You are on page 1of 8

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Objective Mapping/Krigging
The data is in SSTN P.mat, observations (obs25) and coordinates (grd).

In this method, x is observed SST at sampling locations; y are SST at grid locations. Assume the model E transforms the observations x to the objectively mapped y , that is y = Ex: 1 E = Cyx Cxx =< yxT >< xxT >1 (Model equation) Assume the the covariances Cxx (between x and x), and Cyx 1 (between y and xT ) have the Gaussian shape: Cxx(i,j) = exp{ (loni lonj )2 (lati latj )2 } exp{ }, decorr2 decorr2

where loni , lonj , lati and latj are longitudes and latitudes at two locations, and decorr is the e-folding length scale, which could be determined from the de-correlation plot (Figure 1). This model is referred to as the Gaussian spatial statistics covariance model. In this case, 2 2 decorrx + decorry = 14.8, decorrx = decorry = 10.5.

Figure 1. The spatial de-correlation length scale of the data. The datatip shows approximately the e-folding length scale. The error covariance is < n nT >=
1 T Cyy Cyx Cxx Cyx . varx

Figure 2 illustrates the objectively mapped SST anomalies for February 2000 and corresponding error map. Clearly, this model successfully captured the large spatial patterns of SST in the North Pacic. As expected, the error map indicates small error near observations and large error far away from observations. By decreasing the de-correlation length scale (Figure 3), less observations are used for interpolation for one particular location. Consequently, larger errors are introduced for
1 T Cyx =Cxy

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 2. Upper: the objective map for SST anomalies for February 2000, with a decorrelation length scale of 10. Lower: the corresponding non-dimensional error map. Crosses in both maps indicate observation locations. locations far away from observations. However, the map reveals more ne-scale structure of the SST anomaly. By contrast, if increase the de-correlation length scale to 20 (Figure 4), the interpolated SST anomaly becomes more blurred, emphasizing on large scale patterns. There is not much change in the error map.

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 3. Upper: the objective map for SST anomalies for February 2000, with a decorrelation length scale of 2. Lower: the corresponding non-dimensional error map. Crosses in both maps indicate observation locations.

Figure 4. Upper: the objective map for SST anomalies for February 2000, with a decorrelation length scale of 20. Lower: the corresponding non-dimensional error map. Crosses in both maps indicate observation locations.

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFs)


The data is SSTa from 1950-1999. EOFs

EOF could be computed in two ways: 1) eigenvalues and eigenvectors (eig.m) and 2) SVD (Singular Value Decomposition). Here, we used SVD: F (s, t) = U (s, k)S(k, k)V T (k, t), where EOF = U , = S 2 and P C(k, t) = S(k, k)V T (k, t). To ensure the EOFs have the unit of degree, the same as the original data. Both EOFs and PCs are normalized by the standard deviation of each PC. EOFi = EOFi std(P Ci ) and P i = C P Ci . std(P Ci )

The rst two EOFs and corresponding PCs are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The rst EOF indicates that the North Pacic and the Eastern Equatorial Pacic are in opposite phase. In other words, when the SSTa in North Pacic is low, it is high in the Eastern Equatorial Pacic. The Eastern Equatorial Pacic is supposed to be closely related to ENSO. The second EOF highlights the Northeastern Pacic o California, which is opposite in sign with the Northwestern Pacic.

Figure 5. EOF (upper) and PC (lower) for the 1st mode from SVD from 1950-1999 SST anomalies.

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 6. EOF (upper) and PC (lower) for the 2nd mode from SVD from 1950-1999 SST anomalies. Eigenvalue spectra Figure 7 indicates the variance explained by each EOF. The rst three modes explain 3.4%, 9.26% and 7.81% of the total variance in SST anomalies. To determine independent modes, the errorbar is plotted. According to Norths rule (North et al., 1982), the range of errorbar for each eigenvalue is = where N is the eective degrees of freedom. According to (Bretherton et al., 1999), particularly for variance and covariance analysis, N (1 r(t)2 ) = , N (1 + r(t)2 ) where N = 601 is number of samplings, and r(t) is the lag-1 autocorrelation of the data. In this case, r(t) = 0.86 is the averaged lag-1 autocorrelation of the rst ve PCs. If two neighboring errorbars are overlapped, the two corresponding modes may be locked with each other, that is, they are not independent. Typically, such overlap may result from a propagating signal or due to the physically localized dynamics. It is shown that the rst mode is independent, while the second and third errorbars are overlapped, indicating that the second and third modes may not be independent. To physically interpret the second and third modes, further analysis is needed, such as regression on a particular region or Rotated EOF. 5 2 , N

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 7. Normalized eigenvalue spectra. The error is added to determine independent modes. DoF=87.

Mappind Data Using EOFs


Objective mapping

As we did in Problem 1, the de-correlation length scale plot is shown in Figure 8. The objective mapped SSTa and corresponding map is shown in Figure 9. The objective mapping is doing well, but compared to the interpolated map in Problem 1, the error increases signicantly, demonstrating the number of samplings is crucial when using objective mapping (Krigging).

Figure 8. The spatial de-correlation length scale of the data. Mapping with EOFs Another approach to map with reduced observations is using EOFs from 1950-1999. Since EOFs contain the full spatial statistics of SSTa. We could easily derive the relationship between SSTa at observation locations (f (y, t)) and SSTa for all grid points (f (x, t)). With spatial statistics, we could obtain the covariance model E which satises f (x, t) = E f (y, t). Meanwhile, f (x, t) = EOF (s, k) P C(k, t). EOF is independent of time. Thus, the problem is reduced to nd the model : P C(k, t) = f (y, t). 6

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 9. Upper: the objective map for SST anomalies for February 2000, with a decorrelation length scale of 12. Lower: the corresponding non-dimensional error map. Crosses in both maps indicate observation locations. According to (Model equation) (P C and f are y and x now), = P C f T (f f T )1 . Here, we take the rst 10 PCs and EOFs. Thus, P C(10, 601) and f (141, 601) are used to get . Assuming the SSTa is stationary, we could applied this model to obtain SSTa February 2000 from limited observations. The observations is labeled as f (141, 1). We could now obtain P (10, 1) = f (141, 1). Multiplying P (10, 1) by EOF (2821, 10), we get the nal SSTa for February 2000, as shown in Figure 10. The Mapping based on EOF has done an excellent job, much better than the Krigging. The error is generally small.

Name: Fan Zhang

EAS6490-HW6

November 29, 2012

Figure 10. SSTa (upper) and error map (lower) for February 200 from 10 EOFs during 1950-1999. The variance explained by the rst ten modes is 71.2%.

References
Bretherton, C., M. Widmann, V. Dymnikov, J. Wallace, and I. Blad (1999), The eective e number of spatial degrees of freedom of a time-varying eld, Journal of Climate, 12 (7), 19902009. North, G., T. Bell, R. Cahalan, and F. Moeng (1982), Sampling errors in the estimation of empirical orthogonal functions, Monthly Weather Review, 110 (7), 699706.

You might also like