## 1. Introduction

Lagrangian drifters play an important role in understanding ocean currents and eddies from large open-ocean scales (hundreds of kilometers; e.g., Lumpkin and Johnson 2013) to small surfzone scales (5 m; e.g., Spydell et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2009). Drifter observations are used to study surface (Lumpkin and Johnson 2013) and subsurface (Ollitrault and Colin de Verdière 2014) currents, estimate absolute and relative diffusivity and Lagrangian time scales, and infer scale-selective diffusivities [for a review, see LaCasce (2008)]. Drifters are tracked with various methods, a brief history of which is found in Lumpkin et al. (2017). Many modern drifters are tracked with GPS due to its affordability and accuracy (e.g., Schmidt et al. 2003; Ohlmann et al. 2017; Novelli et al. 2017).

In addition to mean circulation patterns and diffusivities, surface horizontal divergence (*dU*/*dx* + *dV*/*dy*) and vertical vorticity (*dV*/*dx* − *dU*/*dy*) have been estimated from drifters. These, and other fluid differential kinematic properties (DKP), are found from the positions and velocities of three or more drifters from which all horizontal velocity gradients (*dU*/*dx*, *dU/dy*, *dV*/*dx*, and *dV*/*dy*) can be estimated using a least squares (LS) technique, first described in Molinari and Kirwan (1975) and Okubo and Ebbesmeyer (1976). The estimated DKP variance decreases with increasing drifter number *N*. For three drifters, the LS technique yields an exact fit, hence for three drifters it is not possible to estimate DKP variance.

The LS technique of estimating DKPs was first applied to mesoscale flows, that is, *O*(10) km length scales and ≥1 day time scales. For clusters of three drifters in the western Caribbean Sea (Molinari and Kirwan 1975), vorticity and divergence estimates were *O*(10^{−1}*f*), where *f* is the local Coriolis parameter. Similar magnitudes of vorticity and divergence were found for mesoscale motions for clusters of five SOFAR floats (sampling at 300 m depth) deployed near the West Spitsbergen Current (Richez 1998). Improved GPS tracking technology has enabled DKP estimation for smaller space- and time-scale flows. For submesoscale eddies and fronts [*O*(1) km length scales and *O*(1) h time scales], vorticity and divergence estimates often exceed, and sometimes greatly (10 times), the local *f* based on clusters of nine GPS tracked near-surface drifters in the Santa Barbara channel (Ohlmann et al. 2017) and clusters of four drifters in the Gulf of Mexico (Ohlmann et al. 2019). Vorticity and divergence magnitudes decrease with increasing space and time scales (e.g., Ohlmann et al. 2017). Although calculating DKP at submesoscales and smaller is now possible, the role of errors in the LS technique at these scales is not completely understood.

The first study that applied the LS technique (Molinari and Kirwan 1975) noted very large “wiggles” in the DKP time series using clusters of three drifters. This is despite low-pass filtering the time series of positions (initial sampled at 15 min), from which the DKP was estimated, to approximately daily positions. These authors found that this error (i.e., wiggles) was inversely related to triangle (cluster) area. Vorticity estimated using clusters of five drifters near Point Reyes (California) was considered erroneous if the cluster area (each drifter is a polygon vertex), became too small (<10^{6} m^{2}) or too large (>4 × 10^{10} m^{2}) (Paduan and Niiler 1990). For simulated drifters in a mesoscale model of the California Current System, noisy DKP rejection criteria used the longest drifter separation and the cluster ellipticity, defined as the ratio of the major to minor axis of the position covariance matrix (Righi and Strub 2001). The along cluster track Eulerian vorticity and drifter estimated vorticity were similar if the largest drifter separation was <20 km and if the cluster remained fairly circular. However, the grid resolution was approximately 9 km, hence, submesoscale dynamics were not properly resolved. A criterion based only on cluster ellipticity was used in Ohlmann et al. (2017).

DKP error depends on the velocity error, the number of drifters in the cluster, and the drifter cluster geometry (size and shape). Velocity error has two sources (Okubo and Ebbesmeyer 1976; Kirwan 1988): GPS instrument noise or processes noise by assuming spatially uniform velocity gradients in the Taylor series expansion. The velocity error has been a posteriori estimated from the LS misfit (Okubo and Ebbesmeyer 1976; Sanderson et al. 1988). Kirwan and Chang (1979) investigated the role of instrument noise on DKP error. However, explicit dependence of DKP error on cluster geometry was not determined and correlated velocity errors between instruments was not considered. Here, we focus only on the role of instrument noise on the velocity error.

Understanding GPS instrument error is critical as it contributes directly to DKP errors. On smaller scales, GPSs errors could be the main misfit contributor as the velocity Taylor series expansion (upon which the LS technique is based) is increasingly valid for decreasing spatial scales. However, GPS position and velocity errors can vary. For instance, GPS position errors sampling surfzone to shelf flows range from 1 to 10 m (Schmidt et al. 2003; Johnson and Pattiaratchi 2004; Ohlmann et al. 2005; Novelli et al. 2017). GPS position errors can be reduced to <0.01 m (Suara et al. 2015) using real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning. However, RTK systems are uncommon due to their cost, and are not appropriate for inner shelf to open-ocean studies due to needing a nearby base station. Although, GPS position error frequency spectra are red (≈*f*^{−2}; Johnson and Pattiaratchi 2004; MacMahan et al. 2009; Suara et al. 2015), resulting in white (position differences) velocity error spectra. (MacMahan et al. 2009; Suara et al. 2015), the effect of filtering GPS positions and velocities on DKP errors is not completely understood.

In this article, GPS errors are investigated and quantified, and their effect on DKP, specifically vorticity, is examined. Although the errors associated with only one particular GPS receiver are investigated, the methodology here provides a template for use with any GPS. A simple illustrative formula for the vorticity error is derived and extended for clusters of *N* GPSs in section 2 and the appendix. In section 3, the GPSs, the observations, the data processing, and the statistical quantities of interest are described. In section 4, GPS position and velocity errors are presented and scalings for the vorticity error are tested. In the discussion (section 5), the vorticity error for in situ inner-shelf drifters is examined, previous DKP error analyses are contextualized, and the role of GPS satellite coverage investigated. The work is summarized is section 6.

## 2. Vorticity and vorticity errors from drifters

### a. Vorticity error: An illustrative example

Consider velocity gradient error estimated from two still GPSs, one located at *X*_{1} = 0, the other at *X*_{2} = *L*. These GPSs measure positions *X*_{1} = *x*_{1}(*t*) and *X*_{2} = *L* + *x*_{2}(*t*) and Doppler velocities *u*_{1}(*t*) and *u*_{2}(*t*). This analysis is one dimensional for illustration and clarity. The time mean is indicated with an overbar thus, the mean of *x*_{1}(*t*) is *x*_{1}, *x*_{2}, *u*_{1}, and *u*_{2} are correlated Gaussian random variables with nonzero mean and that the error statistics are identical for both GPSs. The position and velocity error variances are *ρ*_{ab} represents correlation between random variables *a* and *b*. The position and velocity error correlation across GPSs is

*L*≫ |

*x*

_{2}−

*x*

_{1}|, the Taylor series expansion of (1) is

*x*

_{2}−

*x*

_{1})/

*L*, the mean velocity gradient is

*x*′ and

*u*′ are correlated differently on the same GPS than across GPSs. In practice, term II is much smaller than term I because for oceanographic scales of interest

*σ*

_{x}≪

*L*.

*x*

_{2}−

*x*

_{1})/

*L*] are

*ζ*=

*dV*/

*dx*−

*dU*/

*dy*error is found from the gradient error. Assume that two drifters are aligned in the

*x*direction and separated by

*L*

_{x}and two drifters aligned in

*y*direction separated by

*L*

_{y}(a diamond pattern), assume

*L*

_{y}≥

*L*

_{x}. For this configuration, the squared vorticity standard error is then

*u*and

*υ*are independent with the same error statistics, we have

### b. Estimating vorticity and vorticity errors from drifter cluster observations

*N*≥ 3 drifters (Molinari and Kirwan 1975) using a least squares method. Drifter velocities can be Taylor series expanded about the cluster center,

*U*is the cluster mean velocity,

*dU*/

*dx*and

*dU*/

*dy*are velocity gradients over the cluster, and (

*x*

_{i},

*y*

_{i}) are east–west (E-W) and north–south (N-S) positions relative to cluster center. The velocity residual

*N*drifter velocities and positions, the model parameters

*u*′) to the observed velocities,

*N*× 3 matrix

*V*and velocity gradients,

*dV*/

*dx*, and

*dV*/

*dy*, are found similarly. The vorticity

*ζ*is then

*ζ*=

*dV*/

*dx*−

*dU*/

*dy*.

*N*drifters, the vorticity error variance is derived in (A11) in the appendix and is given by

*l*

_{a}and

*l*

_{b}(

*l*

_{a}≤

*l*

_{b}) are the minor and major axis lengths of the drifter cluster, that is, eigenvalues of the position covariance matrix

*l*

_{a}can be considered the width, or narrowness, of the cluster and

*l*

_{b}the length of the cluster. The velocity error

The vorticity error variance assumes uncorrelated *u*′, *υ*′, but correlated *u*′ between GPSs [see (16)]. It is analogous to the two drifter illustrative example in (11), but accounts for the drifters number *N* and cluster size and shape through *l*_{a} and *l*_{b}. This expression (16) can be used a priori if the velocity error *σ*_{u} is known. Furthermore, (16) indicates that vorticity standard error decreases as *N*^{−1/2}, indicating that large numbers of drifters are required to reduce vorticity error substantially.

## 3. GPS instruments, observations, and methods

### a. GPS instruments

Off-the-shelf, hand-held, “GT-31” GPSs (henceforth GPSs) manufactured by Locosys Technology Inc. are used here. These GPSs have been used in previous oceanographic studies (Herbers et al. 2012; McCarroll et al. 2014; Pearman et al. 2014; Fiorentino et al. 2014; Slivinski et al. 2017). These GPSs are useful for surface oceanographic drifter applications as they are waterproof to IPX7 standards and, due to their small size (9 cm × 5.8 cm × 2.5 cm), easily fit in a small otter box that can be mounted to various drifter bodies. These GPSs record position and Doppler shift (based on the frequency shift of the GPS carrier frequency) estimated velocity at 1 Hz using the SiRF Star 3 GPS chip. The 1 Hz sampling of these GPS is faster than required to sample submesoscale processes that evolve on tens of minutes to hourly time scales and faster than previous drifter studies of these motions (e.g., D’Asaro et al. 2018). However, as shorter time- and space-scale processes are investigated (e.g., Ohlmann et al. 2017), rapid sampling is needed for 1) understanding GPS errors dependence on sampling frequency, 2) surface wave spectra estimation as submesoscale processes may depend on Stokes drift (Hamlington et al. 2014), and 3) filtering out surface gravity waves. For example, nearshore vorticity can be *O*(10^{−2}) s^{−1} (Suanda and Feddersen 2015; Kumar and Feddersen 2017) not far from surface gravity wave frequencies (0.05 s^{−1}).

The SiRF chip GPS position–velocity solution algorithm is proprietary, and thus the relationship between position and Doppler velocity is unknown. The manufacturer states that horizontal positions have 10 m rms absolute accuracy and horizontal Doppler velocities have 0.1 m s^{−1} rms accuracy. Surface gravity wave spectra at *f* > 0.05 Hz have been accurately estimated from 1 Hz GT GPS horizontal positions (Herbers et al. 2012). These GPSs return a time series of (latitude, longitude) which is converted to distances using a WGS84 spheroid. The (easting, northing) component of 1 Hz raw position and velocity is **X**_{r}(*t*) = (*X*_{r}, *Y*_{r}) and **u**_{r}(*t*) = (*u*_{r}, *υ*_{r}), respectively. These GPSs also record at 1 Hz the number of satellites in the GPS constellation and a unitless estimate of the horizontal position error (HDOP).

### b. Stationary deployments

There were two stationary deployments of multiple GPSs in Monterey, CA. For these stationary deployments, the “exact” position **X**_{0} of the GT was obtained by placing a survey grade RTK-GPS (≈1 cm accuracy; Suara et al. 2015) at the same location of the GT. Note that such stationary deployments can be used to quantify the error of any GPS. The deviation from the true position for each GPS is then **x**_{r}(*t*) = **X**_{r}(*t*) − **X**_{0}, where **x**_{r}(*t*) is the “raw” 1 Hz position error time series (the subscript *r* denotes 1 Hz raw quantities).

For the first stationary deployment (30 July 2018), denoted the small-scale deployment (SSD), eight GPSs were placed in two squares for 18 h: a small square with 10 m sides (GPSs 1–4) and larger square with ≈40 m sides (GPSs 5–8, Fig. 1a). The SSD relative raw 1 Hz positions **x**_{r}(*t*) meander about ±2 m for each GPS (cool colors, Fig. 1b). For the second deployment (12 September 2018, duration of 24 h), denoted the large-scale deployment (LSD), the five GPS separations were larger, *O*(100–1000) m, than the SSD and GPS placement was not structured (cf. Figs. 1b,a). The LSD relative positions meandered between about ±2 m (GPS 9) to ±5 m (GPS 11) (warm colors, Fig. 1b).

For the SSD, the GPS satellite constellation changed little across GPSs, with 8.9 ± 1.2 satellites in view for each SSD GPS, where 8.9 is the mean (over the 8 GPSs) of the time-mean satellite number and 1.2 is the mean (over the 8 GPSs) of the time-standard deviation. The LSD deployment had slightly worse satellite coverage, with 8.6 ± 1.2 satellites in view (average over GPSs 9, 10, 11, and 13). GPS 12 had the worst satellite coverage, seeing 7.7 satellites in view on average. The GPS estimate of HDOP averaged 1.0 for all GPSs except GPS 12 where HDOP averaged 1.2 over the deployment. The HDOP standard deviation was approximately 0.2 for all GPSs except GPS 12 where it was 0.3.

### c. In situ drifter observations

In situ drifter observations from the ONR funded Inner Shelf Experiment conducted near Point Sal, California, during September–October 2017 are used here. Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment (CODE) surface drifter bodies (Davis 1985) equipped with 1 Hz Lycocos GT-31 GPSs were deployed for ≈5 h on multiple days on the inner shelf (5–40 m water depth). Drifters followed the mean horizontal flow between approximately 0.3 and 1.2 m below the surface. The water following properties of CODE drifters is well established (Poulain 1999; Novelli et al. 2017).

### d. Data processing

The stationary and in situ processing steps are as follows. For the stationary deployments, GPSs had at most one missing velocity or position over the deployment duration (≈1 day) which was filled with linear interpolation. First, outlier Doppler velocities |*u*_{r}(*t*)| greater than three standard deviations of *u*_{r} (but not positions) are removed and filled by linear interpolation. The fraction of outlier velocities was <0.08% for the SSD and between 0.013% and 0.50% for the LSD deployment. Second, velocities based on position differences, denoted

Time series of (a),(b) E-W relative position (offset in *y* by 3 m), (c),(d) E-W PDV (offset in *y* by 0.05 m s^{−1}), and (e),(f) E-W velocity (offset in *y* by 0.1 m s^{−1}) for (a),(c),(e) small-scale and (b),(d),(f) large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Time series of (a),(b) E-W relative position (offset in *y* by 3 m), (c),(d) E-W PDV (offset in *y* by 0.05 m s^{−1}), and (e),(f) E-W velocity (offset in *y* by 0.1 m s^{−1}) for (a),(c),(e) small-scale and (b),(d),(f) large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Time series of (a),(b) E-W relative position (offset in *y* by 3 m), (c),(d) E-W PDV (offset in *y* by 0.05 m s^{−1}), and (e),(f) E-W velocity (offset in *y* by 0.1 m s^{−1}) for (a),(c),(e) small-scale and (b),(d),(f) large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Surface gravity wave motions do not contribute to submesoscale vertical vorticity but can contribute to noise in vorticity estimates. The surface gravity wave influence on raw velocities, positions, and PDVs are removed by low-pass filtering in the frequency domain with a Gaussian filter *G*(*f* ) = exp[−(*f*/*f*_{c})^{2}], where *f*_{c} is the low-pass-filter cutoff frequency. A variety of cutoff frequencies are considered, all at *f*_{c} ≤ 4 × 10^{−2} Hz below the sea-swell frequency band. If *f*_{c} is not specified, the default largest value *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz is used. The resulting low-passed E-W time series are *u*(*t*), *x*(*t*), and *r*, low-passed quantities are not subscripted, and if not specified, the default value of *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz is used.

### e. Stationary deployment error statistics and spectra

*x*and velocity

*u*. For the

*j*th GPS, the E-W mean position error is estimated as

*N*

_{j}is the number of 1 Hz samples. For the

*j*th GPS, E-W position standard error

*σ*

_{x,j}is estimated as

*σ*

_{u}and

*j*and E-W velocity on GPS

*k*is denoted

*j*and GPS

*k*

*l*

*j*and

*k*, rather than 1 and 2 as in section 2a.

Error frequency spectra for each GPS is calculated from time series of raw GPS position errors *x*_{r}(*t*), velocity error *u*_{r}(*t*), and PDVs *S*_{xx}(*f*), *S*_{uu}(*f*), and ^{−4} Hz frequency resolution. Means are removed from each time series prior to spectra calculation.

## 4. Results: Stationary deployments

### a. Time series

GPS E-W relative position *x*, E-W PDV *u*, are shown in Fig. 2 (left column: SSD; right column: LSD) for the default low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. N-S position errors *y*, PDV *υ* are similar to the E-W errors and therefore not shown. E-W positions *x* meander about ±1.5 m for the SSD (Fig. 2a), the E-W PDV ^{−1} (Fig. 2c), and Doppler velocities *u* fluctuate approximately ±0.05 m s^{−1} (Fig. 2e). For the LSD, the position error time series *x* for GPS 9 (red) and GPS 13 (yellow), and PDVs, are similar to SSD GPSs (cf. Figs. 2a,b and 2c,d), whereas positions (especially at higher frequency) and PDVs for GPSs 10–12 are noisier. Velocity errors *u* for LSD GPSs are similar to the velocity error for SSD GPSs, although more higher-frequency error is evident for GPSs 10–12 (cf. Figs. 2e,f). Position *x*, and velocity *u* appear correlated from GPS to GPS (Figs. 2a,b,e,f).

Using the method described in section 2b, the time series of vorticity *ζ* (scaled by *f* at 35°) for the SSD and LSD, using GPSs 5, 6, and 7 and GPSs 9, 12, and 13, respectively, show the influence of GPS separation on vorticity error (Figs. 3a,b). For the small-scale deployment (GPSs separated ≈40 m), using *f* (red curve, Fig. 3a) whereas for the LSD (GPSs separated ≈1000 m) the error time series is approximately ±0.5*f* (red curve, Fig. 3b). We note, however, that this vorticity estimate is based on drifter separations smaller (40 and 1000 m), and containing higher-frequency PDVs (up to 25 s motions), than typical for submesoscale vorticity estimation that have separation scales of ≈2000 m and time-scales ≥600 s (e.g., Ohlmann et al. 2017). Using Doppler *u* for the velocities in (12) results in lower-frequency fluctuations with larger errors than using *u*, for the small-scale deployment −5 < *ζ*/*f* < 15 and for the large-scale deployment −1 < *ζ*/*f* < 2 (cf. red and black curves in Figs. 3a,b). The difference between vorticity estimated from *u* and PDV suggests that at lower frequency, vorticity from PDV is more accurate than *u*.

(a) Stationary GPS vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) vs time for the small-scale deployment with separation of ≈40 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 5, 6, and 7; red line: using *f* at 35°) vs time for the large-scale deployment with separations of ≈1000 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 9, 12, and 13; red line: using

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Stationary GPS vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) vs time for the small-scale deployment with separation of ≈40 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 5, 6, and 7; red line: using *f* at 35°) vs time for the large-scale deployment with separations of ≈1000 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 9, 12, and 13; red line: using

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Stationary GPS vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) vs time for the small-scale deployment with separation of ≈40 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 5, 6, and 7; red line: using *f* at 35°) vs time for the large-scale deployment with separations of ≈1000 m. Black line: using *u*_{i} from GPSs 9, 12, and 13; red line: using

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

### b. Error statistics on an individual GPS

The statistics of stationary GPS positions *x*(*t*), velocities *u*(*t*), and PDVs *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz) time series are now presented. The E-W mean error *σ*_{x} was approximately ≤1 m for the SSD (Fig. 4a, Table 1). E-W position standard errors for the LSD were generally larger than those for the SSD, although position standard errors for GPSs 9 and 13 were similar to SSD values (Table 1). The N-S position standard errors *σ*_{y} were larger in magnitude than *σ*_{x} with GPSs 10, 11, 12, and 13 having noticeably larger *σ*_{y} than the other GPSs (Table 1).

(a) Position mean error *σ*_{x} vs GPS number. (b) Position differences *σ*_{u} vs GPS number. GPSs 1–8 (cool colors) are from the small-scale stationary deployment, and GPSs 9–13 (warm colors) are from the large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position mean error *σ*_{x} vs GPS number. (b) Position differences *σ*_{u} vs GPS number. GPSs 1–8 (cool colors) are from the small-scale stationary deployment, and GPSs 9–13 (warm colors) are from the large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position mean error *σ*_{x} vs GPS number. (b) Position differences *σ*_{u} vs GPS number. GPSs 1–8 (cool colors) are from the small-scale stationary deployment, and GPSs 9–13 (warm colors) are from the large-scale stationary deployment.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Statistics for the 13 stationary GPSs. GPSs 1–8 are from the SSD and GPSs 9–13 are from the LSD.

Terms used to evaluate the vorticity standard error *σ*_{ζ}, (16), for the SSD (*l*_{a} = 4 and 16 m) and LSD (*l*_{a} = 177 and 427 m) drifter clusters in Fig. 9. Velocity standard errors (columns 3–5) and correlations (columns 6–8) are low-pass frequency cutoff dependent (column 9).

E-W velocity mean errors *σ*_{υ} are ≤0.02 m s^{−1} except for GPS 12 where *σ*_{u} = 0.032 m s^{−1} (bars, Fig. 4c, Table 1). N-S velocity standard errors *σ*_{υ} are larger than *σ*_{u} by approximately 50%. The E-W and N-S PDV mean error *f* = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz, PDVs are more accurate than Doppler velocities.

### c. GPS-to-GPS correlations

As outlined in section 2a, the velocity correlation from one GPS to another affects vorticity errors [see (11)]. GPS-to-GPS velocity–velocity correlations *l* ≥ 100 m) than the small-scale deployment (blue symbols, *l* < 100 m) suggesting that correlations decrease with increasing GPS separation *l*. A correlation is red if it includes GPS 12 which had particularly poor satellite coverage relative to the other GPSs. Approximate 95% correlation significant levels are 0.6 for *e*-folding times) as decorrelation time scales (Thomson and Emery 2014). Hence, most

GPS-to-GPS position correlations vs separation *l*. (a) Velocity–velocity correlations *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. Approximate 95% nonzero correlation values are dashed gray lines.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

GPS-to-GPS position correlations vs separation *l*. (a) Velocity–velocity correlations *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. Approximate 95% nonzero correlation values are dashed gray lines.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

GPS-to-GPS position correlations vs separation *l*. (a) Velocity–velocity correlations *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. Approximate 95% nonzero correlation values are dashed gray lines.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

### d. Error spectra

The spectra of raw positions *S*_{xx}, PDVs *S*_{uu} are now presented (Fig. 6). The spectra of N-S and E-W position for each individual GPS is averaged (light colored thin lines in Fig. 6a) resulting in 12 dof for each spectra (thin lines). The N-S and E-W spectra are also averaged for PDV and velocity (light colored thin lines in Figs. 6b,c). The spectra for each GPS are averaged over the SSD and LSD (thick blue and red curves, respectively, Figs. 6a–c) resulting in 96 (2 × 6 × 8) dof for average SSD spectra and 60 (2 × 6 × 5) dof for average LSD spectra. Note that spectra are shown only for frequencies less than the default low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz.

(a) Position error spectra *S*_{xx}, (b) velocity error spectra *S*_{uu}, and (c) PDV error spectra *f* for the small-scale deployment (blue) and large-scale deployment (red). E-W and N-S components are averaged. Thin light-colored curves are from each GPS and the thick lines are the mean over the GPSs. In (a) and (b) *f*^{−2} is shown as the dashed black line. In (c), the gray lines are *S*_{uu}(*f*) from (b) for reference.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position error spectra *S*_{xx}, (b) velocity error spectra *S*_{uu}, and (c) PDV error spectra *f* for the small-scale deployment (blue) and large-scale deployment (red). E-W and N-S components are averaged. Thin light-colored curves are from each GPS and the thick lines are the mean over the GPSs. In (a) and (b) *f*^{−2} is shown as the dashed black line. In (c), the gray lines are *S*_{uu}(*f*) from (b) for reference.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position error spectra *S*_{xx}, (b) velocity error spectra *S*_{uu}, and (c) PDV error spectra *f* for the small-scale deployment (blue) and large-scale deployment (red). E-W and N-S components are averaged. Thin light-colored curves are from each GPS and the thick lines are the mean over the GPSs. In (a) and (b) *f*^{−2} is shown as the dashed black line. In (c), the gray lines are *S*_{uu}(*f*) from (b) for reference.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

For the small-scale deployment, the position error spectra *S*_{xx}(*f*) follows an approximate *f*^{−2} scaling for *f* > 10^{−4} Hz (cf. blue curve and dashed line, Fig. 6a). A similar spectral slope for GPS position errors has been previously reported (Johnson and Pattiaratchi 2004; MacMahan et al. 2009; Suara et al. 2015). The spectra *S*_{xx}(*f*) flattens for *f* ≤ 10^{−4} Hz because this is the approximate frequency resolution.

The velocity error spectra *S*_{uu}(*f*) is also red but falls of more slowly, than the position error spectra *S*_{xx}(*f*) (Fig. 6b). The SSD and LSD PDV error spectra is nearly white (blue and red curves, Fig. 6c) because the PDV is the time derivative of position. Comparing *S*_{uu} (reproduced in gray in Fig. 6c) and *u* errors are smaller than PDV *f* > 10^{−3} Hz whereas for lower frequencies PDVs have smaller error than Doppler velocities.

### e. Blended trajectory

*S*

_{uu}and PDV spectra

*f*≲ 10

^{−3}Hz),

*u*velocities, whereas for higher frequencies (

*f*≳ 10

^{−3}Hz),

*u*velocities have less error than

*f*<

*f*

_{T}whereas

*f*>

*f*

_{T}. The transition frequency is approximately

*f*

_{T}≈ 10

^{−3}Hz because

*S*

_{uu}cross at approximately this frequency (Fig. 6c). Note, that

*u*for the high frequency. This blended velocity

*u*

_{B}is then

*f*

_{c}= 10

^{−3}Hz. Recall that

*u*(

*t*) is filtered at the default low-pass-filter cutoff frequency

*u*

_{B}(

*t*) are calculated. Note, that the blended time series are shorter than

*u*(

*t*) and

*f*

_{c}= 10

^{−3}Hz which necessitates removing some of the beginning and end of

*u*(

*t*) and

^{−3}Hz. These differences, however, are not statistically significant. Blended trajectories

*x*

_{B},

*f*< 10

^{−3}Hz) do not require using blended velocities or trajectories because PDVs have smaller errors at these frequencies. However, blended velocities should be used, if possible, when sampling motions with time scales >10

^{−3}Hz.

### f. Dependence of velocity errors and correlation on the low-pass-filter cutoff frequency

*f*

_{c}on the velocity standard error and velocity–velocity correlation is now explored for SSD and LSD. The velocity standard error dependence on

*f*

_{c}[

*σ*

_{u}(

*f*

_{c})] is calculated as the square root of the integral of the velocity error spectra (Fig. 6, thick curves)

*f*

_{c}dependence of the PDV standard error

*f*

_{c}> 2 × 10

^{−4}Hz. At lower frequencies, too few independent data exist for reliable correlations. Low-pass-filter cutoff-frequency–dependent SSD and LSD correlations are averaged over all GPS pairs (i.e., all

*j*and

*k*for

*j*≠

*k*in

The PDV error *f*_{c} (see blue and red dotted curves in Fig. 7a). Because the PDV error spectra is approximately white, the error generally follows *f*_{c} < 5 × 10^{−3} Hz. For the lowest frequencies, the velocity error *σ*_{u} starts large, relative to *S*_{uu}(*f*). Only near the highest frequency (*f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz), are the velocity error *σ*_{u} and the PDV error *f*_{c} > 10^{−3} Hz, less than either the *u* or *f*_{c} < 10^{−3} Hz, *f*_{c} is larger for the LSD deployment than the SSD (red curves are above blue in Fig. 7a).

The frequency dependence of quantities related to vorticity standard error. Small-scale (SSD) and large-scale (LSD) deployments are blue and red curves, respectively. (a) Velocity error *σ*_{u} and (b) the velocity–velocity correlation between different GPSs *j* ≠ *k*) vs low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c}. Statistics for *u* are dashed, and blended velocity *u*_{B} are solid. Correlations for *f* < 2 × 10^{−4} are not shown because there are not enough independent samples for these frequencies.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

The frequency dependence of quantities related to vorticity standard error. Small-scale (SSD) and large-scale (LSD) deployments are blue and red curves, respectively. (a) Velocity error *σ*_{u} and (b) the velocity–velocity correlation between different GPSs *j* ≠ *k*) vs low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c}. Statistics for *u* are dashed, and blended velocity *u*_{B} are solid. Correlations for *f* < 2 × 10^{−4} are not shown because there are not enough independent samples for these frequencies.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

The frequency dependence of quantities related to vorticity standard error. Small-scale (SSD) and large-scale (LSD) deployments are blue and red curves, respectively. (a) Velocity error *σ*_{u} and (b) the velocity–velocity correlation between different GPSs *j* ≠ *k*) vs low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c}. Statistics for *u* are dashed, and blended velocity *u*_{B} are solid. Correlations for *f* < 2 × 10^{−4} are not shown because there are not enough independent samples for these frequencies.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

The velocity–velocity correlation *f*_{c} for *u*, *u*_{B} (dashed curves, Fig. 7b). For *u*, *f*_{c}. Both *f*_{c} < 10^{−3} Hz and decreases quickly with values <0.1 for larger *f*_{c} (dotted and solid curves, Fig. 7b). Like the standard error, blended velocity correlation is not statistically different from the PDV correlation for *f*_{c} < 10^{−3} Hz. SSD (blue curves Fig. 7b) velocity, PDV, and blended velocity GPS-to-GPS correlations are greater than their corresponding LSD correlations (red curves Fig. 7b) consistent with the individual GPS-to-GPS correlations in Fig. 5.

### g. Scaling the vorticity error

Here, scalings for the mean vorticity and vorticity error for the stationary GPSs are tested. The effect of the velocity type (*u*, *u*_{B}), the effect of low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c}, and the effect of the minor axis length *l*_{a} are examined. Clusters of three drifters are defined from triplets of SSD and LSD GPSs. The SSD has eight clusters (Fig. 1a) made of GPS numbers (1, 2, 3), (2, 3, 4), (3, 4, 1), (4, 1, 2), (5, 6, 7), (6, 7, 8), (7, 8, 5), and (8, 5, 6). From the eigenvalues of the cluster position covariance matrix, clusters 1–4 have minor and major axes of *l*_{a} ≈ 4 m and *l*_{b} ≈ 7 m and clusters 5–8 have *l*_{a} ≈ 16 m and *l*_{b} ≈ 7 m. The LSD has three clusters (Fig. 1b) made up of GPS numbers (9, 11, 12), (9, 12, 13) and (10, 12, 13). For the first cluster, (*l*_{a}, *l*_{b}) = (180, 530) m and for the remaining clusters (*l*_{a}, *l*_{b}) ≈ (430, 800) m. For each cluster and velocity type, least squares vorticity is calculated for three different low-pass-filter cutoff frequencies *f*_{c}) vorticity time series from which (as GPSs are stationary) vorticity mean error *σ*_{ζ} are calculated. Additionally, *σ*_{ζ} is estimated a priori from (16) using *σ*_{u} (and *f*_{c} (Fig. 7) and respective SSD or LSD *l*_{a} (Table 1). Recall that velocity variances and correlations are averages of E-W and N-S values.

The vorticity mean error magnitude *l*_{a} (dashed line, Fig. 8). For the Doppler velocities *u*, *l*_{a} (black triangles, Fig. 8), whereas for *u*_{B}, *f*_{c} because it derives from the time mean of the velocity.

Absolute value of the mean vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) for clusters of three stationary GPSs (triangles) vs the minor axis length *l*_{a} of the GPS cluster. Small- and large-scale deployments are separated by *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity derived from Doppler velocities *u* are black, PDVs *u*_{B} are blue. All velocities are filtered at the low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. The dashed line is *f*_{c}. Blue and red triangles are not exactly the same since the length of the time series are different due to the low passing required in the construction of *u*_{B}.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Absolute value of the mean vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) for clusters of three stationary GPSs (triangles) vs the minor axis length *l*_{a} of the GPS cluster. Small- and large-scale deployments are separated by *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity derived from Doppler velocities *u* are black, PDVs *u*_{B} are blue. All velocities are filtered at the low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. The dashed line is *f*_{c}. Blue and red triangles are not exactly the same since the length of the time series are different due to the low passing required in the construction of *u*_{B}.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Absolute value of the mean vorticity (scaled by *f* at 35°) for clusters of three stationary GPSs (triangles) vs the minor axis length *l*_{a} of the GPS cluster. Small- and large-scale deployments are separated by *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity derived from Doppler velocities *u* are black, PDVs *u*_{B} are blue. All velocities are filtered at the low-pass-filter cutoff frequency *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz. The dashed line is *f*_{c}. Blue and red triangles are not exactly the same since the length of the time series are different due to the low passing required in the construction of *u*_{B}.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

For all low-pass-filter cutoff frequencies *f*_{c} and all velocity products, the vorticity standard error *l*_{a} of 5–400 m (Fig. 9). For the highest *l*_{a} = 5 m to *l*_{a} = 400 m and the different velocity products (Fig. 9a). The *u* relative to *u*_{B}, with *u*, *f*_{c} (cf. black triangles across Fig. 9), as much of the *u* error is at low frequencies and filtering has little effect (Figs. 6 and 7). In contrast, for the *u*_{B}, *l*_{a}, consistent with the reduced error (Fig. 7). At *u*_{B}-based *u* and *u*_{B} and *u*_{B} is shorter than

Vorticity standard error for clusters of three stationary GPSs for the small- and large-scale stationary deployment. Standard deviation of cluster vorticity (triangles, scaled by *f* at 35°) vs *l*_{a} for velocities filtered at (a) *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity is derived from velocities *u* (black), PDVs *u*_{B} (blue). Dashed black lines in all panels are

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Vorticity standard error for clusters of three stationary GPSs for the small- and large-scale stationary deployment. Standard deviation of cluster vorticity (triangles, scaled by *f* at 35°) vs *l*_{a} for velocities filtered at (a) *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity is derived from velocities *u* (black), PDVs *u*_{B} (blue). Dashed black lines in all panels are

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Vorticity standard error for clusters of three stationary GPSs for the small- and large-scale stationary deployment. Standard deviation of cluster vorticity (triangles, scaled by *f* at 35°) vs *l*_{a} for velocities filtered at (a) *l*_{a} = 100 m. Vorticity is derived from velocities *u* (black), PDVs *u*_{B} (blue). Dashed black lines in all panels are

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

For each velocity product, the vorticity standard error *l*_{a} and *l*_{b} is well reproduced by the error scaling (16) with *N* = 3 (cf. circles and triangles in Fig. 9). The small differences between stationary GPS *σ*_{u} and *σ*_{u}. However, the methods outlined here (sections 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4f) can be applied to any GPS in order to accurately estimate *σ*_{u} and therefore *σ*_{ζ}.

## 5. Discussion

### a. Vorticity error for in situ data

The scaling (16) is now used to assess the influence of GPS error for in situ derived vorticity. Surface drifters were deployed in clusters on 10 October 2016 near Point Sal, California (34.9°N, −120.67°E). Here, an example of three clusters of three drifters over 5 h reveals a complex surface flow (Fig. 10). The two northern clusters (red and blue in Fig. 10) initially heads offshore, before advecting onshore and northward about 2 km. In contrast, the southernmost cluster (black in Fig. 10) has weak advection. For all clusters, drifters are entrained in a frontal feature and end up aligned alongfront. The frontal nature of this feature was identified by temperatures recorded by nearby moorings: the surface temperature increased by ≈1°C from the shoreward to seaward side of the front (not shown).

Tracks of three clusters of three drifters for the 10 October drifter release (colored curves). Initial positions are indicated by dots. Bathymetry is contoured and thick white contours are at 10 m intervals while thin white contours are at 5 m intervals. N-S (*y*) and E-W (*x*) distances are relative to the tip of Point Sal, CA (34.9°N, −120.67°E).

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Tracks of three clusters of three drifters for the 10 October drifter release (colored curves). Initial positions are indicated by dots. Bathymetry is contoured and thick white contours are at 10 m intervals while thin white contours are at 5 m intervals. N-S (*y*) and E-W (*x*) distances are relative to the tip of Point Sal, CA (34.9°N, −120.67°E).

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

Tracks of three clusters of three drifters for the 10 October drifter release (colored curves). Initial positions are indicated by dots. Bathymetry is contoured and thick white contours are at 10 m intervals while thin white contours are at 5 m intervals. N-S (*y*) and E-W (*x*) distances are relative to the tip of Point Sal, CA (34.9°N, −120.67°E).

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

For these three clusters and 5 h deployment, the minor *l*_{a} and major *l*_{b} axis lengths (Figs. 11a–c) are calculated from the drifter-position covariance matrix *x*_{B}, (22), at every time step. The LS vorticity is estimated with the blended positions *x*_{B} and blended velocities *u*_{B}. Blended velocities *u*_{B} use a low-pass cutoff frequency of *σ*_{ζ} is estimated using the scaling (16) with parameters *N* = 3, (*l*_{a}, *l*_{b}), the LSD derived *σ*_{ζ} time dependence is due only to the changing cluster geometry (*l*_{a}, *l*_{b}).

(a)–(c) The minor *l*_{a} (dashed curves) and major *l*_{a} (solid curves) axis lengths vs time for the (top to bottom) red, blue, and black drifter clusters in Fig. 10. (d)–(f) The LS vorticity normalized by the local *f* (*ζ*/*f*) vs time for the three clusters. Vorticity is calculated using a 5-min low-pass frequency cutoff *σ*_{ζ}/*f* calculated using (16). Gray shading in all panels indicates times for which *l*_{a} < 50 m, corresponding to the time when *σ*_{ζ}/*f* increases rapidly.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a)–(c) The minor *l*_{a} (dashed curves) and major *l*_{a} (solid curves) axis lengths vs time for the (top to bottom) red, blue, and black drifter clusters in Fig. 10. (d)–(f) The LS vorticity normalized by the local *f* (*ζ*/*f*) vs time for the three clusters. Vorticity is calculated using a 5-min low-pass frequency cutoff *σ*_{ζ}/*f* calculated using (16). Gray shading in all panels indicates times for which *l*_{a} < 50 m, corresponding to the time when *σ*_{ζ}/*f* increases rapidly.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a)–(c) The minor *l*_{a} (dashed curves) and major *l*_{a} (solid curves) axis lengths vs time for the (top to bottom) red, blue, and black drifter clusters in Fig. 10. (d)–(f) The LS vorticity normalized by the local *f* (*ζ*/*f*) vs time for the three clusters. Vorticity is calculated using a 5-min low-pass frequency cutoff *σ*_{ζ}/*f* calculated using (16). Gray shading in all panels indicates times for which *l*_{a} < 50 m, corresponding to the time when *σ*_{ζ}/*f* increases rapidly.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

For all clusters except the southern most (black), the cluster major axis *l*_{b}(*t*) grows with time (solid curves, Figs. 11a–c). For all clusters, the minor axis *l*_{a}(*t*) is at first largely constant (between 100 and 300 m depending on cluster) before decreasing rapidly at approximately 1100, 1100, and 1200 Pacific daylight time (PDT) for the red, blue, and black clusters, respectively (dashed curves, Figs. 11a–c). This rapid decrease is due to drifters being entrained into the frontal feature (Fig. 10). Times of frontal entrainment, that is, when *l*_{a} < 50 m, are shaded gray in Fig. 11. This alongfront drifter alignment with very small *l*_{a}/*l*_{b} ratio is typical of for surface drifter clusters in submesoscale features (Ohlmann et al. 2017). Prior to frontal entrainment, LS vorticity for each cluster is generally between ±2*f* and can change by *f* on 1 h time scales with additional higher-frequency (0.3–0.5 h time scales) variability (Figs. 11d–f). During this time, the a priori vorticity standard error *l*_{a} and *l*_{b} (top panels of Fig. 11). Some of the higher-frequency *l*_{a} rapid decrease, *f* at very high frequencies at approximately 1130, 1200, and 1300 PDT for the red, blue, and black cluster, respectively. This suggests that the vorticity is dominated by noise. Commensurate with these oscillations, the vorticity standard error *l*_{a} becomes very small (<50 m, shaded gray in Fig. 11). Hence, even for velocity errors of *σ*_{u} ≈ 0.004 m s^{−1} , vorticity cannot be accurately estimated on scales of *l*_{a} < 50 m with *N* = 3 m if that vorticity is *O*(*f*).

### b. Previous vorticity estimates and errors

Large errors in estimated DKP (i.e., vorticity, divergence) were previously evident (e.g., Molinari and Kirwan 1975; Paduan and Niiler 1990; Ohlmann et al. 2017) and a method to estimate DKP standard errors had been developed (Okubo and Ebbesmeyer 1976; Kirwan and Chang 1979) establishing the role of the velocity misfit *σ*_{u}, due to instrument error and process noise by assuming uniform velocity gradients. However, *σ*_{u} had to be estimated a posteriori from the LS fit, with some fraction of contribution from instrument noise. The relative contribution of instrument and process noise to *σ*_{u} will depend on the flow scales, drifter cluster size, and instrument noise. Here, the instrument velocity error *σ*_{u} and GPS-to-GPS error correlations *f*_{c}. From this, DKP errors such as vorticity standard error *σ*_{ζ} can be known a priori rather a posteriori estimated. This method, (16), can be used to guide drifter experiment planning for accurately estimating vorticity and divergence.

^{−1}, and thus did not explicitly reveal the importance of the geometry. Because the precise role of cluster geometry on the errors was unknown, various ad hoc methods for determining when the DKP error was too large were developed. Previous authors have used area, effectively

*l*

_{a}

*l*

_{b}, (Paduan and Niiler 1990), ellipticity

*l*

_{a}/

*l*

_{b}(Ohlmann et al. 2017), or a combination of maximum drifter separation and ellipticity (Righi and Strub 2001), to determine when DKP errors become too large. Here, the precise role of the drifter cluster minor

*l*

_{a}and major

*l*

_{b}axes were established and

*l*

_{a}≪

*l*

_{b}), the vorticity error is largely due to

*l*

_{a}, while for more circular clusters (

*l*

_{a}≈

*l*

_{b}), the squared error depends on both

*l*

_{a}and

*l*

_{b}and for

*l*

_{b}≈

*l*

_{a}the squared error is ≈2 times the squared error for highly elliptic clusters. As such, large vorticity errors should be identified by

For the Point Sal estimated vorticity, comparing our direct predictions of the vorticity error (dashed lines in Figs. 11d–f) to the previous criterion is instructive. Recall that the time dependence of these errors arise only from the changing geometry of the drifter cluster, that is, *l*_{a}(*t*) and *l*_{b}(*t*), and that large vorticity errors resulted from *l*_{a} < 50 m. Previous authors suggested that vorticity errors depend on cluster area (Molinari and Kirwan 1975; Paduan and Niiler 1990) setting lower and upper limits to the area of the drifter cluster beyond which DKP errors are too large. Setting an upper limit is appropriate for large drifter separations where the process noise becomes large as the Taylor series approximation of the velocity, (12), from which the LS technique is built on, is no longer valid. A minimum ellipticity *l*_{a}/*l*_{b} criterion for detecting DKP noise has also been suggested (Ohlmann et al. 2017). Both a minimum area criterion and a minimum ellipticity criterion could be applied to the Point Sal clusters because for these clusters, area and ellipticity criterion are similar to the minimum *l*_{a} criterion (<50 m) used here. The time dependence of *l*_{a} and *l*_{b} in Figs. 11a–c indicate that until approximately 1100 PDT *l*_{a}(*t*) remains fairly constant whereas *l*_{b}(*t*) increases. For times greater than 1100, 1100, and 1200 PDT (red, blue, and black clusters, respectively), however, *l*_{a} rapidly decreases whereas *l*_{b} is relatively constant. Thus, the time dependence of *l*_{a}, *l*_{a}*l*_{b}, and *l*_{a}/*l*_{b} are all similar when *l*_{a}(*t*) is rapidly decreasing. However, cluster minimum area or ellipticity criteria to distinguish high DKP noise will not in general give accurate results due to direct dependence of the vorticity standard error, (16), on *l*_{a}.

### c. Effect of satellite coverage on errors

To get the most accurate estimate of vorticity errors from GPS tracked drifters, the underlying GPS velocity error must be known. In addition to depending on the particular GPS receiver, this error will depend on the quality of the GPS satellite constellation. The quality of the constellation depends on the number of satellites *n*_{s} in view and the position of these satellites in the sky. Although satellite position is not recorded by the GPSs used here, *n*_{s} and a nondimensional estimate of the absolute position error (HDOP), are recorded by these GPSs at 1 Hz. Because *n*_{s} only varied by 1.5 satellites over the SSD and LSD, effect of satellite number on GPS velocity errors cannot be thoroughly examined. Here, we briefly explore how satellite coverage affects GPS position and velocity standard errors for the stationary GPS dataset.

For this dataset, increasing satellite number *σ*_{x} (Fig. 12a). Overall, LSD had smaller *σ*_{x} than the SSD (blue dots). The PDV standard error *σ*_{u} are similarly related to satellite number

(a) Position standard error *σ*_{x}, (b) PDV standard error *σ*_{u}, and (d) HDOP vs the mean number of satellites in view *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position standard error *σ*_{x}, (b) PDV standard error *σ*_{u}, and (d) HDOP vs the mean number of satellites in view *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

(a) Position standard error *σ*_{x}, (b) PDV standard error *σ*_{u}, and (d) HDOP vs the mean number of satellites in view *f*_{c} = 4 × 10^{−2} Hz.

Citation: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 36, 11; 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0108.1

## 6. Summary

The a priori vorticity standard error *σ*_{ζ} is derived (16) based on the least squares method of estimating vorticity from drifters. The *σ*_{ζ} depends upon the velocity error (from instrument noise or process noise due to assuming uniform velocity gradients), cross-drifter correlation, drifter number, and drifter cluster shape. This derivation extended previous vorticity standard error estimates by including the effect of the correlated velocity errors and showing how the drifter cluster minor and major axes *l*_{a}, *l*_{b} affect the error.

Two stationary GPS experiments, with identically zero vorticity, were performed at separations of 10–700 m to understand drifter derived vorticity error and test the derivation using 1 Hz position differences (PDV) and Doppler shift velocities. Standard vorticity estimation reveals error of ±5*f* at separations of 40 m. For low frequencies (<10^{−3} Hz), PDVs velocities are more accurate than Doppler velocities, whereas at higher frequencies (>10^{−3} Hz), the opposite occurs. A “blended” velocity is derived which has the low-frequency characteristics of PDV and the higher-frequency characteristics of the Doppler velocities, resulting in the smallest velocity error. The frequency-dependent velocity variances and GPS-to-GPS correlations were quantified as a function of low-pass-filter cutoff frequency. For the two stationary GPS experiments, the vorticity standard error as a function of cluster minor axis *l*_{a} is well predicted given velocity error and GPS-to-GPS correlation.

Vorticity error analysis is applied to three clusters of three GPS drifters released on the inner shelf off of Point Sal, California, that sampled submesoscale flow features. The value *σ*_{ζ} due to GPS noise was estimated a priori using (16). For these clusters, the vorticity was *O*(*f*) but began to oscillate widely as the drifters were entrained in a frontal feature. The a priori estimated *σ*_{ζ} increases dramatically coincident with the large vorticity oscillations. This *σ*_{ζ} increases is due to small *l*_{a} (<50 m), and the drifter cluster minor axis (narrowness) is the key time-dependent factor affecting vorticity error. Even for velocity errors of 0.004 m s^{−1}, the vorticity error exceeds ±5*f* when cluster minor axis <50 m. Large vorticity standard error cannot be anticipated based on cluster area (*l*_{a}*l*_{b}) or ellipticity (*l*_{a}/*l*_{b}). This a priori method for estimating vorticity standard error can be used in planning submesoscale drifter deployments where vorticity or divergence are being estimated.

## Acknowledgments

The Office of Naval Research supported this research through grants N00014-5-1-2631 (SIO) and N0001418WX00229 (NPS). Casey Gon assisted in the stationary field deployments. For the Point Sal fieldwork, Bill Boyd, Greg Boyd, Tucker Freismuth, Casey Gon, Matt Gough, Rob Grenzeback, Derek Grimes, Ami Hansen, Paul Jessen, Michael Kovatch, Paul Lenz, Aaron Morrone, Andy O’Neill, Lucian Parry, Brett Pickering, Greg Sinnett, Kent Smith, Marla Stone, Ata Suanda, Brian Woodward, and Keith Wyckoff are acknowledged for their help in deployment and recovery. The authors thank Derek Grimes, Michael Kovatch, Jen Mackinnon, Sean Celona, Andre Paloczy, Nirnimesh Kumar, Ata Suanda, and Amy Waterhouse for providing useful feedback. The data and files necessary to reproduce the results herein, can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author (mspydell@ucsd.edu). We thank two reviewers for helping to improve the manuscript.

## APPENDIX

### Derivation of Vorticity Error Variance

*σ*

_{ζ}is derived explicitly including both cluster geometry (size and shape), and velocity correlations across drifters, extending previous work (Okubo and Ebbesmeyer 1976). For

*N*drifters, the least squares inversion for

*β*is given by (e.g., Wunsch 1996)

*x*

_{i}and

*y*

_{i}) are relative to the cluster center, ⟨

*x*⟩ = 0 and ⟨

*y*⟩ = 0, where ⟨⋅⟩ represent an average over all drifters. Thus, the matrix

**R**

^{T}

**R**takes the form

^{−1}matrix is given by

*σ*

_{u}is the velocity error due to both instrument noise and process error (incorrectly assuming that velocity gradients are constant). Here, however, the velocities errors are assumed to be equally correlated across all GPSs with coefficient

*U*, that is, cov(

**)**

*β*_{1,1}, is

*a*

_{33}is the (3, 3) term of (A3), thus,

*u*and

*υ*errors are uncorrelated, the squared vorticity standard error is

*l*

_{a}≤

*l*

_{b}) of the position covariance matrix

*l*

_{a}and

*l*

_{b}is

*l*

_{a}and

*l*

_{b}can be considered the width and length of the drifter cluster. This concise formula for the vorticity error variance differs from previous analysis (e.g., Okubo and Ebbesmeyer 1976; Kirwan and Chang 1979) in that explicitly accounts for the cluster geometry and accounts for potentially correlated velocity errors.

## REFERENCES

Brown, J., J. MacMahan, A. Reniers, and E. Thornton, 2009: Surf zone diffusivity on a rip-channeled beach.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***114**, C11015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005158.D’Asaro, E. A., and Coauthors, 2018: Ocean convergence and the dispersion of flotsam.

,*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA***115**, 1162–1167, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718453115.Davis, R. E., 1985: Drifter observations of coastal surface currents during CODE: The method and descriptive view.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***90**, 4741–4755, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC090iC03p04741.Fiorentino, L., M. Olascoaga, and A. Reniers, 2014: Analysis of water quality and circulation of four recreational Miami beaches through the use of Lagrangian Coherent Structures.

,*Mar. Pollut. Bull.***83**, 181–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.054.Hamlington, P. E., L. P. Van Roekel, B. Fox-Kemper, K. Julien, and G. P. Chini, 2014: Langmuir–submesoscale interactions: Descriptive analysis of multiscale frontal spindown simulations.

,*J. Phys. Oceanogr.***44**, 2249–2272, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-0139.1.Herbers, T. H. C., P. F. Jessen, T. T. Janssen, D. B. Colbert, and J. H. MacMahan, 2012: Observing ocean surface waves with GPS-tracked buoys.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***29**, 944–959, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00128.1.Isserlis, L., 1918: On a formula for the product-moment coefficient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables.

,*Biometrika***12**, 134–139, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/12.1-2.134.Johnson, D., and C. Pattiaratchi, 2004: Application, modelling and validation of surfzone drifters.

,*Coast. Eng.***51**, 455–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2004.05.005.Kirwan, A. D., 1988: Notes on the cluster method for interpreting relative motions.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***93**, 9337–9339, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC08p09337.Kirwan, A. D., and M.-S. Chang, 1979: Effect of sampling rate and random position error on analysis of drifter data.

,*J. Phys. Oceanogr.***9**, 382–387, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009<0382:EOSRAR>2.0.CO;2.Kumar, N., and F. Feddersen, 2017: A new offshore transport mechanism for shoreline-released tracer induced by transient rip currents and stratification.

,*Geophys. Res. Lett.***44**, 2843–2851, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072611.LaCasce, J., 2008: Statistics from Lagrangian observations.

,*Prog. Oceanogr.***77**, 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2008.02.002.Lumpkin, R., and G. C. Johnson, 2013: Global ocean surface velocities from drifters: Mean, variance, El Niño–Southern Oscillation response, and seasonal cycle.

,*J. Geophys. Res. Oceans***118**, 2992–3006, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20210.Lumpkin, R., T. Özgökmen, and L. Centurioni, 2017: Advances in the application of surface drifters.

,*Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.***9**, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060641.MacMahan, J., J. Brown, and E. Thornton, 2009: Low-cost handheld Global Positioning System for measuring surf-zone currents.

,*J. Coastal Res.***253**, 744–754, https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1000.1.McCarroll, R. J., R. W. Brander, I. L. Turner, H. E. Power, and T. R. Mortlock, 2014: Lagrangian observations of circulation on an embayed beach with headland rip currents.

,*Mar. Geol.***355**, 173–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2014.05.020.Molinari, R., and A. D. Kirwan, 1975: Calculations of differential kinematic properties from Lagrangian observations in the western Caribbean Sea.

,*J. Phys. Oceanogr.***5**, 483–491, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1975)005<0483:CODKPF>2.0.CO;2.Novelli, G., C. M. Guigand, C. Cousin, E. H. Ryan, N. J. M. Laxague, H. Dai, B. K. Haus, and T. M. Özgökmen, 2017: A biodegradable surface drifter for ocean sampling on a massive scale.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***34**, 2509–2532, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-17-0055.1.Ohlmann, J. C., P. F. White, A. L. Sybrandy, and P. P. Niiler, 2005: GPS-cellular drifter technology for coastal ocean observing systems.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***22**, 1381–1388, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1786.1.Ohlmann, J. C., M. J. Molemaker, B. Baschek, B. Holt, G. Marmorino, and G. Smith, 2017: Drifter observations of submesoscale flow kinematics in the coastal ocean.

,*Geophys. Res. Lett.***44**, 330–337, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071537.Ohlmann, J. C., L. Romero, E. Pallas-Sanz, and P. Perez-Brunius, 2019: Anisotropy in coastal ocean relative dispersion observations.

,*Geophys. Res. Lett.***46**, 879–888, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081186.Okubo, A., and C. C. Ebbesmeyer, 1976: Determination of vorticity, divergence, and deformation rates from analysis of drogue observations.

,*Deep-Sea Res.***23**, 349–352, https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-7471(76)90875-5.Ollitrault, M., and A. Colin de Verdière, 2014: The ocean general circulation near 1000-m depth.

,*J. Phys. Oceanogr.***44**, 384–409, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-030.1.Paduan, J. D., and P. P. Niiler, 1990: A Lagrangian description of motion in Northern California coastal transition filaments.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***95**, 18 095–18 109, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC10p18095.Pearman, D., T. Herbers, T. Janssen, H. van Ettinger, S. McIntyre, and P. Jessen, 2014: Drifter observations of the effects of shoals and tidal-currents on wave evolution in San Francisco Bight.

,*Cont. Shelf Res.***91**, 109–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.08.011.Poulain, P.-M., 1999: Drifter observations of surface circulation in the Adriatic Sea between December 1994 and March 1996.

,*J. Mar. Syst.***20**, 231–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(98)00084-0.Prieto, G., R. Parker, and F. L. Vernon III, 2009: A Fortran 90 library for multitaper spectrum analysis.

,*Comput. Geosci.***35**, 1701–1710, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.06.007.Richez, C., 1998: The West Spitsbergen Current as seen by SOFAR floats during the ARCTEMIZ 88 experiment: Statistics, differential kinematic properties, and potential vorticity balance.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***103**, 15 539–15 565, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JC02421.Righi, D. D., and P. Strub, 2001: The use of simulated drifters to estimate vorticity.

,*J. Mar. Syst.***29**, 125–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(01)00013-6.Sanderson, B. G., B. K. Pal, and A. Goulding, 1988: Calculations of unbiased estimates of the magnitude of residual velocities from a small number of drogue trajectories.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***93**, 8161–8162, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC093iC07p08161.Schmidt, W. E., B. T. Woodward, K. S. Millikan, R. T. Guza, B. Raubenheimer, and S. Elgar, 2003: A GPS-tracked surf zone drifter.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***20**, 1069–1075, https://doi.org/10.1175/1460.1.Slivinski, L., L. Pratt, I. Rypina, M. Orescanin, B. Raubenheimer, J. MacMahan, and S. Elgar, 2017: Assimilating Lagrangian data for parameter estimation in a multiple-inlet system.

,*Ocean Modell.***113**, 131–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.04.001.Spydell, M. S., F. Feddersen, R. T. Guza, and W. E. Schmidt, 2007: Observing surf-zone dispersion with drifters.

,*J. Phys. Oceanogr.***37**, 2920–2939, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JPO3580.1.Suanda, S. H., and F. Feddersen, 2015: A self-similar scaling for cross-shelf exchange driven by transient rip currents.

,*Geophys. Res. Lett.***42**, 5427–5434, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063944.Suara, K., C. Wang, Y. Feng, R. J. Brown, H. Chanson, and M. Borgas, 2015: High-resolution GNSS-tracked drifter for studying surface dispersion in shallow water.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***32**, 579–590, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00127.1.Thomson, R. E., and W. J. Emery, 2014:

. 3rd ed. Elsevier, 728 pp.*Data Analysis Methods in Physical Oceanography*Wunsch, C., 1996:

*The Ocean Circulation Inverse Problem*. Cambridge University Press, 458 pp., https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511629570.