CHO Kyoung-Ho, CHOI Jin-Yong, JEONG Sang-Hun, CHOI Jung-Woon, KWON Jae-Il, PARK Kwang-Soon. Development of a skill assessment tool for the Korea operational oceanographic system[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2013, 32(9): 74-81. doi: 10.1007/s13131-013-0354-9
Citation: CHO Kyoung-Ho, CHOI Jin-Yong, JEONG Sang-Hun, CHOI Jung-Woon, KWON Jae-Il, PARK Kwang-Soon. Development of a skill assessment tool for the Korea operational oceanographic system[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2013, 32(9): 74-81. doi: 10.1007/s13131-013-0354-9

Development of a skill assessment tool for the Korea operational oceanographic system

doi: 10.1007/s13131-013-0354-9
  • Received Date: 2012-03-01
  • Rev Recd Date: 2013-05-10
  • A standard skill assessment (SA) tool was developed and implemented to evaluate the performance of operational forecast models in the Korea operational oceanographic system. The SA tool provided a robust way to assess model skill in the system by comparing predictions and observations, and involved the computation of multiple skillmetrics including correlation and error skills. User-and system-based acceptance criteria of skill metrics were applied to determine whether predictions were acceptable for the system. To achieve this, the tool produced a time series comparison plot, a skill score table, and an advanced summarized diagram to effectively demonstrate the multiple skill scores. Moreover, the SA was conducted to evaluate both atmospheric and hydrodynamic forecast variables. For the atmospheric variables, acceptable error criteriawere preferable to acceptable correlation criteria over short timescales, since themean square error overwhelmed the observation variance. Conversely, for the hydrodynamic variables, acceptable root mean square percentage error (e.g., perms) criteria were preferable to acceptable error (e.g.,erms) criteria owing to the spatially variable tidal intensity around the Korean Peninsula. Furthermore, the SA indicated that predetermined acceptance error criteria were appropriate to satisfy a target central frequency (fc) for which errors fell within the specified limits (i.e., the fc equals 70%).
  • loading
  • Anthes R A, Kuo Y-H, Hsie E-Y, et al. 1989. Estimation of skill and uncertainty in regional numerical models. Q J Roy Meteor Soc, 115: 763-806
    Cancino L, Neves R. 1999. Hydrodynamic and sediment suspension modeling in estuarine systems: Part I. Description of the numerical models. JMar Syst, 22: 105-116
    Chen C, Liu H, Beardsley R C. 2003. An unstructured grid, finitevolume, three-dimensional, primitive equations ocean model: Application to coastal ocean and estuaries. J Atmos Ocean Tech, 20: 159-186
    HaidvogelD B, ArangoH G,Hedstrom K, et al. 2000. Model evaluation experiments in the North Atlantic Basin: Simulations in nonlinear terrain-following coordinates. Dynam Atmos Oceans, 32: 239-281
    Hess K W, Gross T F, Schmalz R A, et al. 2003. NOS standards for evaluating operational nowcast and forecast hydrodynamic model systems. NOAA Tech Rep NOS CS, 17: 1-48
    Jolliff J K, Kindle J C, Shulman I, et al. 2009. Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment. J Mar Syst, 76: 64-82
    Kim S D, Kim B, Baek S-H. 2011. Data archiving system for the operational ocean forecasting. The Second China-Korea Joint Workshop on Marine Environmental Forecasting for the Yellow Sea and East China Sea, Vol. 1: 85-86
    Lee J-C, Kwon J-I, Park K-W, et al. 2008. Calculations of storm surges, Typhoon Maemi. J Korean Soc Coast Ocean Eng, 20: 93-100
    Legates D R, McCabe Jr G J. 1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness-offit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res, 35(1): 233-241
    Loague K, Green R E. 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: overview and application. J ContamHydrol, 7: 51-73
    Matsumoto K, Takanezawa T, Ooe M. 2000. Ocean tide models developed by assimilating TOPEX/POSEIDON altimeter data into hydrodynamical model: A global model and a regional model around Japan. J Oceanogr, 56: 567-581
    Murphy AH, Epstein E S. 1989. Skill scores and correlation coefficients in model verification. MonWeather Rev, 117: 572-581
    Park K S, Lee J C, Jun K C, et al. 2009. Development of an operational storm surge prediction system for the Korean Coast. Ocean and Polar Res, 31(4): 369-377
    Stow C A, Jolliff J, McGillicuddy Jr D J, et al. 2009. Skill assessment for coupled biological/physical models of marine systems. J Mar Syst, 76: 4-15
    Stow C A, Roessler C, BorsukME, et al. 2003. A comparison of estuarine water quality models for TMDL development in the Neuse River Estuary. JWater Res PL-ASCE, 129: 307-314
    Taylor K E. 2001. Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res, 106(D7): 7183-7192
    Willmott C J, Ackleson S G, Davis R E, et al. 1985. Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models. J Geophys Res, 90(C5): 8995-9005
    Willmott C J. 1981. On the validation of models. Phys Geogr, 2: 184-194
    Zhang A, Hess K W, Aikman III F. 2010. User-based skill assessment techniques for operational hydrodynamic forecast systems. J Oper Oceanogr, 3: 11-24
    Zhang A, Hess K W, Wei E, et al. 2006. Implementation of model skill assessment software for water level and current in tidal regions. NOAA Tech Rep NOS CS, 24: 1-61
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1272) PDF downloads(1626) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return