1. Outline Ecosystem model & winds Model-data comparisons Key parameters
Model-model comparisons

2. Dynamic Ecosystem-Carbon Model
Chlorophyll

3. Quickscat Winds

4. NCEP Winds

5. Wind comparisons
Qscat winds: stronger mixing, colder SST, higher biomass…..
……..following outputs from NCEP

6. NCEP Winds

7. In situ chl. (left) and model chl
In situ chl. (left) and model chl. (right): Nov, 2006 (top) Oct-Nov, 2005 (bottom)

8. Model (lines) vs. data (Symbols)

9. PON from model (left) and in situ (right) Nov. 2003

10. PON from model (top) and in situ (bottom) Sep. 2005

11. 140W-125W, 8N-8S

12. Carbon, chl., C:chl at 125W

13. Carbon, chl., C:chl at 140W

14. Question How we define/measure POM? Model outputs:
In situ: phy+zoo(?%)+detritus(size?)
Satellite: phy+zoo(?%)+detritus(size?)
Model outputs:
Phy+zoo+large detritus
Phy+50%(ZS+DS)+DL
Phy+total detritus

15. Phy+total detritus 140W-125W, 8N-8S

16. Phy+50%(ZS+DS)+large detritus 140W-125W, 8N-8S

17. Phy+zoo+large detritus 140W-125W, 8N-8S

18. Chlorophyll ML: similar (tuned), DCM: different

19. C:Chl ratio ML: similar; vertical: some difference

20. Phytoplankton C ML: different; vertical: similar

21. Growth rate: large difference

22. NPP: similar

23. NPP (mg C/m2/d) from Cbmodel (red) and Ecomodel (black)

24. Summary
Larger spatial & temporal variations in Eco-model than Cb-model
Eco-model over-estimates spatial variability or under-estimates magnitudes in warm waters
Cb-model under-estimates temporal variability
Similarity:
NPP>C:Chl>PhytoC, chl., growth rate