Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 138, Issue 3–4, pp 1481–1492 | Cite as

Parameter sensitivity analysis of the short-range prediction of Kuroshio extension transition processes using an optimization approach

  • Qiang WangEmail author
  • Stefano Pierini
  • Youmin Tang
Original Paper
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, the optimization parameter sensitivity analysis (OPSA) method is applied to investigate the sensitivity of the short-range prediction of the Kuroshio extension (KE) transition process to parameter uncertainties as simulated with a reduced-gravity shallow water model. The results show that the uncertainties of the model parameters have important impacts on the short-range predictions of the KE transition processes: the predictions are found to be mainly affected by the uncertainties in the reduced-gravity and interfacial friction coefficients. On the contrary, the prediction is insensitive to the wind stress amplitude and the lateral eddy viscosity coefficient. Furthermore, if the sensitive parameters are more accurately estimated, the prediction will be significantly improved. It is therefore suggested that the OPSA method is a useful tool to assess parameter sensitivity for the prediction of the KE transition processes.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the High Performance Computing Center (HPCC), Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for providing excellent computing resources.

Funding information

This study was supported by the Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (QNLM2016ORP0107), the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (41576015, 41490644, and 41490640), the open fund of State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment Dynamics, Second Institute of Oceanography (QNHX1814), the NSFC Innovative Group (41421005), the National Programme on Global Change and Air-Sea interaction (GASI-IPOVAI-06), and the NSFC-Shandong Joint Fund for Marine Science Research Centers (U1606402). S. Pierini received support from the University of Naples Parthenope (contract n. DSTE315B).

References

  1. Aberson SD (2011) The impact of drowindsonde data from the THORPEX Pacific area regional campaign and the NOAA hurricane field program on tropical cyclone forecasts in the global forecast system. Mon Weather Rev 139:2689–2703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth NH (1992) Oceanographic experiment design II: genetic algorithms. J Atmos Ocean Technol 9:434–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berner J, Jung T, Palmer TN (2012) Systematic model error: the impact of increased horizontal resolution versus improved stochastic and deterministic parameterizations. J Clim 25:4946–4962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birgin EG, Martinez JM, Raydan M (2000) Nonmonotone spectral projected gradient methods on convex sets. SIAM J Optim 10:1196–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brierley CM, Collins M, Thorpe AJ (2010) The impact of perturbations to ocean-model parameters on climate and climate change in a coupled model. Clim Dyn 34:325–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacuci DG (2003) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, vol 1: Theory. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 285 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu PC (1999) Two kinds of predictability in the Lorenz system. J Atmos Sci 56:1427–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu PC, Ivanov LM, Margolina TM (2007) On non-linear sensitivity of marine biological models to parameter variations. Ecol Model 206:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daescu DN, Todling R (2010) Adjoint sensitivity of the model forecast to data assimilation system error covariance parameters. Q J R Meteorol Soc 136:2000–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankignoul C, Sennechael N, Kwon YO, Alexander MA (2011) Influence of the meridional shifts of the Kuroshio and the Oyashio extensions on the atmospheric circulation. J Clim 24:762–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentile V, Pierini S, de Ruggiero P, Pietranera L (2018) Ocean modelling and altimeter data reveal the possible occurrence of intrinsic low-frequency variability of the Kuroshio extension. Ocean Model 131:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall MC, Cacuci DG, Schlesinger ME (1982) Sensitivity analysis of a radiative-convective model by the adjoint method. J Atmos Sci 39:2038–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE international conference on neural networks (Perth, Australia), Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Service Center, 1942–1948Google Scholar
  14. Komori N, Awaji T, Ishikawa Y, Kuragano T (2003) Short-range forecast experiments of the Kuroshio path variabilities south of Japan using TOPEX/Poseidon altimetric data. J Geophys Res 108(C1):3010.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JC001282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kramer W, Dijkstra HA, Pierini S, van Leeuwen PJ (2012) Measuring the impact of observations on the predictability of the Kuroshio extension in a shallow-water model. J Phys Oceanogr 42:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kwon YO, Joyce TM (2013) Northern hemisphere winter atmospheric transient eddy heat fluxes and the Gulf stream and Kuroshio–Oyashio extension variability. J Clim 26:9839–9859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levine-Moolenaar HE, Selten FM, Grasman J (2012) Effect of parameter change upon the extra-tropical atmospheric variability. Clim Dyn 38:1649–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang XS, Robinson AR (2013) Absolute and convective instabilities and their roles in the forecasting of large frontal meanderings. J Geophys Res 118:5686–5702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenz EN (1975) Climate predictability. In: Bolin B et al (eds) The physical basis of climate and climate modelling, GARP Publication Series, vol 16. WMO, Geneva, pp 132–136Google Scholar
  20. Marzban C (2013) Variance-based sensitivity analysis: an illustration on the Lorenz’63 model. Mon Weather Rev 141:4069–4079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mu B, Wen S, Yuan S, Li H (2015) PPSO: PCA based particle swarm optimization for solving conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation. Comput Geosci 83:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M, Stainforth DA (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nishikawa H, Yasuda I, Itoh S (2011) Impact of winter-to-spring environmental variability along the Kuroshio jet on the recruitment of Japanese sardine. Fish Oceanogr 20:570–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Reilly CH, Czaja A (2015) The response of the Pacific storm track and atmospheric circulation to Kuroshio extension variability. Q J R Meteorol Soc 141:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orrell D (2003) Model error and predictability over different timescales in the Lorenz’96 systems. J Atmos Sci 60:2219–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer TN, Buizza R, Molteni F, Chen YQ, Corti S (1994) Singular vectors and the predictability of weather and climate. Phil Trans R Soc Lond A 348:459–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer TN, Shutts GJ, Hagedorn R, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Jung T, Leutbecher M (2005) Representing model uncertainty in weather and climate prediction. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 33:193–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pierini S (2006) A Kuroshio extension system model study: decadal chaotic self-sustained oscillations. J Phys Oceanogr 36:1605–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierini S (2008) On the crucial role of basin geometry in double-gyre models of the Kuroshio extension. J Phys Oceanogr 38:1327–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierini S (2014) Kuroshio extension bimodality and the North Pacific oscillation: a case of intrinsic variability paced by external forcing. J Clim 27:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierini S (2015) A comparative analysis of Kuroshio extension indices from a modeling perspective. J Clim 28:5873–5881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pierini S, Dijkstra HA (2009) Low-frequency variability of the Kuroshio extension. Nonlinear Process Geophys 16:665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierini S, Dijkstra HA, Riccio A (2009) A nonlinear theory of the Kuroshio extension bimodality. J Phys Oceanogr 39:2212–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierini S, Dijkstra HA, Mu M (2014) Intrinsic low-frequency variability and predictability of the Kuroshio current and of its extension. Adv Oceanogr Limnol 5:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qiu B (2003) Kuroshio extension variability and forcing of the Pacific decadal oscillations: responses and potential feedback. J Phys Oceanogr 33:2465–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qiu B, Chen S (2005) Variability of the Kuroshio extension jet, recirculation gyre, and mesoscale eddies on decadal time scales. J Phys Oceanogr 35:2090–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qiu B, Chen S (2010) Eddy-mean flow interaction in the decadally modulating Kuroshio extension system. Deep-Sea Res II 57:1098–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Révelard A, Frankignoul C, Sennéchael N, Kwon YO, Qiu B (2016) Influence of the decadal variability of the Kuroshio extension on the atmospheric circulation in the cold season. J Clim 29:2123–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I, Campolongo F, Ratto M, Tarantola S (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output: design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seo Y, Sugimoto S, Hanawa K (2014) Long-term variations of the Kuroshio extension path in winter: meridional movement and path state change. J Clim 27:5929–5940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11:341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sun GD, Mu M (2009) A preliminary application of the differential evolution algorithm to calculate the CNOP. Atmos Oceanic Sci Lett 2:381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sun G, Mu M (2017a) A new approach to identify the sensitivity and importance of physical parameters combination within numerical models using the Lund–Potsdam–Jena (LPJ) model as an example. Theor Appl Climatol 128:587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun G, Mu M (2017b) A flexible method to determine the sensitive physical parameter combination for soil carbon under five plant types. Ecosphere 8(8):e01920.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sun G, Peng F, Mu M (2017) Uncertainty assessment and sensitivity analysis of soil moisture based on model parameter errors—results from four regions in China. J Hydrol 555:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang Q, Tang Y, Dijkstra HA (2017a) An optimization strategy for identifying parameter sensitivity in atmospheric and oceanic models. Mon Weather Rev 145:3293–3305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang Q, Tang Y, Pierini S, Mu M (2017b) Effects of singular-vector-type initial errors on the short-range prediction of Kuroshio extension transition processes. J Clim 30:5961–5983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang Y, Liang XS, Qiu B, Chen S (2017) On the decadal variability of the eddy kinetic energy in the Kuroshio extension. J Phys Oceanogr 47:1169–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yin X, Wang B, Liu J, Tan X (2014) Evaluation of conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation obtained by an ensemble-based approach using the Lorenz-63 model. Tellus 66A:22773.  https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.22773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaehle S, Sitch S, Smith B, Hatterman F (2005) Effects of parameter uncertainties on the modeling of terrestrial biosphere dynamics. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 19:GB3020.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang X, Mu M, Wang Q, Pierini S (2017) Optimal precursors triggering the Kuroshio extension state transition obtained by the conditional nonlinear optimal perturbation approach. Adv Atmos Sci 34:685–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zheng Q, Dai Y, Zhang L, Sha J, Lu X (2012) On the application of a genetic algorithm to the predictability problems involving “on-off” switches. Adv Atmos Sci 29:422–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CAS Key Laboratory of Ocean Circulation and Waves, Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of Sciences and Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao)QingdaoChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment DynamicsSecond Institute of Oceanography, MNRHangzhouChina
  3. 3.College of OceanographyHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Scienze e TecnologieUniversità di Napoli ParthenopeNaplesItaly
  5. 5.CoNISMaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations