Advertisement

Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 509–521 | Cite as

A new hybrid model for filling gaps and forecast in sea level: application to the eastern English Channel and the North Atlantic Sea (western France)

  • Imen Turki
  • Benoit Laignel
  • Nabil Kakeh
  • Laetitia Chevalier
  • Stephane Costa
Article

Abstract

This research is carried out in the framework of the program Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) which is a partnership between NASA and CNES. Here, a new hybrid model is implemented for filling gaps and forecasting the hourly sea level variability by combining classical harmonic analyses to high statistical methods to reproduce the deterministic and stochastic processes, respectively. After simulating the mean trend sea level and astronomical tides, the nontidal residual surges are investigated using an autoregressive moving average (ARMA) methods by two ways: (1) applying a purely statistical approach and (2) introducing the SLP in ARMA as a main physical process driving the residual sea level. The new hybrid model is applied to the western Atlantic sea and the eastern English Channel. Using ARMA model and considering the SLP, results show that the hourly sea level observations of gauges with are well reproduced with a root mean square error (RMSE) ranging between 4.5 and 7 cm for 1 to 30 days of gaps and an explained variance more than 80 %. For larger gaps of months, the RMSE reaches 9 cm. The negative and the positive extreme values of sea levels are also well reproduced with a mean explained variance between 70 and 85 %. The statistical behavior of 1-year modeled residual components shows good agreements with observations. The frequency analysis using the discrete wavelet transform illustrate strong correlations between observed and modeled energy spectrum and the bands of variability. Accordingly, the proposed model presents a coherent, simple, and easy tool to estimate the total sea level at timescales from days to months. The ARMA model seems to be more promising for filling gaps and estimating the sea level at larger scales of years by introducing more physical processes driving its stochastic variability.

Keywords

Sea level forecast Astronomical tides Nontidal residual surges ARMA Sea level pressure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first thanks are granted to the CNES and TOSCA program of SWOT for financial support. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and their valuable comments that helped to improve this work. Many thanks also to the Spanish Government-EU FEDER for partially funding this research (research project CTM2012-35398).

References

  1. Box G, Jenkins G, Reinsel GC (1994) Time series analysis: forecasting and control. Prentice-Hall International, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  2. Church JA, Gregory JM, Huybrechts P, Kuhn M, Lambeck K, Nhuan MT, Qin D (2001) Changes in sea level. Chapter 11 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, pp. 639–694. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Church JA, Clark P, Cazenave A, Gregory J, Jevrejeva S, Levermann A, Merrifield M, Milne G, RS Nerem, Nunn P, Payne A, Pfeffer W, Stammer D, Unnikrishnan A (2013) Sea level changeGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabanes C, Cazenave A, Le Provost C (2001) Sea level rise during past 40 years determined from satellite and in situ observations. Science 294:840–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dergachev VA, Makarenko NG, Karimova LN, Danilkina EB (2001) Nonlinear methods of analysis of data with gaps. J Methods Appl Absolute Chronol 20:45–50Google Scholar
  6. Flather RA, Williams JA (2000) Climate change effects on storm surges: methodologies and results. In: Beersma J, Agnew M, Viner D, Hulme M (eds) Climate scenarios for water-related and coastal impact. ECLAT-2 Workshop Report No. 3, pp. 66–78. KNMI, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Flather RA, Smith JA, Richards JD, Bell C, Blackman DL (1998) Direct estimates of extreme storm surge elevations from a 40 year numerical model simulation and from observations. Global Atmos Ocean Syst 6:165–176Google Scholar
  8. Foreman MGG (1977) Manual for tidal height analysis and prediction. Pacific Marine Science Report 77-10. Institute of Ocean Sciences, Patricia Bay, Sidney, BC, 97ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Foreman MGG (1978) Manual for tidal currents analysis and prediction. Pacific Marine Science Report 78-6, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Patricia Bay, Sidney, BC, 57ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Galman G, Disney SM (2006) State Space Investigation of Bullwhip with ARMA (1,1) Demand Processes. Int J Prod Econ 35:322–345Google Scholar
  11. Godin G (1972) The analysis of tides. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, p 264Google Scholar
  12. Hilmi K, Chanut JP, EL-Sabh M (1997) Modélisation stochastique des variations à court terme du niveau d’eau Niveau d’cau marin Météorologie Hydrologie Modèle ARMA Estuaire du Saint-Laurent dans l’estuaire du Saint-Laurent, vol 20, N°2. Oceanologica Acta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. Kondrashov D, Ghil M (2006) Spatio‐temporal filling of missing points in geophysical data sets. Nonlinear Process Geophys 13:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe JA, Gregory JM, Flather RA (2001) Changes in the occurrence of storm surges around the United Kingdom under a future climate scenario using a dynamic storm surge model driven by the Hadley Centre climate models. Clim Dyn 18:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu PL, Der Kiureghian A (1986) Multivariate distribution models with prescribed marginals and covariances. Probabilistic Eng Mech 1(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Minguez R, Abascal AJ, Castanedo S, Medina R (2012) Stochastic Lagrangian trajectory model for drifting objects in the ocean. Stoch Env Res Risk A 26:1081–1093. doi: 10.1007/s00477-011-0548-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moffat AM, Papale D, Reichstein M, Hollinger DY, Richardson AD, Barr AG, Beckstein C, Braswell BH, Churkina G, Desai AR, Falge E, Gove JH, Heimann M, Hui D, Jarvis AJ, Kattge J, Noormets A, Stauch VJ (2007) Comprehensive comparison of gap filling techniques for eddy covariance net carbon fluxes. Agric For Meteorol 147:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moron V, Ullmann A (2005) Relationship between sea-level pressure and sea level height in the Camargue (French Mediterranean coast). Int J Climatol 25:1531–1540. doi: 10.1002/joc.1200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Musial JP, Verstraete MM, Gobron N (2011) Comparing the effectiveness of recent algorithms to fill and smooth incomplete and noisy time series. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 11:14259–14308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pashova L, Koprinkova‐Hristova P, Popova S (2013) Gap Filling of Daily Sea Levels by Artificial Neural. Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp. Volume 7, Number 2. DOI:  10.12716/1001.07.02.10
  21. Pawlowicz R, Beardsley R, Lentz S (2002) Classical tidal harmonic analysis including error estimates in MATLAB using T TIDE. Comput Geosci 28:929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pugh DT (1987) Tides, surges and mean sea level: a handbook for engineers and scientists. Wiley, Chichester, p 472Google Scholar
  23. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen S, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P (eds) (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Tawn JA, Vassie JM (1989) Extreme sea levels: the joint probability method revisited and revised. Proc Inst Civ Eng 2 87:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Von Storch H, Reichardt H (1997) A scenario of storm surge statistics for the German Bight at the expected time of doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. J Climatol 10:2653–2662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yi DH (2008) Data analysis and Eviews application. China Renmin University Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imen Turki
    • 1
  • Benoit Laignel
    • 1
  • Nabil Kakeh
    • 2
  • Laetitia Chevalier
    • 1
  • Stephane Costa
    • 3
  1. 1.UMR CNRS 6143 Continental and Coastal Morphodynamics ‘M2C’ University of RouenMont-Saint-Aignan CedexFrance
  2. 2.Department of Applied PhysicsUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona TechBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.University of Caen Low Normandy, Geophen UMR-CNRS LETGNormandyFrance

Personalised recommendations