
caused by recent ice loss. Geophys. J. Int., 158, 1118–1133.
Le Provost, C. and F. Lyard (1997): Energetics of the M 2
barotropic ocean tides: An estimate of bottom friction dis-
sipation from a hydrodynamic model. Prog. Oceanogr., 40,
37–52.
Lefèvre, F., C. Le Provost and F. H. Lyard (2000): How can we
improve a global ocean tide model at a regional scale? A
test on the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea. J. Geophys.
Res., 105, 8707–8726.
Levitus, S. and T. P. Boyer (1994): World Ocean Atlas 1994,
vol. 4, Temperature. NOAA Atlas NESDIS, vol. 4, NOAA,
Silver Spring, Md.
Levitus, S., R. Burgett and T. P. Boyer (1994): World Ocean
Atlas 1994, vol. 3, Salinity. NOAA Atlas NESDIS, vol. 3,
NOAA, Silver Spring, Md.
Lindquist, K. G., K. Engle, D. Stahlke and E. Price (2004):
Global topography and bathymetry grid improves research
efforts. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 85, 186.
Lyard, F. (1997): The tides in the Arctic Ocean from a finite
element model. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 15611–15638.
Lyard, F. and C. Le Provost (1997): Energy budget of the tidal
hydrodynamic model FES94.1. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24,
687–690.
Lyard, F., F. Lefèvre, T. Letellier and O. Francis (2006): Mod-
elling the global ocean tides: Modern insights from
FES2004. Ocean Dyn., 56, 394–415.
Marks, K. M. and W. H. F. Smith (2006): An evaluation of pub-
licly available global bathymetry grids. Mar. Geophys. Res.,
27, 19–34.
Meier, M. F. and A. Post (1987): Fast tidewater glaciers. J.
Geophys. Res., 92, 9051–9058.
Miller, G. R. (1966): The flux of tidal energy out of the deep
oceans. J. Geophys. Res., 71, 2485–2489.
Ono, J., K. I. Ohshima, G. Mizuta, Y. Fukamachi and M.
Wakatsuchi (2008): Diurnal coastal-trapped waves on the
eastern shelf of Sakhalin in the Sea of Okhotsk and their
modification by sea ice. Cont. Shelf Res., 28, 697–709.
Pawlowicz, R. (2002): Observations and linear analysis of sill-
generated internal tides and estuarine flow in Haro Strait.
J. Geophys. Res., 107, 3056, doi:10.1029/2000JC000504.
Prinsenberg, S. J. (1988): Damping and phase advance of the
tide in western Hudson Bay by the annual ice cover. J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 18, 1744–1751.
Rodríguez, G. and M. J. Sevilla (2002): Correlation between
sea surface topography and bathymetry in shallow shelf
waters in the Western Mediterranean. Geophys. J. Int., 150,
573–587.
Sandwell, D. T. and W. H. F. Smith (2001): Chapter 12,
Bathymetric estimation. p. 441–457. In Satellite Altimetry
and Earth Sciences, ed. by L.-L. Fu and A. Cazenave, Aca-
demic Press, San Diego.
Sato, T. and H. Hanada (1984): A program for the computation
of oceanic tidal loading effects ‘GOTIC’. Publ. Int. Lat.
Obs. Mizusawa, 18, 29–47.
Sato, T., S. Miura, Y. Ohta, H. Fujimoto, W. Sun, C. F. Larsen,
M. Heavner, M. Kaufman and J. T. Freymueller (2008):
Earth tides observed by gravity and GPS in southeastern
Alaska. J. Geodyn., 46, 78–89.
Smith, W. H. F. and D. T. Sandwell (1997): Global sea floor
topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth sound-
ings. Science, 277, 1956–1962.
St. Laurent, L. C. and C. Garrett (2002): The role of internal
tides in mixing the deep ocean. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 32,
2882–2899.
St. Laurent, L. C., H. L. Simmons and S. R. Jayne (2002): Es-
timating tidally driven mixing in the deep ocean. Geophys.
Res. Lett., 29, 2106, doi:10.1029/2002GL015633.
Stigebrandt, A. (1999): Resistance to barotropic tidal flow in
straits by baroclinic wave drag. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 29, 191–
197.
Takasu, T. (2006): High-rate Precise Point Positioning: detec-
tion of crustal deformation by using 1-Hz GPS data. GPS/
GNSS Symp. 2006, Tokyo, 52–59.
Takasu, T. and S. Kasai (2005): Development of precise orbit/
clock determination software for GPS/GNSS. Proc. 49th
Space Sciences and Technology Conference, 1223–1227.
Tamura, Y., T. Sato, M. Ooe and M. Ishiguro (1991): A proce-
dure for tidal analysis with a Bayesian information crite-
rion. Geophys. J. Int., 104, 507–516.
Tanaka, Y., T. Hibiya and Y. Niwa (2007): Estimates of tidal
energy dissipation and diapycnal diffusivity in the Kuril
Straits using TOPEX/POSEIDON altimeter data. J.
Geophys. Res., 112, C10021, doi:10.1029/2007JC004172.
Zumberge, J. F., M. B. Heflin, D. C. Jefferson, M. M. Watkins
and F. H. Webb (1997): Precise point positioning for the
efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large net-
works. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 5005–5017.
Ocean Tide Modeling in Southeast Alaska 347