Atmosphere (대기)

Korean Meteorological Society (한국기상학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Verification of the KMA Ocean Model NEMO against Argo Floats and Drift Buoys: a Comparison with the Up-to-date US Navy HYCOM

Argo 플로트와 표류부이 관측자료를 활용한 기상청 전지구 해양모델 (NEMO)의 검증: 최신 미해군 해양모델(HYCOM)과 비교

  • Hyun, Seung-Hwon (Operational Systems Development Department, National Institute of Meteorological Sciences) ;
  • Hwang, Seung-On (Operational Systems Development Department, National Institute of Meteorological Sciences) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Min (Operational Systems Development Department, National Institute of Meteorological Sciences) ;
  • Choo, Sung-Ho (Operational Systems Development Department, National Institute of Meteorological Sciences)
  • 현승훤 (국립기상과학원 현업운영개발부) ;
  • 황승언 (국립기상과학원 현업운영개발부) ;
  • 이상민 (국립기상과학원 현업운영개발부) ;
  • 추성호 (국립기상과학원 현업운영개발부)
  • Received : 2021.10.20
  • Accepted : 2022.01.20
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper describes verification results for the ocean analysis field produced by the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) of the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) against observed Argo floats and drift buoys over the western Pacific Ocean and the equatorial Pacific during 2020~2021. This is confirmed by a comparison of the verification for the newly updated version of the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model/Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation (HYCOM/NCODA) against same observations. NEMO shows that the vertical ocean temperature is much closer to the Argo floats than HYCOM for most seasons in terms of bias and root mean square error. On the other hand, there are overall considerable cold biases for HYCOM, which may be due to the more rapid decreasing temperature at the shallow thermocline in HYCOM. Conclusion demonstrated that the NEMO analysis for ocean temperature is more reliable than the analysis produced by the latest version of HYCOM as well as by the out-of-date HYCOM applied to the precedent study. The surface ocean current produced by NEMO also shows 14% closer to the AOML (Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory) in situ drift buoys observations than HYCOM over the western Pacific Ocean. Over the equatorial Pacific, however, HYCOM shows slightly closer to AOML observation than NEMO in some seasons. Overall, this study suggests that the resulting information may be used to promote more use of NEMO analysis.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 연구는 기상청 국립기상과학원 「기후예측 현업 시스템 개발」 (KMA2018-00322)의 지원으로 수행되었습니다.

References

  1. Barton, N., and Coauthors, 2021: The Navy's earth system prediction capability: A new global coupled atmosphere-ocean-sea ice prediction system designed for daily to subseasonal forecasting. Earth and Space Sci., 8, e2002EA001199, doi:10.1029/2020EA001199.
  2. Bonjean, F., and G. S. E. Lagerloef, 2002: Diagnostic model and analysis of the surface currents in the tropical Pacific Ocean. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 32, 2938-2954. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2002)032<2938:DMAAOT>2.0.CO;2
  3. Chang, P.-H., S.-O. Hwang, S.-H. Choo, J. Lee, S.-M. Lee, and K.-O. Boo, 2021: Global Ocean Data Assimilation and Prediction System in KMA: description and assessment. Atmosphere, 31, 229-240, doi:10.14191/Atmos.2021.31.2.229 (in Korean with English abstract).
  4. Gaspar, P., Y. Gregoris, and J.-M. Lefevre, 1990: A simple eddy kinetic energy model for simulations of the oceanic vertical mixing: Tests at station Papa and longterm upper ocean study site. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 95, 16179-16193. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC09p16179
  5. Jeong, Y. Y., I.-J. Moon, and P.-H. Chang, 2016: Accuracy of short-term ocean prediction and the effect of atmosphere-ocean coupling on KMA Global Seasonal forecast system (GloSea5) during the development of ocean stratification. Atmosphere, 26, 599-615, doi:10.14191/Atmos.2016.26.4.599 (in Korean with English abstract).
  6. Jung, M.-I., S.-W. Son, J. Choi, and H.-S. Kang, 2015: Assessment of 6-month lead prediction skill of the GloSea5 hindcast experiment. Atmosphere, 25, 323-337, doi:10.14191/Atmos.2015.25.2.323 (in Korean with English abstract).
  7. Kim, Y. H., B.-J. Choi, J.-S. Lee, D.-S. Byun, K. R. Kang, Y.-G. Kim, and Y.-K. Cho, 2013: Korean ocean forecasting system: present and future. The Sea, 18, 89-103, doi:10.7850/jkso.2013.18.2.89 (in Korean with English abstract).
  8. Ko, E. B., I.-J. Moon, Y. Y. Jeong, and P.-H. Chang, 2018: A comparison of accuracy of the ocean thermal environments using the daily analysis data of the KMA NEMO/NEMOVAR and the US Navy HYCOM/NCODA. Atmosphere, 28, 99-112, doi:10.14191/Atmos.2018.28.1.099 (in Korean with English abstract).
  9. Large, W. G., J. C. McWilliams, and S. C. Doney, 1994: Oceanic vertical mixing: A review and a model with a nonlocal boundary layer parameterization. Rev. Geophys., 32, 363-403. https://doi.org/10.1029/94rg01872
  10. Lee, H., P.-H. Chang, K. R. Kang, H.-S. Kang, and Y. Kim, 2018: Assessment of ocean surface current forecasts from high resolution Global Seasonal forecast system version 5. Ocean and Polar Res., 40, 99-114, doi:10.4217/OPR.2018.40.3.099 (in Korean with English abstract).
  11. Lee, S.-M., H.-S. Kang, Y.-H. Kim, Y.-H. Byun, and C. H. Cho, 2016: Verification and comparison of forecast skill between global seasonal forecasting system version 5 and unified model during 2014. Atmosphere, 26, 59-72, doi:10.14191/Atmos.2016.26.1.059 (in Korean with English abstract).
  12. Madec, G., 2008: NEMO ocean engine. Note du Pole de modelisation de l'Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace No 27, 386 pp.
  13. Pandey, L. K., and S. Dwivedi, 2021: Comparing the performance of turbulent kinetic energy and k-profile parameterization vertical parameterization schemes over the tropical Indian ocean. Marine Geodesy, 44, 42-69, doi:10.1080/01490419.2020.1835758.
  14. Qui, B., K. A. Kelly, and T. M. Joyce, 1991: Mean flow and variability in the Kuroshio Extension from Geosat altimetry data., J. Geophys. Res., 96, 18491-18507. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JC01834
  15. Yang, Y., and X. S. Liang, 2018: On the seasonal eddy variability in the Kuroshio Extension. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 48, 1675-1689, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-18-0058.1.