DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Capability Assessment on Meteorological Technology - Comparative Study of Technological Prowess on Korea, U.S., and Japan -

국가 기상기술력 수준 평가 - 한국, 미국, 일본을 대상으로 한 비교 연구 -

  • Kim, Se-Won (Policy Research Laboratory, National Institute of Meteorological Research) ;
  • Park, Gil-Un (Policy Research Laboratory, National Institute of Meteorological Research) ;
  • Cho, Changbum (Policy Research Laboratory, National Institute of Meteorological Research) ;
  • Lee, Young-Gon (Policy Research Laboratory, National Institute of Meteorological Research) ;
  • Yim, Deok-Bin (Planning and Budget Officer, Korea Meteorological Administration)
  • 김세원 (국립기상연구소 정책연구과) ;
  • 박길운 (국립기상연구소 정책연구과) ;
  • 조창범 (국립기상연구소 정책연구과) ;
  • 이영곤 (국립기상연구소 정책연구과) ;
  • 임덕빈 (기상청 기획재정담당관실)
  • Received : 2011.03.25
  • Accepted : 2011.08.10
  • Published : 2011.09.30

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the meteorological capability of Korea by comparing with that of the U.S. and Japan as of 2010. The research was conducted based on various indices and surveys, and quantified the results using the Gordon's scoring model. The index assessment used 11 items derived from 9 segments - surface observation, advanced observation and observations quality in the observation field; data assimilation, numerical model and infrastructure in the data processing field; forecast accuracy in the forecast field; climate prediction and climate change in the climate field - in this research, we classified the meteorological technology into four fields. In the survey assessment, another 10 items in addition to the above 11 ones (total 21 items) were used. In the field of climate, Korea was found to lag far behind the U.S. (96.5p) and Japan (90.5p) with 77.6 points out of 100, which is 18.9 and 12.9 points lower than them respectively. On the other hand, Korea showed the narrowest gap with Japan (95.3p) and the U.S. (94.2) in the forecasting field, recording 90.3 points. Particularly, in surface observation, infrastructure and forecast accuracy segment, Korea was on a par with the U.S. and Japan, boasting 100.5 percent compared to their counterparts. However, in advanced observation, data quality and climate change segment, Korea was only at the level of 81.5 percent compared to that of the U.S. and Japan. All in all, the technological prowess of Korea, scoring 84.6 points, stood at 89.7 percent of that of the U.S. (94.3p) and 91.9 percent of Japan (92.1p).

Keywords

References

  1. 고등관측자료 품질, http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/DPFS/ProgressReports/.
  2. 기상청 국가태풍센터, 2010: 2009년 태풍분석 보고서, 61-63.
  3. 기상청 국립기상연구소, 2010: 제11회 기상레이더 워크숍 자료집, 289pp.
  4. 기후변화 데이터 시나리오 유효성, http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/data_status_tables.htm
  5. 미국 단기 기온 예보정확도, ht.tp://www.weather.gov/ndfd/verification/.
  6. 미국 레이더 위치 및 현황, http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/Maps.aspx.
  7. 미국 중기 기온 예보정확도, http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/hpcverif.shtml#medmin.
  8. 박수동, 홍순기, 김승동, 정근하, 한성구, 2001: Gordon 모형을 이용한 DNA칩 기술수준의 국제비교연구, 기술혁신연구, 9(1), 21-35.
  9. 박진범, 2010: 점수제 모형을 이용한 하이브리드자동차 기술 수준의 국제비교분석, 성균관대학교 석사학위논문.
  10. 손주형, 강기룡, 원성희, 박영연, 박윤호, 2011: 수치예보 시스템의 검증(2010), 기상청 수치모델관리관실, 15pp
  11. 송근일, 2006: 첨단 생산자동화설비의 기술수준 평가에 대한 연구, 성균관대학교 석사학위논문.
  12. 세계기상기구 우주 관측 프로그램, http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/sat/Links.html#Satoperators.
  13. 세계기상기구 장기예측 검증시스템 선도 센터, http://www.bom.gov.au/wmo/lrfvs/index.html.
  14. 슈퍼컴퓨터 순위, http://www.top500.org/lists/2010/11.
  15. 이광희, 임동진, 2009: 성과관리계획상의 만족도지표 실태분석 및 개선방안 연구, 한국행정연구원, 30-31
  16. 이화여자대학교, 2007: 예보역량 진단을 통한 기술력 평가 보고서, 기상청, 129pp.
  17. 일본 단기 기온 예보정확도, http://www.data.jma.go.jp/fcd/yoho/data/kensho/score_f.html.
  18. 일본 레이더 위치 및 현황, http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/kishou/know/radar/kaisetsu.html.
  19. 일본 중기 기온 예보정확도, http://www.data.jma.go.jp/fcd/yoho/data/kensho/score_s.html.
  20. 장진규, 윤문섭, 정성철, 2000: 기상기술력 종합평가기법 개발에 관한 연구, 과학기술정책연구원, 172pp
  21. 정근하, 김인호, 한성구, 길부종, 박형근, 박수동, 2001: 우리나라의 주요 유망제품에 대한 핵심요소 기술수준평가에 관한 연구, 한국과학기술평가원, 121pp.
  22. 한국기상학회, 2007: 기상기술로드맵(MTRM), 기상청, 319pp.
  23. 한국과학기술기획평가원, 2006: 기상기술력수준 종합평가 보고서, 과학기술부와 기상청, 84pp.
  24. Cort J. Willmott, Kenji Matsuura, 2005: Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over ther root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance, Climate Research, 30, 79-82. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr030079
  25. Gordon, T. J., Munson, T., 1981: A proposed convention for measuring the state of the art of products of process, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 20, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(81)90038-X
  26. Martino, J. P., 1993: Technological forecasting for decision making, McGraw Hill, 768pp.
  27. OECD, 1994: Prascati Manual 1993 - Proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development, The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities Series, 261pp.
  28. Orlanski, I., 1975: A rational subdivision of scales for atmospheric processes, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 56(5), 527-530.
  29. Schmookler, J., 1966: Invention and economic growth, Harvard University Press, 348pp.