Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJunior Brooks Modified over 9 years ago
1
Comparing model with observations: methods, tools and results Mélanie JUZA, Thierry Penduff, Bernard Barnier LEGI-MEOM, Grenoble DRAKKAR meeting, Grenoble, France, 11-12-13 February 2009
2
Objectives / Activities Assessment of DRAKKAR simulations - Quantitative and systematic comparisons model/observations - Intercomparison of simulations (impact of resolution, forcing, numerical scheme, parametrizations) Observability of the ocean dynamics (OSSE) - Accuracy of ARGO array Distribution of data and tools to the scientific community Global Drakkar simulations: G70 (DFS3 forcing): ¼°, ½°, 1°, 2° Observations: T/S profiles (ENACT-ENSEMBLES), SLA (AVISO), SST (Reynolds) Development of tools: collocation model/observations, statistics, vizualization Scientific studies. Papers in preparation…
3
Hydrography: collocation VALIDATION SAMPLING ERROR ENACT/ENSEMBLES (ARGO, XBT, CTD, buoys) T,S(x,y,z,t) profiles (~8.10 6 ) Global. 1956-2006 MODEL T,S(x,y,z,t) Global. 1958-2007 Keep good data only Quadrilinear collocation (obs. space) COLLOCATED OBSERVED and MODEL T,S(x,y,z,t) profiles Dispersed in time and space Statistical analysis Temporal, spatial, vertical (mixed layer) integrations
4
Hydrography: collocation VALIDATION SAMPLING ERROR ENACT/ENSEMBLES (ARGO, XBT, CTD, buoys) T,S(x,y,z,t) profiles (~8.10 6 ) Global. 1956-2006 MODEL T,S(x,y,z,t) Global. 1958-2007 Keep good data only Quadrilinear collocation (obs. space) COLLOCATED OBSERVED and MODEL T,S(x,y,z,t) profiles Dispersed in time and space Statistical analysis Temporal, spatial, vertical (mixed layer) integrations ARGO 1998-2004
5
Hydrography: simulated and observed MLD ARGO August 1998-2004February 1998-2004 Mixed layer depths (MLD) (m) ORCA025 -G70 Realism of simulated and observed MLD
6
Hydrography: method for the analysis of mixed layer quantities Exemple: MLD in North Atlantic -- full model -- subsampled model (like ARGO) -- ARGO MODEL BIASSAMPLING ERRORSeptember 1998-2004 Median 17% 83% Distribution of Mixed Layer Depth / Temperature / Salinity / Heat and Salt Contents Medians and percentiles 17% and 83%
7
Hydrography: sampling errors -- subsampled model (ARGO) -- full model Sampling error well observed monthly cycle. Sampling error in winter. Monthly cycles of MLD (1998-2004): zone MNW-ATL MLD Solid lines = medians Dashed lines = percentiles 17%, 83%
8
Hydrography: sampling errors at global scale Bins = 30° x 30° x 1 month (1998-2004) Sampling error = – ARGO sampling errors maximum in winter (extreme values ~100m) Especially in inhomogene (Southern Ocean, North Atl.) and coastal regions ARGO sampling errors on the monthly MLD (1998-2004) too shallow too deep MLD
9
Hydrography: sampling errors at global scale Bins = 30° x 30° x 1 month (1998-2004) Sampling error = – ARGO sampling errors maximum in winter (extreme values ~100m) Especially in inhomogene (Southern Ocean, North Atl.) and coastal regions ARGO sampling errors on the monthly MLD (1998-2004) too shallow too deep MLD
10
Hydrography: sampling errors at global scale Bins = 30° x 30° x 1 month (1998-2004) Sampling error = – ARGO sampling errors maximum in winter (extreme values ~100m) Especially in high variable (Southern Ocean, North Atl.) and coastal regions ARGO sampling errors on the monthly MLD (1998-2004) too shallow too deep MLD
11
Hydrography: sampling errors at global scale Bins = 30° x 30° x 1 month (1998-2004) Sampling error = – ARGO sampling errors maximum in winter (extreme values ~100m) Especially in high variable (Southern Ocean, North Atl.) and coastal regions ARGO sampling errors on the monthly MLD (1998-2004) too shallow too deep MLD
12
Hydrography: conclusion Assessment of the simulations - Mixed layer monthly cycles - Impact of resolution Assessment of ARGO sampling errors - More dependence on spatial distribution of floats rather than number of floats - MLT, MLS, MLHC, MLSC Perspectives Extension to: - recent years (maximum ARGO coverage) - the last 50 years (interannual cycles) - all instruments (ARGO floats + CTD, XBT, moored buoys…)
13
COLLOCATED MODEL and AVISO SLA(x,y,t) AVISO altimeter SLA(x,y,t) database Quasiglobal. 1993-2004 MODEL SSH(x,y,t) Global. 1958-2007 Trilinear collocation on 1/3°x1/3°x7day AVISO Maps Mask AVISO under MODEL Ice Mask MODEL under AVISO Ice Linear detrending Remove 1993-1999 means Remove spatial averages Quantitative Assessment Variances, Correlations, EOFs, etc Space-Time Lanczos Filtering Time Space 5 months 18 months 6° Large- scale Regional & mesoscale Hi-freqAnnualInterannual FILTERED MODEL and AVISO SLA(x,y,t) 1993-2004 Altimetry: collocation
14
Altimetry: interannual SLA (statistics) AVISO ¼°: ORCA025-G701°: ORCA1-R702°: ORCA246-G70 (1993-2004) SLA standard deviation (cm) ½°: ORCA05-G70.113 Impact of resolution on low-frequency variability Global increase of interannual variability with resolution => Forced vs intrinsic variability in the Southern Ocean Model/obs SLA correlationSLA standard deviation Interannual variability increases in eddy-active regionsCorrelation decreases with resolution in S.O.
15
Altimetry: interannual variability (EOFS) Data processing - Observed SLA EOFs (decomposition: spatial mode + temporal amplitude-PC) - Projection of simulated SLA on observed SLA EOFS - Comparison PC(obs)/projections: % variance, correlation Associated obs. amplitude and mod. projections Exemple: interannual SLA in North Atlantic (1993-2004) Mode 1 – Observed SLA – %var=17Lag with NAO (weeks) Intergyre gyre of Marshall Projections of simulated SLA reproduce main features of the obs. variability. More explained variance with 1/4° Simulated lags more realistic with increase of resolution Resolution improves space-time variability Assess the ability of models to reproduce the observed interannual variability in various regions obs ¼° ½° 1° 2°
16
Altimetry: interannual variability (EOFS) Exemple: large-scale (>6°) and interannual SLA in Southern Ocean (1993-2004) Mode 1 – Observed SLA – %var=18Associated obs. amplitude and mod. projections Conclusion: - Global and regional (North Atl., Gulf Stream, Equat. Pac., Indian, Southern Ocean) - Resolution improves space-time variability, except in Southern Ocean (intrinsic variability?) - Similar processing applied to SST analysis (Reynolds, NCEP) - Response of ocean to atmospheric variability (NAO, ENSO, SAM, AAO…) - Impact of mesoscale on low-frequency variability Response to ENSOResolution does not change variance projected on observations
17
Conclusion Perspectives Further assess the interannual variability in eddying models (paper in preparation) Evaluate every new simulation (global, regional, reanalyses) Extend to new datasets: current meters (G. Holloway), ice field thickness (A. Worby), gravimetry, maregraph, SSS, … Foster collaborations Collocate and compare model & observations: T, S, SLA, SST Assess simulations. Quantify model sensitivities Evaluate the accuracy of observing systems (ARGO sampling errors, paper in preparation) Tools are mature. Technical report & users manual. Fields are being distributed. http://www-meom.hmg.inpg.fr/Web/pages-perso/MelanieJuza/
18
Hydrography: model bias at global scale MLD too shallow too deep Model biaises: seasonal, regional, too deep MLD in winter (max=50m) The increase of resolution improves the representation of MLD Model bias of the monthly MLD (1998-2004) = Bins = 30° x 30° x 1 month (1998-2004) run ORCA025-G70 run ORCA246-G70
19
Hydrography: model bias at global scale MLD too shallow too deep Model bias of the monthly MLD (1998-2004) = run ORCA025-G70 run ORCA246-G70 Conclusion: - ORCA025-G70, ORCA05-G710.113, ORCA1-R70, ORCA246-G70 - MLT, MLS, MLHC, MLSC - Resolution improves mixed layer monthly cycles - Use of all instruments from 1956 to present (interannual cycles)
20
Altimetry: SLA standard deviation AVISO ORCA025-G70 ORCA1-R70 ORCA05-G70.113 ORCA246-G70 (1993-2004) HF (T<5months)MF (5<T<18months)LF (T>18months)
21
Altimetry: SLA zonal variance and correlation SLA standard deviation (cm) Model/obs SLA correlation AVISO ORCA025-G70 ORCA05-G70.113 ORCA1-R70 ORCA246-G70 Zonal variability increases with resolution Zonal correlation decreases with resolution in S.O. => Forced vs intrinsic variability in the Southern Ocean HF (high freq.) MF (annual) LF ( interannual) (1993-2004)
22
Biais global T/S – modèle global ¼° Structure verticale: moyennes temporelles Pdf de Structure horizontale: intégration sur les couches de surface (1998-2004) Ecart = modèle ¼° (sous-échantillonné comme ARGO) - observations (ARGO)
23
Courant Nord AtlantiqueKuroshio Biais régional T/S – modèle global ¼° -3°C 300-500m -0.6 à -0.25 0-600m +2°C 100-400m +0.2 100-400m
24
Conclusion - Perspectives In the future… Continue to investigate the impact of the resolution on the realism of the model (2°,1°,1/2°,1/4°) Systematize the assessment of simulations (forcing, parametrization,…) Regional simulations (NATL4, NATL12), with assimilation (HYCOM), … Scientific studies and collaborations Others datasets: current meters (G. Holloway), ice field thickness (A. Worby), gravimetry, maregraph, SSS, … Altimetry Resolution improve space-time variability (lag NAO) Increased resolution yields: stronger local variances (depend on latitude), similar or smaller correlations (increased intrinsic variability), improved basin-scale space-time variability Interannual variability: impact resolution: correlation ~, variance increase In general, enhanced variance projects on observations (except in Southern Ocean) perspective: Impact of mesoscale on low-frequency variability. Forced vs intrinsic variability.
25
Altimetry: interannual SLA (statistics) AVISO ORCA025-G70ORCA1-R70ORCA246-G70 (1993-2004) Global increase of std(SLA) with resolution SLA standard deviation (cm) => Forced vs intrinsic variability in the Southern Ocean Zonal variability increases with resolution Zonal correlation decreases with resolution in S.O. Zonal model/obs SLA correlationZonal SLA standard deviation ORCA05-G70.113
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.