Tuning and Validating HYCOM s KPP Mixed-Layer. Alan J. Wallcraft and E. Joseph Metzger Naval Research Laboratory

Transcription

1 Tuning and Validating HYCOM s KPP Mixed-Layer Alan J. Wallcraft and E. Joseph Metzger Naval Research Laboratory A. Birol Kara COAPS, Florida State University 2003 Layered Ocean Model Users Workshop February 10, 2003

2 ffl Long-term Global HYCOM Objective ffi To depict and predict the 3D global ocean state at fine resolution (0.08 ffi on the equator, ο7 km at mid-latitudes) ffl Strategy ffi Begin with 0.72 ffi resolution global HYCOM and optimize the KPP mixed layer performance (the subject of this presentation) ffi Before the end of FY03, start running and development of 0.24 ffi global HYCOM ffi Submitted DoD HPC Challenge proposal (FY04-06) to continue development at 0.24 ffi and start 0.08 ffi model development

3 0.72 degree Global Domain ffl Pan-Am Global Grid ffi 0.72 degree equatorial Mercator 78S-47N ffi Arctic bi-polar patch above 47N Λ Low resolution global had patch at 59N Λ Can t include Hudson Bay ffi Double latitudinal resolution near the equator ffi Halve latitudinal resolution in Antarctic ffl Coastline at 50m isobath ffi Closed Bering Strait ffi No Sigma (terrain-following) vertical coordinate ffl Same 26-layers as 0.08 degree Atlantic ffl First Z-level 3 m, increases 1.125x up to 12 m

4 N: SCPY (km) 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to S 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E 180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E 60E

5 47N: Grid Aspect Ratio (SCPX/SCPY) N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to S 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E 180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E 60E

6 0.72 degree Global Standard Configuration ffl KPP mixed layer ffl Energy-Loan ice model ffl Sigma-theta (some Sigma-2 runs, not discussed here) ffl Horizontal diffusion chosen to suppress eddies ffl Initialize from Levitus ffl ECMWF Reanalysis monthly mean forcing ffi Plus 6-hrly wind anomalies from sep94-sep95 ffl Annual mean of 10 largest rivers via precip bogus ffl Strong relaxation to monthly Levitus SSS ffi Necessary to prevent SSS drift ffl Weak relaxation to monthly Levitus SST ffi Parameterizes SST s effect on longwave radiation

7 Longwave Radiation and SST ffl Longwave Radiation is sum of: ffi Upward blackbody longwave radiation Λ Q bb = 0:98 (5: )(T s + 273:16) 4 ffi Downward atmospheric longwave flux Λ Highly dependent on cloudiness Λ Unknown dependence on SST (assume independent) ffl If longwave was calculated using a SST of T so : ffi Q lw (T s ) = Q lw (T so ) + Q bb (T s ) Q bb (T so ) ffi Q lw (T s ) = Q lw (T so ) + Q 0 bb (T s T so ) ffi Q 0 bb = 0:98 (5: )4(T s + 273:16) 3 ffl Or, approximately (in W=m 2 ): ffi Q 0 bb = 4:506 0:0554 T s ffl So, 5:3W=m 2 =degc is a good longwave correction ffi Equivalent to 3.5 m reference thickness and 30 day e-folding SST relaxation ffi 10x weaker than typically SSS relaxation ffl Ocean Model Intercomparison Project includes (Q bb (T s ) Q bb (T so )) as a longwave correction

8 Variable Turbidity ffl Penetrating solar (shortwave) radiation is important for accurate SST ffl HYCOM parameterizes turbidity via a two band version of Jerlov water types ffi One of 5 classes, red and blue bands ffi Same everywhere in time and space ffl NLOM used single band kpar turbidity ffi Photosynthetically Available Radiation ffi kpar from SeaWIFS k490 ffi monthly climatological fields ffl Single band approach only OK for bulk mixed layer ffl Added two band Jerlov-like kpar scheme ffi kpar isn t a good fit to Jerlov ffi Much better than single class everywhere ffl Need a better scheme: ffi 3-band based on chlorophyll (Morel & Antoine, 1994)? ffi Jerlov-like based on k490?

9 Annual SeaWiFS KPAR N 20N EQ 20S 40S 60S GLBa0.72 ci to E 100E 120E 140E 160E 180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E 60E

10 SST Metrics I ffl Run for 5 years and form monthly means ffi May not be long enough ffi Length of run vs confidence in results ffi Takes two days on 64 IBM POWER4 cpus ffl Compare monthly SST to Reynolds and Smith (R&S) climatology ffi Monthly anomalies ffi Annual mean difference ffi RMS difference ffi Correlation Coefficient ffi Skill Score Λ Correlation squared - Unconditional Bias - Conditional Bias Λ Maximum is 1, but minium is -infinity Λ Measure of error w.r.t. seasonal cycle (i.e. w.r.t. standard deviation) Λ Use a minimum of 1 degc for standard deviation Still get poor skill scores near equator

11 SST Metrics II ffl Purpose of comparison is to find good enough configuration ffi Assume that skill on climatological forcing is maintained on interannual forcing ffi Is monthly thermal climatological forcing enough? ffi NLOM experience suggests that this is OK, but can t be certain until we run interannually with HYCOM ffl Targets: ffi Annual mean error < 0.5 degc ffi Correlation Coefficient > 0.6 ffi Skill Score > 0.3 ffl Use zonal averages to reduce amount of data ffi Average not necessarily best statistic Λ A few large negative skill scores can dominate the average ffi Same targets as for full field

12 Simulation History ffl Expt 1.5: ffi Standard KPP ffi Jerlov Ia everywhere ffi No rivers ffi No SST relaxation ffl Expt 1.8: ffi Monthly kpar turbidity ffi Annual rivers ffl Expt 3.3: ffi Longwave SST relaxation ffl Expt 3.9: ffi Modified KPP shear instability ffl Expt 4.2: ffi Twin of 3.3 (same winds) ffi FNMOC thermal forcing (average 98-01)

13 ZONAL SST METRICS (III), HYCOM VS Reynolds&Smith SS 01.5 SS latitude metric

14 ZONAL SST MEAN ERROR, HYCOM VS Reynolds&Smith mean 03.9 mean 03.3 mean latitude degrees C

15 ZONAL SST METRICS (III), HYCOM VS Reynolds&Smith R 03.9 R 03.3 R latitude metric

16 ZONAL SST METRICS (III), HYCOM VS Reynolds&Smith SS 03.9 SS 03.3 SS latitude metric

17 vs R&S SST: Mean Error 60N 60N 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to S 20E 40E 60E 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E

18 vs R&S SST: Mean Error 60N 60N 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to S 20E 40E 60E 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E

19 vs R&S SST: Correlation 60N 60N 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to S 20E 40E 60E 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E

20 03.3 vs R&S SST: Skill Score 60N N 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to 60S E 40E 60E 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E

21 04.2 vs R&S SST: Skill Score 60N N 40N 20N EQ 20S 40S GLBa0.72 ci to 60S E 40E 60E 80E 100E 120E 140E 160E180W160W140W120W100W 80W 60W 40W 20W 0E 20E 40E

22 Conclusions ffl KPP is performing well in HYCOM ffl Western Equatorial Atlantic a major trouble spot ffi Modifying KPP shear instability helps ffi More needs to be done ffl In general, most of the SST error is in the annual mean ffl Not yet clear how much is due to forcing and how much due to KPP