Advertisement

Temperature assimilation into a coastal ocean-biogeochemical model: assessment of weakly and strongly coupled data assimilation

  • Michael Goodliff
  • Thorger Bruening
  • Fabian Schwichtenberg
  • Xin Li
  • Anja Lindenthal
  • Ina Lorkowski
  • Lars NergerEmail author
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Coastal Ocean Forecasting Science supported by the GODAE OceanView Coastal Oceans and Shelf Seas Task Team (COSS-TT) - Part II

Abstract

Satellite data of both physical properties as well as ocean colour can be assimilated into coupled ocean-biogeochemical models with the aim to improve the model state. The physical observations like sea surface temperature usually have smaller errors than ocean colour, but it is unclear how far they can also constrain the biogeochemical model variables. Here, the effect of assimilating satellite sea surface temperature into the coastal ocean-biogeochemical model HBM-ERGOM with nested model grids in the North and Baltic Seas is investigated. A weakly and strongly coupled assimilation is performed with an ensemble Kalman filter. For the weakly coupled assimilation, the assimilation only directly influences the physical variables, while the biogeochemical variables react only dynamically during the 12-hour forecast phases in between the assimilation times. For the strongly coupled assimilation, both the physical and biogeochemical variables are directly updated by the assimilation. The strongly coupled assimilation is assessed in two variants using the actual concentrations and the common approach to use the logarithm of the concentrations of the biogeochemical fields. In this coastal domain, both the weakly and strongly coupled assimilation are stable, but only if the actual concentrations are used for the strongly coupled case. Compared to the weakly coupled assimilation, the strongly coupled assimilation leads to stronger changes of the biogeochemical model fields. Validating the resulting field estimates with independent in situ data shows only a clear improvement for the temperature and for oxygen concentrations, while no clear improvement of other biogeochemical fields was found. The oxygen concentrations were more strongly improved with strongly coupled than weakly coupled assimilation. The experiments further indicate that for the strongly coupled assimilation of physical observations the biogeochemical fields should be used with their actual concentrations rather than the logarithmic concentrations.

Keywords

Data assimilation Biogeochemistry North Sea Baltic Sea 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out within the project MeRamo by the German Federal Ministry of Transportation and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI) through the German Aerospace Center (DLR). We thank the German Oceanographic Data Center and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES Dataset on Ocean Hydrography. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. 2016) for providing the in situ data.

References

  1. Anderson LA, Robinson AR, Lozano CJ (2000) Physical and biological modeling in the Gulf Stream region: I. Data assimilation methodology. Deep Sea Res I(47):1787–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JL (2003) A local least squares framework for ensemble filtering. Mon Wea Rev 131:634–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barth A, Alvera-Azcarate A, Beckers JM, Rixen M, Vandenbulcke L (2007) Multigrid state vector for data assimilation in a two-way nested model of the Ligurian Sea. J Mar Syst 65:41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth A, Alvera-Azcarate A, Gurgel KW, Staneva J, Port A, Beckers JM, Stanev EV (2010) Ensemble perturbation smoother for optimizing tidal boundary conditions by assimilation of high-frequency radar surface currents - application to the German Bight. Ocean Sci 6:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berline L, Brankart JM, Brasseur P, Ourmier’es Y, Verron J (2007) Improving the physics of a coupled physical-biogeochemical model of the North Atlantic through data assimilation: impact on the ecosystem. J Mar Syst 64:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruening T, Janssen F, Kleine E, Komo H, Massmann S, Menzenhauer-Schuhmacher I, Jandt S, Dick S (2014) Operational ocean forecasting for German coastal waters. Die Küste 81:273–290Google Scholar
  7. Burgers G, van Leeuwen PJ, Evensen G (1998) On the analysis scheme in the ensemble Kalman filter. Mon Wea Rev 126:1719–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell JW (1995) The lognormal distribution as a model for bio-optical variability in the sea. J Geophys Res 100(C7):13237–13254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carmillet V, Brankart JM, Brasseur P, Drange H, Evensen G, Verron J (2001) A singular evolutive extended Kalman filter to assimilate ocean color data in a coupled physical-biochemical model of the North Atlantic ocean. Ocean Model 3:167–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciavatta S, Torres R, Suax-Picart S, Allen JI (2011) Can ocean color assimilation improve biogeochemical hindcasts in shelf seas? J Geophys Res 116:C12043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciavatta S, Brewin RJW, Skakala J, Polimene L, de Mora L, Artioli Y, Allen JI (2018) Assimilation of ocean-color plankton functional types to improve marine ecosystem simulations. J Geophys Res Oceans 123:834–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dick S, Kleine E, Müller-Navarra S H, Klein SH, Komo H (2001) The operational circulation model of BSH (BSHcmod): model description and validation. Tech. rep. Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. Doron M, Brasseur P, Brankart JM (2011) Stochastic estimation of biogeochemical parameters of a 3D ocean couples physical-biogeochemical model: twin experiments. J Mar Syst 87:194–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doron M, Brasseur P, Brankart JM, Losa SN, Melet A (2013) Stochastic estimation of biogeochemical parameters from Globcolour ocean color satellite data in a North Atlantic 3D ocean coupled physical-biogeochemical model. J Mar Syst 117:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evensen G (1994) Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics. J Geophys Res 99(C5):10143–10162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford D, Barciela R (2017) Global marine biogeochemical reanalyses assimilating two different sets of merged ocean colour products. Rem Sens Env 203:40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford DA, Edwards KP, Lea D, Barciela RM, Martin MJ, Demaria J (2012) Assimilating GlobColour ocean colour data into a pre-operational physical-biogeochemical model. Ocean Sci 8:751–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaspari G, Cohn SE (1999) Construction of correlation functions in two and three dimensions. Q J Roy Meteor Soc 125:723–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregg WW (2008) Assimilation of SeaWiFS ocean chlorophyll data into a three-dimensional global ocean model. J Mar Syst 69:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hibler WD (1979) A dynamics/thermodynamic sea ice model. J Phys Oce 9:815–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu C, Lee Z, Franz B (2012) Chlorophyll a algorithms for oligotrophic oceans: a novel approach based on three-band reflectance difference. J Geophys Res Oceans 117(C01011):1–25Google Scholar
  22. Janssen F, Schrum C, Backhaus JO (1999) A climatological data set of temperature and salinity for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Deutsche Hydrograph Z 51(Suppl 9):5–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleine E (2003) A class of hybrid vertical co-ordinates for ocean circulation modelling. In: Proceedings of the 6th HIROMB scientific workshop, Morzaschita, St. Petersburg, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  24. Liu Y, Fu W (2018) Assimilating high-resolution sea surface temperature data improves the ocean forecast potential in the Baltic Sea. Ocean Sci 14:525–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorkowski I, Paetsch J, Moll A, Kuehn W (2012) Interannual variability of carbon fluxes in the North Sea from 1970 to 2006 – competing effects of abiotic and biotic drivers on the gas-exchange of CO2. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 100:38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Losa SN, Danilov S, Schröter J, Nerger L, Massmann S, Janssen F (2012) Assimilating NOAA SST data into the BSH operational circulation model for the North and Baltic Seas: inference about the data. J Mar Syst 105-108:152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Losa SN, Danilov S, Schröter J, Janjić T, Nerger L, Janssen F (2014) Assimilating NOAA SST data into BSH operational circulation model for the North and Baltic Seas: Part 2. Sensitivity of the forecast’s skill to the prior model error statistics. J Mar Syst 129:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maar M, Moller EF, Larsen J, Madsen KS, Wan Z, She J, Jonasson L, Neumann T (2011) Ecosystem modelling across a salinity gradient from the North Sea to the Baltic Sea. Ecol Model 222:1696–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mattern JP, Dowd M, Fennel K (2010) Sequential data assimilation applied to a physical–biological model for the Bermuda Atlantic time series station. J Mar Syst 79:144–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mattern JP, Song H, Edwards CA, Moore AM, Fiechter J (2017) Data assimilation of physical and chlorophyll a observations in the California Current System using two biogeochemical models. Oce Mod 109:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Natvik LJ, Evensen G (2003) Assimilation of ocean colour data into a biochemical model of the North Atlantic. Part 1. Data assimilation experiments. J Mar Syst 40-41:127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nerger L, Gregg WW (2008) Improving assimilation of SeaWiFS data by the application of bias correction with a local SEIK filter. J Mar Syst 73:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nerger L, Hiller W, Schröter J (2005) A comparison of error subspace Kalman filters. Tellus 57A:715–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nerger L, Danilov S, Hiller W, Schröter J (2006) Using sea level data to constrain a finite-element primitive-equation ocean model with a local SEIK filter. Ocean Dyn 56:634–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nerger L, Gregg WW (2007) Assimilation of SeaWiFS data into a global ocean-biogeochemical model using a local SEIK filter. J Mar Syst 68:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nerger L, Janjić T, Schröter J, Hiller W (2012a) A regulated localization scheme for ensemble-based Kalman filters. Q J Roy Meteor Soc 138:802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nerger L, Janjić T, Schröter J, Hiller W (2012b) A unification of ensemble square root Kalman filters. Mon Wea Rev 140:2335–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nerger L, Hiller W (2013) Software for ensemble-based data assimilation systems - implementation strategies and scalability. Comput Geosci 55:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nerger L, Losa S, Bruening T, Janssen F (2016) The HBM-PDAF assimilation system for operational forecasts in the North and Baltic Seas. In: Buch E, Antoniou Y, Eparkhina D, Nolan G (eds) Operational Oceanography for Sustainable Blue Growth. Proceedings of the Seventh EuroGOOS International Conference, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  40. Neumann T (2000) Towards a 3D-ecosystem model in the Baltic Sea. J Mar Syst 25:405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neumann T, Siegel H, Gerth M (2015) A new radiation model for Baltic Sea ecosystem modelling. J Mar Syst 152:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ourmières Y, Brasseur P, Lévy M, Brankart JM, Verron J (2009) On the key role of nutrient data to constrain a coupled physical-biogeochemical assimilative model for the North Atlantic Ocean. J Mar Syst 75:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park JY, Stock CA, Yang X, Dunne JP, Rosati A, John J, Zhang S (2018) Modeling global ocean biogeochemistry with physical data assimilation: a pragmatic solution to the equatorial instability. J Adv Model Earth Syst 10:891–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Penny SG, Akella S, Alves O, Bishop C, Buehner M, Chevalier M, Counillon F, Drper C, Frolov S, Fujii Y, Kumar A, Laloyaux P, Mahfouf JF, MArtin M, Pena M, de Rosnay P, Subramanian A, Tardif R, Wang Y, Wu X (2017) Coupled data assimilation for integrated earth system analysis and prediction: Goals, challenges and recommendations. Tech. Rep. WWRP 2017-3, World Meteorological OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  45. Pham DT, Verron J, Roubaud MC (1998) A singular evolutive extended Kalman filter for data assimilation in oceanography. J Mar Syst 16:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pradhan HK, Voelker C, Losa SN, Bracher A, Nerger L (2019) Assimilation of global total chlorophyll OC-CCI data and its impact on individual phytoplankton fields. J Geophys Res Oceans 140:470–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raghukumar K, Edwards CA, Goebel NL, Broquet G, Veneziani M, Moore AM, Zehr JP (2015) Impact of assimilating physical oceanographic data on modeled ecosystem dynamics in the California Current System. Prog Ocean 138:546–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shulman I, Frolov S, Anderson S, Penta B, Gould R, Sakalaukus P, Ladner S (2013) Impact of bio-optical data assimilation on short-term coupled physical, bio-optical model predictions. J Geophys Res Oceans 118:2215–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Song H, Edwards CA, Moore AM, Fiechter J (2016a) Data assimilation in a coupled physical-biogeochemical model of the California Current System an incremental lognormal 4-dimensional variational approach: Part 2 - joint physical and biological data assimilation twin experiments. Oce Mod 106:146–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Song H, Edwards CA, Moore AM, Fiechter J (2016b) Data assimilation in a coupled physical-biogeochemical model of the California Current System using an incremental lognormal 4-dimensional variational approach: Part 3 - assimilation in a realistic context using satellite and in situ observations. Oce Mod 106:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Song H, Edwards CA, Moore AM, Fiechter J (2016c) Data assimilation in a coupled physical–biogeochemical model of the California Current System using an incremental lognormal 4-dimensional variational approach: Part 1 - model formulation and biological data assimilation twin experiments. Oce Mod 106:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teruzzi A, Dobricic S, Solidoro C, Cossarini G (2014) A 3-D variational assimilation scheme in coupled transport-biogeochemical models: forecast of Mediterranean biogeochemical properties. J Geophys Res Oceans 119:200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vetra-Carvalho S, van Leeuwen PJ, Nerger L, Barth A, Altaf MU, Brasseur P, Kirchgessner P, Beckers JM (2018) State-of-the-art stochastic data assimilation methods for high-dimensional non-Gaussian problems. Tellus A 70(1):1445364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. While J, Haines K, Smith G (2010) A nutrient increment method for reducing bias in global biogeochemical models. J Geophys Res Oceans 115:C10036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu L, Fennel K, Bertino L, Gharamti ME, Thompson KR (2018) Insights on multivariate updates of physical and biogeochemical ocean variables using an ensemble Kalman filter and an idealized model of upwelling. Oce Mod 126:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und MeeresforschungBremerhavenGermany
  2. 2.Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und HydrographieHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Cooperative Institute for Research in the AtmosphereColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations