We introduce a new intuitive evaluation method for comparison of fjord model results and current measurements. The approach is tested using high resolution model simulations and measurements in the Hardangerfjord, a large fjord system in Norway with huge aquaculture production. The method is easy to interpret, clearly distinguishes periods with good and poor model performance, and relate them to physical driving forces. This makes it possible to identify potential shortcomings in the models’ representation of physical processes. The applied model mostly performs well in the Hardangerfjord. Good performance often coincides with strong local fjord forcing (i.e. strong winds in the fjord). In periods with poor model performance, internal waves induced by pressure perturbations on the coastal shelf tend to propagate erroneously into the fjord. Stratification biases in coastal waters, connected to the applied model boundary conditions, seems to be an important cause. Demonstrated flexibility of time frame and performance criteria suggests applicability of the validation method for a wide set of geophysical variables in various physical environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dalsøren et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: