How should sparse marine in situ measurements be compared to a continuous model: an example

Abstract. This work demonstrates an example of the importance of an adequate method to sub-sample model results when comparing with in situ measurements. A test of model skill was performed by employing a point-to-point method to compare a multi-decadal hindcast against a sparse, unevenly distributed historic in situ dataset. The point-to-point method masked out all hindcast cells that did not have a corresponding in situ measurement in order to match each in situ measurement against its most similar cell from the model. The application of the point-to-point method showed that the model was successful at reproducing the inter-annual variability of the in situ datasets. Furthermore, this success was not immediately apparent when the measurements were aggregated to regional averages. Time series, data density and target diagrams were employed to illustrate the impact of switching from the regional average method to the point-to-point method. The comparison based on regional averages gave significantly different and sometimes contradicting results that could lead to erroneous conclusions on the model performance. Furthermore, the point-to-point technique is a more correct method to exploit sparse uneven in situ data while compensating for the variability of its sampling. We therefore recommend that researchers take into account for the limitations of the in situ datasets and process the model to resemble the data as much as possible.

[1]  Sm Robeson Influence of spatial sampling and interpolation on estimates of air temperature change , 1994 .

[2]  Charles J Vörösmarty,et al.  Global system of rivers: Its role in organizing continental land mass and defining land‐to‐ocean linkages , 2000 .

[3]  K. Taylor Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram , 2001 .

[4]  Jason T. Holt,et al.  An s coordinate density evolving model of the northwest European continental shelf: 2. Seasonal currents and tides , 2001 .

[5]  Jerry Blackford,et al.  Ecosystem dynamics at six contrasting sites: a generic modelling study , 2004 .

[6]  A. Sterl,et al.  The ERA‐40 re‐analysis , 2005 .

[7]  Anthony J. Richardson,et al.  Error quantification of a high resolution coupled hydrodynamic- ecosystem coastal-ocean model: Part3, validation with Continuous Plankton Recorder data , 2006 .

[8]  Barbara A. Adams-Vanharn,et al.  Evaluation of the current state of mechanistic aquatic biogeochemical modeling: citation analysis and future perspectives. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Jason Holt,et al.  Prediction and analysis of long‐term variability of temperature and salinity in the Irish Sea , 2007 .

[10]  J. Kindle,et al.  Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment , 2009 .

[11]  C. Stow,et al.  Skill Assessment for Coupled Biological/Physical Models of Marine Systems. , 2009, Journal of marine systems : journal of the European Association of Marine Sciences and Techniques.

[12]  Taro Takahashi,et al.  Skill metrics for confronting global upper ocean ecosystem-biogeochemistry models against field and remote sensing data , 2009 .

[13]  Patrick Jöckel,et al.  Development cycle 2 of the Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy2) , 2010 .

[14]  Momme Butenschön,et al.  Wavelet-based spatial comparison technique for analysing and evaluating two-dimensional geophysical model fields , 2011 .

[15]  Jason T. Holt,et al.  Oceanic controls on the primary production of the northwest European continental shelf: model experiments under recent past conditions and a potential future scenario , 2012 .

[16]  Momme Butenschön,et al.  Validation of the NEMO-ERSEM operational ecosystem model for the North West European Continental Shelf , 2012 .