Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Oceans and Land Surface (IOAS-AOLS), American Meteorological Society, 23-27 January 2011, Seattle 1001
1001
1002
The outline of this paper is as follows. Section 2 be available. That is, GTSPP participants will permit the
describes the GTSPP data. Section 3 shows the large selection of data from their archives based on quality
uncertainty of the existing methods. Section 4 presents flags as well as other criteria. These flags are always
the methodology. Section 5 shows the comparison to the included with any data transfers that take place. Because
existing objective method (i.e., the curvature method). the flags are always included, and because of the policy
Section 6 presents the quality index for validation. regarding changes to data, as described later, a user can
Section 7 shows the global (HD, HT) dataset calculated expect the participants to disseminate data at any stage of
from the GTSPP profile data (1990-2010). In Section 8 processing. Furthermore, GTSPP participants have
we present the conclusions. agreed to retain copies of the data as originally received
and to make these available to the user if requested
2. GTSPP (GTSPP Working Group, 2010).
1002
1003
1
(h )
N
2
RMSD(i , j ) = hn Recently, Chu and Fan (2010a, b) developed several
(i ) ( j)
n
.
N n =1 objective methods for identify (HD, HT): optimal linear
The relative RMSD (RRMSD) between Criterion-i and fitting, maximum angle, and relative gradient. Among
Criterion-j is calculated by them, the first two methods are used for analyzing high
(less than 5 m) resolution profiles and the third one is
RRMSD(i , j ) = 2 * RMSD(i , j ) /( H T + H T ) ,
(i ) ( j) suitable for analyzing low (greater than 5 m) resolution
profiles.
(i ) ( j)
where H T and H T are the mean isothermal layer depth 4.1. Optimal Linear Fitting (OLF) Method
using Criterion-i and Criterion-j. The RMSD has a
minimum value of 43 m between Criterion-2 (0.5oC) and We use temperature profile as example for illustration.
Criterion-3 (0.8oC) and a maximum value of 109 m For detailed information, please see Chu and Fan
between Criterion-1 (0.2oC) and Criterion-4 (1.0oC). (2010a). Assume a temperature profile which can be
Such a large uncertainty makes the difference method represented by [T(zi)]. A linear polynomial is used to fit
less credible in determine the mixed layer depth from the the profile data from the first point near the surface (z1)
profile data. to a depth, zk (marked by a circle in Fig. 3). The original
Similarly, the gradient method also uses various and fitted data are represented by (T1, T2, , Tk) and
criterion such as 0.015oC/m (Defant, 1961) and ( T1 , T2 ,..., Tk ), respectively. The root-mean square error
0.025oC/m (Lukas and Lindstrom, 1991). The RMSD E1 is calculated by
between the two is around 70 m.
1 k
E1 ( k ) =
k
(T T )
i i
2
. (1)
i =1
1003
1004
used as optimization to determine the mixed (or
which is called the optimal linear fitting (OLF) method. isothermal) layer depth,
The OLF method is based on the notion that there exists
a near-surface quasi-homogeneous layer in which the k max, H D = zk .
standard deviation of the property (temperature, salinity,
or density) about its vertical mean is close to zero. Below
In practical, the angle k is hard to calculate. We use tan
the depth of HT, the property variance should increase
k instead, i.e.,
rapidly about the vertical mean.
30
40
50 (1) (2)
With the given fitting coefficients Gk , Gk , the value
Linear Polynomial
of tan k can be easily calculated by
k
Depth(m)
ial
60
k+1
Linear Polynom
k+2
k+3
k+4
70
Gk Gk
k (2) (1)
k+1
tan k = . (8)
k+2
80 k+3
1 + Gk Gk
k+4
Bias k+1
k (1) (2)
k+2
k+3
90 k+4
Bias
Vector1
(c) zk below the mixed layer depth (large E1 and E2) (after 65
Vector1
Chu and Fan, 2010a).
70
Vec
Vec
tor
tor
Depth(m)
4.2. Maximum Angle Method 75
1
2
Ve
ct
or
2
Ve
80 cto
r
We use density profile as example for illustration. Let
2
zk-m to a depth, zk (marked by a circle in Fig. 4) (m < k). Fig. 4. Illustration of the method: (a) zk is inside the mixed
A second vector (A2, pointing downward also) from one layer (small ), (b) zk at the mixed layer depth (largest ),
point below that depth (i.e., zk+1) is constructed to a and (c) zk below the mixed layer depth (small ) (after Chu
and Fan, 2010b).
deeper level with the same number of observational
points as the first vector (i.e., from zk+1 to zk+m). The
dual- linear fitting can be represented by
5. Comparison to the Existing Objective
c k + Gk z , z = z k m , zk m +1 ,... zk
(1) (1)
( z) = { , (5)
Method
c k + Gk z , z = zk +1 ,... z k + m
(2) (2)
1004
1005
This profile was discretized with vertical resolution of 1 each depth. The isothermal depth is 9 m (error of 11 m)
m from the surface to 10 m depth and of 5 m below 10 m using the curvature method (Fig. 6b) and 20 m (no error)
depth. The discrete profile was smoothed by 5-point using the maximum angle method. Usually, the
moving average in order to remove the sharp change of curvature method requires smoothing for noisy data
the gradient at 20 m and 40 m depths. The smoothed (Chu, 1999; Lorbacher et al., 2006). To evaluate the
profile data [T(zk)] is shown in Fig. 5a. usefulness of smoothing, a 5-point moving average was
applied to the 1000 contaminated profile data. For the
The second-order derivatives of T(zk) versus depth is
profile data (Fig. 6a) after smoothing, the second
computed by nonhomogeneous mesh difference scheme,
derivatives were calculated for each depth (Fig. 6c). The
isothermal depth was identified as 8 m. Performance
T
2
1 Tk +1 Tk Tk Tk 1 for the curvature method (with and without smoothing)
zk
, (10) and the maximum angle method is determined by the
z zk +1 z k 1 zk +1 zk z k zk 1
2
relative root-mean square error (RRMSE),
Here, k = 1 refers to the surface, with increasing values
indicating downward extension of the measurement. 1 1 N
With Noise (=0.02 C) Curvature Method Smoothed Curvature Method Maximum Angle Method
20 0
30 10
40 20
Depth (m)
50 30
60 40
Depth (m)
70 50
80 60
90 70
100 80
5 10 15 20 25
0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Temperature (C) Second Derivative (C/m2) tan
90
100
1005
1006
Lorbacher et al. (2006) proposed a quality index (QI) Fig. 7. Atlantic Ocean (January): (a) calculated isothermal
for determining HD (similar for HT), layer depth (m), and (b) quality index.
rmsd ( k k ) |( H , H
Jul (212185 Profiles) with Mean Qulity Index: 0.966
80 400
)
QI = 1 1 D
, (13) 380
rmsd ( k k ) |( H ,1.5 H ) 60
360
1 D 340
Latitude
0.8; can be determined with uncertainty for QI in the 0 200
180
range of 0.5-0.8; and cant be identified for QI < 0.5. For 160
2006). 20
0
80 60 40 20 0 20
1
7. Global (HD, HT) Dataset 80
0.98
60 0.96
The global (HD, HT) dataset has been established from 0.94
mix
angle, and relative gradient). The quality index (QI) is
of h
20 0.88
mix
computed for each profile using (13). To show the
Latitude
0.86
Qulity Index QI
0
seasonal variability, the global (HD, HT) data were binned 0.84
20 240
220
Latitude
0 200
180
160
20 140
120
40 100
80
60
60 40
20
0
80 60 40 20 0 20
80 1
0.98
60 0.96
0.94
40 0.92
0.9
Qulity Index QImix of hmix
20 0.88
Latitude
0.86
0
0.84
0.82
20
0.8
0.78
40
0.76
0.74
60
0.72
0.7
80 60 40 20 0 20
Longitude
1006
1007
Jan (215506 Profiles) with Mean Qulity Index: 0.978
400 are listed as follows: (a) Procedure is totally objective
60 380
360 without any initial guess (no iteration); and (b) No any
40
340
320 differentiations (first or second) are calculated for the
20
300
280
profile data. The calculated (HD, HT) are ready to use for
260
various studies such as the global distribution of barrier
Acknowledgments
60
40
20
0
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
1
60
0.98 The Office of Naval Research, the Naval
40
0.96
0.94
Oceanographic Office, and the Naval Postgraduate
0.92 School supported this study. We thank DR. Charles Sun
20 0.9
at NOAA/NODC for providing GTSPP profile data.
0 0.86
0.84
20 0.82
0.8
40 0.78
0.76
60 0.74
0.72
0.7
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Longitude
Fig. 9. Pacific Ocean (January): (a) calculated isothermal Jan (HR: 5559 Profiles) with Mean Qulity Index: 0.95
400
380
layer depth (m), and (b) quality index. 20 360
340
Jul (253202 Profiles) with Mean Qulity Index: 0.977 10 320
400
300
60 380 0 280
Latitude
320 220
20 200
300
180
280 30
20 160
260
Mixed Layer Depth (m)
140
240 40
120
220 100
Latitude
0
50
200 80
180 60
60
40
20 160
20
140 70
0
120 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
40 1
100
0.98
80 20
60 0.96
60
40 10 0.94
20 0.92
0
0
60 0.86
0.98 20
0.84
0.96
30 0.82
40 0.94
0.8
40
0.92
0.78
20 0.9 50
mix
0.76
of h
0.88 0.74
60
mix
Latitude
0 0.86 0.72
Qulity Index QI
70
0.84 0.7
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Longitude
20 0.82
60 0.74
0.72
0.7
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Longitude
8. Conclusions
1007
1008
Jul (HR: 6520 Profiles) with Mean Qulity Index: 0.962
400 GTSPP Workin Group, 2010: GTSPP Real-Time Quality
Control Manual. IOC Manual and Guides 22, pp. 148.
380
20 360
340
10 320
300
Kara, A. B., P.A. Rochford, and H. E. Hurlburt, 2000:
0 280
Mixed layer depth variability and barrier layer formation
Latitude
10 240
220
over the north Pacific Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 105,
16783-16801.
20 200
180
30
60
60
40
Equatorial Pacific ocean circulation study. Nature, 330,
70
20
0
533-537.
Lorbacher, K., Dommenget, D., Niiler, P.P., Kohl, A.
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1
0.98
20
0.96 2006. Ocean mixed layer depth: A subsurface proxy of
10 0.94
0.92
ocean-atmosphere variability. J. Geophys. Res., 11,
C07010, doi:10.1029/2003JC002157.
0
0.86
20
30
0.84
0.82
western equatorial Pacific Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 96,
40
0.8 3343-3357.
Sun, L.C., 2008: GTSPP Bi-Annual Report for 2007
0.78
50
0.76
60 0.74
0.72
2008. pp.14. The document can be downloaded from:
70
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0.7 http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/GTSPP/document/reports/GT
Longitude
SPPReport2007-2008V2.pdf.
Fig. 12. Indian Ocean (July): (a) calculated isothermal
Wyrtki, K., 1964. The thermal structure of the eastern
layer depth (m), and (b) quality index.
Pacific Ocean. Dstch. Hydrogr. Zeit., Suppl. Ser. A, 8, 6-
84.
References
1008