Journal of Operational Oceanography

ISSN: 1755-876X (Print) 1755-8778 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjoo20

Impact of different initialisation methods on the

quality of sea forecasts for the Sicily Channel

L. Fazioli, A. Olita, A. Cucco, C. Tedesco, A. Ribotti & R. Sorgente

To cite this article: L. Fazioli, A. Olita, A. Cucco, C. Tedesco, A. Ribotti & R. Sorgente (2016)
Impact of different initialisation methods on the quality of sea forecasts for the Sicily Channel,
Journal of Operational Oceanography, 9:sup1, s119-s130, DOI: 10.1080/1755876X.2015.1114804

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2015.1114804

Published online: 10 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 188

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjoo20
JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY, 2016
VOL. 9, NO. S1, s119–s130
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2015.1114804

Impact of different initialisation methods on the quality of sea forecasts for the
Sicily Channel
L. Fazioli, A. Olita, A. Cucco, C. Tedesco, A. Ribotti and R. Sorgente
Institute for Coastal Marine Environment of the National Research Council, Oristano Section, Oristano, Italy

ABSTRACT
An operational ocean forecasting system provided numerical predictions on the main
hydrodynamics in the seas around Sicily. The system is evaluated using an independent dataset
of sea surface temperature (SST) satellite observations. A set of specific numerical experiments
are carried and the simulated SST data was compared with the satellite data observed at
selected dates. Two kinds of initialisation techniques are adopted to generate different initial
conditions: ‘slave mode’ and ‘partially active mode’. The accuracy of both approaches is analysed
to individuate the optimal nesting strategy. The results show that the partially active mode
improves the forecasts, resulting in a model accuracy increase of up to about 30%.

Introduction
The accuracy of a weather or ocean forecast is closely
related to the range of prediction, defined as the amount
of time in advance for which the prediction is made. As
in Lorenz (1965), only periodic components such as tides
can be predicted into the far distant future; the accuracy
of predictions for weather and ocean behaviour decrease
as the range increases and systems become more and
more complex, resulting in an increase in the chaotic (or
poorly known physics) aspect. Failure to produce perfect
forecasts of a non-periodic variable on any scale depends
on a number of factors, ranging from the availability of
observational data for calibration/validation and assimila-
tion to the initialisation procedures and choice of model. In
sub-regional ocean forecasting, the initial condition used
to start a numerical prediction (Zodiatis et al. 2007) is con-
sidered one of the most important source of uncertainty.
An initially negligible error, indeed, can be propagated
and amplified during numerical integration, thus inducing
considerable errors in the forecasted fields. Commonly, a
way to initialise such models without any assimilation pro-
cedure is to downscale the initial solutions from a coarse-
resolution model into a high-resolution model grid. A way
to optimise such initial interpolated fields in sub-regional
ocean forecasting is the use of tools for reducing spurious
oscillation, e.g. the Variational Initialisation and Forcing
Platform (VIFOP) method (Auclair et al. 2000). The gen-
eration and propagation of spurious high-frequency oscil-
lations, due to the incorrect dynamical balancing of
interpolated fields, during the spin-up time are signifi-
cantly reduced using VIFOP (Gabersek et al. 2007).
Although this initialisation method, referred to in this
paper as ‘slave mode’ (SM), allows a reduction in the
amplitude of the external gravity waves, the ocean forecast
short-range time up to 24–48 hours is already affected by
spurious signals, even if it is partially smoothed (Gabersek
et al. 2007). This could result in consequences for model
applications requiring an extremely high level of skill in
hydrodynamic input fields, e.g. search and rescue,
decisions in case of marine emergencies, the transport
and dispersion of pollutants (Coppini et al. 2011; De
Dominicis et al. 2013). An alternative way is to initialise
and optimise the initial condition from the coarse resol-
ution model n days before the prediction start, performing
a short-range time simulation (known as a hindcast) fol-
lowed by the short-range forecast. This methodology is
referred to in this paper as ‘partially active mode’ (PAM).
The aim of this article is to evaluate both of these initi-
alisation techniques by applying them to a Sicily Channel
Regional Model (SCRM) based on the Princeton Ocean
Model (POM), analysing the initial conditions and their
impact in short-range forecasts of up to three days. We
validated, through statistical scores, sea surface tempera-
ture (SST) fields calculated for the initial conditions versus
an independent satellite dataset. The same approach and
statistical treatment is also applied to the coarse model,
the Mediterranean Forecasting System (MFS) in which
the SCRM is embedded. Moreover, we examined the per-
formance of the SCRM, statistically quantifying the quality
of predictions by following a forecast-cycles scheme.
The model is implemented in the Sicily Channel,
otherwise known as the central Mediterranean Sea

CONTACT L. Fazioli leopoldo.fazioli@cnr.it

© 2016 Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology
s120 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.
(Astraldi et al. 1999; Ciappa 2009; Sorgente et al. 2011).
The region extends in longitude from the eastern Sardi-
nia Channel to the most southerly Tyrrhenian Sea, and
in latitude from South Sardinia down to North Africa’s
shores, including the whole sea off the Tunisian coast
and the western Libyan coasts.
The seabed topography is extremely irregular, ranging
from depths of 30 m (wide shelves, like the Lybian Shelf,
and a lot of banks, like the Medina Bank and Skeki Bank)
to depths of greater than 1000 m in narrow channels
close to island continental shelves (like near Pantelleria
and Malta) until reaching a depth of about 3000 m
along the Ionian slope.
This area has attracted a great amount of scientific
interest because of the presence of different water mass
interchanges in both easterly and westerly directions
(Astraldi et al. 2002). Such interchanges influence water
renewal, as well as both the heat and salt budget of the
entire Mediterranean Basin. Hydrological investigations
(Manzella et al. 1990) and several experimental studies,
using surface and sub-surface drifters, have shown a com-
plex circulation (Poulain & Zambianchi 2007). The sea-
sonality of water mass properties has been studied using
high-resolution numerical models (Sorgente et al. 2003),
while mesoscale dynamics and their relationship with
physical forcing have been highlighted by analysing the
kinetic energy components using modelled variability,
both in space and time (Sorgente et al. 2011). In the Med-
iterranean Sea, in the months ranging from January to
April, the SST is at the lowest spatial gradient of the
year. These more simplified conditions make it easier to
compare the different initialisation techniques. We quan-
tified the impact of initial conditions on the numerical sol-
ution, taking advantage of the maximum possible number
of model predictive capabilities. The averaged results illus-
trated in this paper refer to two groups of numerical exper-
iments representative of the winter season for 2010–2011.
The manuscript is organised as follows. An overview
is given of the models, the initialisation procedures
used, the observational dataset and the main statistical
metrics adopted for use with the validation tool. After
this, the validation results for the initial condition assess-
ment and the evaluation of forecast cycles are discussed.
In the final section, conclusions are drawn and the exper-
iment which attains the best possible result in terms of
accuracy is highlighted.
Methods
Forecast set-up
The SCRM is a free surface three-dimensional hydrodyn-
amic model based on the POM (Blumberg & Mellor
1987) finite difference scheme for the numerical inte-
gration of primitive equations. Continuity, motion and
conservation of temperature and salinity equations are
resolved, allowing for hydrostatic fluid and the Boussi-
nesq approximation. The horizontal viscosity and verti-
cal mixing coefficients are respectively computed using
Smagorinsky’s (1993) approach and Mellor and Yama-
da’s (1982) turbulence closure scheme for geophysical
fluid dynamics set in POM. The model bathymetry
(Figure 1) was obtained from the US Navy Digital Bathy-
metric Data Base (DBDB1) at 1/60 deg by bilinear
interpolation into the model grid.
The SCRM has a spatial resolution of 1/32 deg and is
30 sigma levels denser near the sea’s surface thanks to the
logarithmic distribution along the water column. The
time-step imposed is 4 s for external integrations and
120 s for internal integrations. The SCRM lateral open
boundary conditions are computed through an offline
one-way asynchronous nesting technique (Sorgente
et al. 2003; Oddo & Pinardi 2008) using the MFS (Tonani
et al. 2008; Pinardi & Coppini 2010), thus scaling the
model solution from the coarse to the fine grid.
The MFS is a basin-scale sea-circulation model for the
whole of the Mediterranean Sea, which has been in use
since 2000 and was developed by National Institute of
Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) in Bologna
(Pinardi et al. 2003). It runs at regular grid of 1/16 deg
of horizontal resolution and 72 unevenly spaced vertical
z-levels (Tonani et al. 2008). Every day, a 10-day forecast
Figure 1. SCRM model bathymetry at 1/32 deg built through
interpolation of the US Navy Digital Bathymetric Data Base
(DBDB1).
 JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s121

is operationally provided starting on Tuesday from a run

of 14 days of past analysis and each of the successive 6
days, until the following Monday, from a model
simulation.
An interactive air-sea module is used to put the SCRM
through a high-resolution (limited area model, 10 km
horizontal resolution) weather prediction system called
SKIRON (developed by Atmospheric Modeling &
Weather Forecasting Group of the Athens University,
see Kallos et al. 1997; Kallos et al. 2005), which is oper-
ationally available on the National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens server. The SKIRON operational
Figure 2. SCRM operational forecast chain (red bars) in SM. Note:
system provides 5 days of hourly forecast fields of 10 m
The initial condition for each forecast cycle (full green circle) is
wind speed, 2 m air temperature, relative humidity, pre- provided by the MFS forecast downscaling; the forecast cycles
cipitation rate, total cloud cover and downward and are evaluated at day D.
upward radiations.
At the air-sea interface, the coupling assumes that the
VIFOP was used to reduce the amplitude of spurious
net shortwave and the downward radiation are provided
oscillations following the beginning of numerical inte-
by the SKIRON model at 1-hour intervals, while
gration. Incorrect dynamic balancing of interpolated
momentum, turbulent heat and water fluxes are calcu-
fields leads, in fact, to the generation and propagation
lated by the SCRM using the bulk formulae through
of high-frequency oscillations during the spin-up time
the simulated SST. Surface momentum fluxes are calcu-
(Gabersek et al. 2007). Once these ‘false’ external gravity
lated using the computed drag coefficient of Hellerman
waves were reduced, it was possible to perform a reason-
and Rosenstein (1983).
able validation of the forecast as early as the first day
The model ran four times per experiment, each time
simulated (Figure 2).
generating a three-day forecast of temperature, salinity
and velocity (daily average). The validation was performed
from the initial condition at day D (D cycle) up to the third Partially active mode (PAM)
day of the forecast (D-3 cycle), then a single SST satellite The initial conditions are obtained by SCRM in hindcast
observation was used for each experiment. Ten observa- mode, starting the model one week earlier through the
tional days, selected from the periods January–March downscaling of MFS analyses of temperature, salinity
2010 and January–April 2011 (shown in Table 1) were and current velocity. The seven days of numerical inte-
chosen and the corresponding model experiments were gration spreads out the initial spurious wave and frees
selected. The operational chain of both methods of initia- up the model to produce its own dynamics before
lisation and the cycle schemes used are described below. switching from hindcast to forecast mode. The open lat-
eral boundary conditions are provided by MFS analyses,
while the weather fields of analysis are provided by the
SKIRON model and used to compute the air-sea inter-
Slave mode (SM) action through heat and momentum fluxes. For each
In order to initialise the SCRM, the MFS three-dimen- time-step of the weekly model hindcast, a relaxation
sional data of temperature, salinity and currents were procedure towards satellite SST data is applied to the
downscaled directly to the finer sub-regional grid. Such modelled heat fluxes. This procedure of relaxation uses
a method makes the SCRM initial condition dependent operational satellite data, provided on a regular grid at
on (i.e. slave to) the sea status provided by the coarse 1/16 deg of horizontal resolution, performing a first
model. The sub-regional dynamics thus begin to develop bilinear interpolation on the finer SCRM grid point.
from the first forecast day. This implies that any noise is Every weekly hindcast releases a restart file, which con-
mainly spread over the surface field. tains all the necessary parameters to describe the physical

Table 1. Number of MODIS satellite SST grid points available for each day considered.
2010 2011
04/02 06/02 18/02 24/02 20/04 08/01 07/02 24/03 25/03 27/03
Available 34,656 19,880 17,777 33,102 30,457 28,083 18,800 21,463 29,701 19,966
SCRM domain coverage (%) 77.4 44.4 39.7 73.9 68.0 62.7 42.0 47.9 66.3 44.6
s122 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.
state of the water column and initialise a forecast. In this
way, the SCRM partially loses the slave condition due to
the coarse model becoming ‘partially active’ in the initi-
alisation phase, at the point when the system switches
from hindcast to forecast mode (Figure 3).
Satellite data
In order to assess the quality of the modelled SSTs in
terms of error and skill score, the SSTs derived from
Level 2 MODIS-AQUA (Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer-AQUA) data are used. The winter
season was chosen as the period best suited to evaluating
different kinds of model initialisation techniques in
terms of model performance detection. In the summer,
high SST variability, associated with short-lived
phenomena that are smaller than mesoscale, can be a
source of additive errors.
High resolution satellite data (about 1 km of spatial
resolution) are interpolated on the SCRM regular grid,
computed at 3.5 km of horizontal resolution. The num-
ber of satellite data points within the model grid, when
cloudiness is absent, is equal to 44,770. Because of an
uneven spatial predictive ability of the model, high levels
of cloudiness could mask the points at which the model’s
predictions are most or least accurate, so the satellite data
are selected by choosing a minimum of 40% of available
points. This percentage has represents the main criterion
for choosing the satellite data used to validate the fore-
cast output to ensure that enough points are used to sig-
nificantly represent the different areas.
As the model’s initial condition is set to 00:00, a selec-
tion criterion was to start satellite data around midnight
(± two hours).
Figure 3. Operational forecast chain (red bars) in PAM. Note: The initial condition for each forecast cycle (full red circle) is provided by
seven days of hindcast (black bars); the forecast cycles are evaluated at day D.
Optimal interpolated sea surface temperature (OISST)
satellite data, operationally produced and provided by the
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the
National Research Council (ISAC-CNR) (Santoleri et al.
2008) through an optimal interpolation procedure, were
used to make an SST nudging during a weekly hindcast
of the operational chain of PAM. The near real time
multi-sensor (NRTv1) was used on a daily basis, obtained
from the advanced very high resolution radiometer
(AVHRR on board NOAA-17 and NOAA-18) night-
time data. They cover the whole Mediterranean Sea
with a regular grid with a horizontal resolution of 1/16
deg and are provided in NetCDF format; the estimate
of the error (EESD) made during the interpolation pro-
cedure is also included – in other words, the EESD can
be considered a quality value of the satellite data mainly
related to cloud coverage.
Statistics
Forecast and observational data are needed for statistical
metric calculations in order to quantify the level of agree-
ment between the modelled and observed SSTs.
In this section we evaluate the correspondence
between the mean forecasts and mean observations
(bias) as represented by observations (accuracy). These
statistical metrics (scores), defined in Murphy (1993),
give a measure of discrepancy between the known satel-
lite observations, OMODIS(x,y,t), and the corresponding
values forecast by the model, Tf(x,y,t) at each forecast
cycle.
The model forecast fields are checked by calculating
different types of statistics between Tf(x,y,t), and OMO-
DIS(x,y,t). Model accuracy is defined through the

metrics bias and root mean square error (RMSE), defined
by:
bias = T f (x, y, t) − OMODIS (x, y, t), (1)


















RMSE = bias(x, y, z)2/N ,
2
(2)
where N is the number of comparisons in the case of
temporal RMSE(x,y,t). For the case of spatial RMSE(x,y),
N is the number of grid points. To estimate the skill of
the models, the sea surface temperature skill score
(SSTSS) is computed using the standard deviation
(STD) of the temperature that defines the model variabil-
ity


























2 2
STD = (T f (x, y) − T f ) /N , (3)
SSTSS = (1 − RMSE2 /STD2 ). (4)
SSTSS is positive (negative) when the forecast accu-
racy is higher (lower) then the standard deviation calcu-
lated for the SST of the model with respect to a mean
value.
SSTSS = 1 when the RMSE = 0 (perfect forecast);
SSTSS = 0 when the error computed is equal, in absolute
value, to a deviation by the mean value, RMSE = STD.
Such indexes are applied both to our forecasts and to
the coarse model providing the boundary conditions.
SSTSS(x,y) and RMSE(x,y) are plotted in time-series
to show the mean performance of the model during
the forecast cycles ranging from the initial condition
(D) up to the third cycle (D-3) in both modes. Thus it
is possible to quantify the SCRM’s ability to make predic-
tions by comparing the model’s results from the two
different starting points for the initial condition D.
To evaluate the spatial variability of the RMSE for all
cycles in one single shot, we created a summarising index
we called 4Ie, which allows the error made by the forecast
(s) in respect to a single observation day D to be rep-
resented spatially. This is computed on the basis of the
biases(x,y) of the model against the observation for
each cycle.
Results
Initial condition assessment
The RMSE computed using the modelled and observed
SST(x,y) is shown for the initial conditions (Figure 4(a
and c)). The percentage of available grid points at each
evaluation day (Table 1), depending on the cloud cover
detected by MODIS, is also plotted (Figure 4(b and d)).
One of the factors which could cause an increase in the
RMSE of the initial condition obtained in PAM is a
JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s123
relaxation to a satellite SST data most affected by errors.
Thus, the average contribution of the EESD for each
experiment during every seven days of hindcast (here-
after 7-EESD) is considered (Table 2).
The 2010 RMSE values (Figure 4(a)) range from
0.34°C to 0.62°C for PAM and from 0.48°C to 0.65°C
for SM. Almost insignificant is the difference between
the RMSE obtained from the two methods at 4 and 6
February 2010, as the 7-EESD values are between the
lowest observed, reaching 22% and 15%, respectively.
The RMSEs of SM and PAM, indeed, reach 0.47°C to
0.49°C, showing negligible differences. During 18 Febru-
ary 2010, the RMSE of PAM reaches its maximum value
for the whole of 2010 of about 0.62°C, remaining very
close to the RMSE of SM, which is 0.64°C. In the week
preceding the initial condition, moreover, the cumulative
value of 7-EESD reaches one of the higher percentages of
about 31%. During 24 February, we find the highest
RMSE in 2010 for SM, of about 0.65°C, while the value
for PAM is 0.57°C. Even more striking is the difference
in the RMSE registered for the experiment of 20 April
2010. Using PAM, in fact, we have one of the lower
RMSEs of about 0.35°C, departing from the SM value
of 0.14°C; the 7-EESD peaks at around 33%.
The 2011 RMSE values (Figure 4(c)) range from
0.47°C to 0.81°C for PAM and from 0.51°C to 0.85°C
for SM. On 8 January 2011, the PAM experiment
reached a RMSE of 0.82°C against the 0.84°C of SM.
While maintaining the RMSE values of PAM lower
than the SM one in the days selected for 2011, only on
24 and 27 March are appreciable differences found
between the two modes. The RMSE of PAM obtained
are respectively 0.62°C and 0.47°C. During 2011, the
maximum difference between the PAM and SM
RMSEs occurs on 27 March when the 7-EESD is about
13%, representing the lowest average percentage in the
whole 2010–2011 dataset considered.
As expected, it is observed that the MFS and SM initial
conditions have very similar RMSEs because of the sub-
regional fields that are a downscaling of the coarse one.
Despite the dependence of SM on the MFS, the following
examination of the forecasting cycles shows their differ-
ent predictive abilities.
In order to gain further insight into the different
effects of the two initialisation modes, different par-
ameters such as the surface temperature, surface current,
averaged surface (ks) and total kinetic energy (kt) of a
representative day are evaluated. Since 20 April 2010 is
the day with the lowest RMSE and the largest differences
between the two initialisation modes, this point was cho-
sen for assessment.
Observing the bias of the SST at the initial condition
(Figure 5), one can see that the higher values, more than
s124 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.

Figure 4. SST RMSE for the MFS initial condition (green full triangle), slave mode (red full circle) and partially active mode (black full
square) for selected days in 2010 (Panel A) and 2011 (Panel C); available rate (%) of MODIS-SST (black narrow bar) on the SCRM grid for
selected days in 2010 (Panel B) and 2011 (Panel D), superimposed on the respective trend of the EESD (empty bar) of the OISST.

Table 2. Averaged seven days of EESD (%) provided by the OISST used for the procedure of relaxation in PAM.
2010
04/02 06/02 18/02 24/02
7-EESD (%) 22.11 15.30 31.80 20.17
2°C, are localised near the coasts of Eastern Sicily and the
Calabria Ionian side for both systems.
Values of about 1°C are also observed along the very
shallow Algerian coast. Values of bias closer to 0°C can
be found in most of the Sicily Channel area. Strong nega-
tive values of bias are only found in a small area around the
Tunisian coast, meaning that the simulated surface temp-
erature is colder than the observed one. From Figure 6, it is
easy to identify the areas with the greatest differences
between the two fields of bias. One of these extends from
15 deg E to 16 deg E longitude and 36 deg N to 38 deg N
latitude along the stretch of sea off the east coast of Sicily
during 20 April 2010. Here the bias reaches its maximum
values up to 2.5°C for SM (Figure 5(b)) and less than 1.5°C
for PAM (Figure 5(a)). Other areas where it is observed are
close to the southern coast of Sicily and around the Adven-
ture Bank; here the bias reaches 0.8°C while it keeps close
to 0°C for PAM.
The spatial average of bias in the PAM initial con-
dition is close to 0°C versus the 0.33°C provided by
SM. The minimum and maximum values of bias range
from −2.1°C to about 1.8°C in PAM, while increases
Figure 5. SST bias surface fields on 20 April 2010 for the initial condition of (a) PAM and (b) SM.
JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s125
2011
20/04 08/01 07/02 24/03 25/03 27/03
33.18 28.98 30.45 15.85 14.12 13.66
especially in positive values, reaching +2.6°C, are found
for SM.
Observing the surface current fields provided by the
two initialisation methods, a considerable difference in
module can be seen in a lot of areas (Figure 6) and pre-
sences of a lot of small dynamic structures in the wide
area of the Sicily Channel down to 34 deg N in latitude.
The major difference between the two fields in terms
of magnitude is near the southern coast of Sicily, where
the SM currents reach their maximum values of 0.55
m/s against the 0.78 m/s obtained by PAM.
In order to quantify such differences in the whole
region of interest, a map of kinetic energy, given by
kPAM – kSM, is shown in Figure 7.
Differences of less than 0.01 m2/s2, found in most of
the domain, are considered negligible and represented
by uncoloured areas. It is evident that the highest values
reach 0.15 m2/s2, localised along the Sicily-Tunisian
transect, around the Adventure Bank, close to the
southern coast of Sicily and in the western Ionian Sea.
Also around the continental shelf of Malta are visible
appreciable values ranging between 0.6 and 0.7 m2/s2.
s126 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.
Figure 6. Surface current fields bias on 20 April 2010 for the initial condition of (a) PAM and (b) SM.
The difference in energy discussed above is also quantifi-
able by the comparison of the spatial average surface (ks)
and total kinetic energy (kt) (Figure 8).
The kinetic energy trend is represented by a time-
series from seven days before the initial conditions for
Figure 7. Kinetic energy difference (kPAM − kSM) surface field on
20 April 2010 for the initial condition.
PAM, and up to the third day of forecast for both
PAM and SM. It is clear how the level of energy in the
model increases when it is initialised from a coarse
model. Such an increase is more evident, particularly
for ks, when the SCRM is initialised one week earlier.
The kt of PAM at the initial condition reaches
2.5·10−3 m2/s2 (Figure 8(a)), while ks is 0.19 m2/s2
(Figure 8(b)). In SM both ks and kt keep lower values
reaching 1.5·10−3 m2/s2 and 0.017 m2/s2, respectively.
Only after three days of forecast can SM achieve a kt of
about 0.02 m2/s2, closer to the PAM value.
Evaluation of the forecast cycles
Modelled SSTs are used to compute spatial SSTSSs and
RMSEs with respect to the MODIS observed values. By
examining the effects of different initialisations, a
different dependence for sub-regional results from the
driven coarse results is observed. Therefore, a short
comparison is also made with the MFS results, interpo-
lating its forecast fields over the grid references of the
SCRM at 3.5 km of horizontal resolution. The perform-
ances of the models are shown, averaging all the 2010–
2011 results (Figure 9).
The time-series shows SSTSS values that overall range
from 0.66 to 0.73 (Figure 9(a)) and RMSEs from about
0.60°C down to 0.54°C (Figure 9(b)). The SSTSS trend
of SM indicates an improvement in performance from
 JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s127

Figure 8. Spatial average time-series for the 20 April 2010 forecast of (a) total kinetic energy (kt) and (b) surface kinetic energy (ks). Note:
The PAM kinetic energy is represented by the red line with seven days of hindcast included; the SM kinetic energy is represented by the
blue line; the initial conditions are denoted by a triangle for PAM and a diamond for SM.

about 0.67 at D-cycle up to a maximum of about 0.72 at
D-2 cycle. The SSTSS of PAM ranges from 0.73 at D-
cycle, decreasing just a little, by a few units in the second
decimal place, in the other cycles.
The RMSE decreases range from 0.6°C at the D-cycle
to 0.56°C at the D-2 cycle for SM. The RMSE of the MFS,
which is about equal to the SM value at D-cycle, decreases
more slowly with respect to the SM one, meaning that
values are higher for the second decimal place going
into the third cycle. In PAM, the RMSE is about
0.54°C at D-cycle, showing a trend that is broadly con-
stant (close to 0.55°C) for each forecast cycle.
As already mentioned above, a further investigation
was carried out on the representative experiment. We
briefly recall that the 4Ie index computes the spatial
RMSE for a given experiment, including in the formula
for each cycle of the forecast. In this case, 20 April
2010 data point is used. The 4IeSM − 4IePAM difference
is shown in Figure 10. It can be observed that the
index is positive (i.e. SM is worse than PAM) in the
majority of the domain, reaching values of greater than
0.2°C almost everywhere. Large patches between 0.7°C
and 0.8°C, along the 12 deg E in longitude, are observed
north of Pantelleria Island. High values (0.6°C to 0.8°C)
are found along the Sicily-Tunisian transect, in the
southern part of the Adventure Bank and close to the
southern coast of Sicily. Another red patch is localised
in the Ionian Sea. The negative values are negligible,
reaching a minimum value of −0.2°C in very small and
sparse patches in the middle of the channel.
Discussion and conclusion
SCRM forecast experiments, carried out for the periods
January–April 2010 and January–March 2011, were
used to evaluate two kinds of initial conditions and
related forecast cycles against an independent dataset
of MODIS satellite observations. In ‘slave mode’ (SM),
the SCRM produces an initial condition based on direct
downscaling from the coarse model, MFS, to which the
SCRM is nested. In ‘partially active mode’ (PAM), the
SCRM provides the initial condition after seven days of
numerical integration using a relaxation with respect to
the operational OISST. In order to quantify the level of
agreement between the modelled and measured SSTs,
the statistical metrics of bias, RMSE and SSTSS were
used. A representative experiment defined EXP-0 was
chosen based on the quality of the initial conditions
s128 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.
Figure 9. Time-series, computed as spatial averaging for the whole dataset, for each cycle for (a) SSTSS and (b) RMSE. Note: The SCRM
results are shown by the blue solid line for SM and the red solid line for PAM; the SSTSS and RMSE provided by the MFS are also shown
by the black dashed line.
Figure 10. 2D representation of a relative RMSE Index (4IeSM −
4IePAM) between SM and PAM during three forecast cycles with
respect to a single observation at day D (20 April 2010). Note:
Time variable on the abscissa is represented by cycles.
and thoroughly investigated using surface current, kin-
etic energy and the spatial RMSE, calculated from D-3
to D-cycle (named the 4Ie Index).
The evaluation of the SSTs at the initial conditions
shows that the PAM method produces a better quality
prediction than the SM method in terms of the lower
values of spatial averaged RMSE. Half of the experiments
show improvements up to two decimal places. In four,
experiments a strong improvement is observed, from
13% up to 29%, induced by PAM. An RMSE that is
higher for PAM than for SM is provided only once,
mostly due to use of the observed temperature being
most affected by error during the procedure of relax-
ation. As the initial condition of the SCRM in SM
involves downscaling from a coarse model, its spatial
averaged RMSE, computed for the whole dataset, is
very close to that of the MFS at D-cycle. Such RMSE
values show that the SCRM in SM provides a numerical
solution improved by about 3% compared to the MFS
one at each cycle, with a maximum of 4% at the D-2
cycle. Using the SCRM in PAM, the RMSE decreases
further, improving the mean accuracy by 11% at the
initial condition and by another 4% at each cycle in com-
parison to SM. The higher accuracy of the PAM solution
is associated with a higher performance in terms of
 JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s129

Figure 11. Time-series, computed as spatial averaging for EXP-1, are presented for each cycle for (a) SSTSS and (b) RMSE. Note: The
SCRM results are shown by the blue solid line for SM, the red solid line for PAM and the red dashed line for PAM without the OISST
nudging; the SSTSS and RMSE provided by the MFS are also shown by the black dashed line.

SSTSS, reaching values higher than 8% at the initial con-
dition. At the D-2 cycle, the SSTSS values for PAM and
SM have the same mean value.
At the initial condition of EXP-0, the 4IeSM −
4IePAM 2D field shows positive values in most of the
domain, meaning that the SCRM in SM has provided
a prediction of the SSTs with less accuracy in the
space during all the cycles considered. This difference
is up to 0.8°C in many areas, known in the literature
for their high dynamism and upwelling phenomena,
areas such as Adventure Bank, the Sicily-Tunisian
transect and the stretch of the Sicily Channel close to
the southern coast of Sicily (Patti et al. 2010; Sorgente
et al. 2011). Indeed, where the surface current provided
by PAM at the initial condition is faster than with SM,
the 2D field of kinetic energy, kPAM − kSM, increases by
as much as 30%. From a comparison of the kinetic
energy spatial averaged at the initial condition, an
increase of kinetic energy level up to 8% is found at
the surface and about 40% in the whole water column,
when the model is initialised one week earlier. These
energy levels are retained even over the next three
days of forecast.
It was found that the OISST relaxation is much more
effective, as its EESD is low. Nevertheless, EXP-0 used an
OISST with the highest EESD, showing that dynamics
modeled in PAM could play a marked role in the accu-
racy of the forecast.
In order to award a weight to the relaxation and to the
dynamics in determining the model accuracy, EXP-0 was
performed in PAM as EXP-1 by turning off the process
of relaxing the OISST.
The results show that a decrease of 20% in the RMSE
at the initial condition was obtained using PAM when
compared with SM (Figure 11). The relaxation pro-
cedure adds a further improvement of 9%. Only at the
D-2 cycle is the performance of the SCRM in SM is com-
parable to that of PAM.
This work has been useful for understanding the
potential of using the same model but with different
initial conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr P. Domenici for comments
on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
s130 L. FAZIOLI ET AL.
Funding
This work was supported by the Italian Ministry for Research
(MIUR) Flagship Project RITMARE [NRP 2011-2013,
approved by the CIPE Resolution 2/2011 of 23.03.2011]; and
the MUIR Project PON TESSA [C. U. PON01–02823].
References
Astraldi M, Balopoulos S, Candela J, Font J, Gacic M,
Gasparini GP, Manca B, Theocharis A, and Tintoŕe J.
1999. The role of straits and channels in understanding
the characteristics of Mediterranean circulation. Prog.
Oceanogr. 44:65–108.
Astraldi M, Gasparini GP, Vetrano A, and Vignudelli S. 2002.
Hydrographic characteristics and interannual variability of
water masses in the central Mediterranean: a sensitivity
test for long-term changes in the Mediterranean Sea.
Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I. 49:661–680.
Auclair F, Casitas S, and Marsaleix P. 2000. Application of an
inverse method to coastal modeling. J. Atmos. Ocean
Technol. 17:1368–1391.
Blumberg AF and Mellor GL. 1987. A description of a three-
dimensional coastal ocean circulation model. In: N.
Heaps, editor. Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models.
Washington DC: American Geophysical Union; p. 1–16.
Ciappa AC. 2009. Surface circulation pattern in the Sicily
channel and Ionian Sea as revealed by MODIS chlorophyll
images from 2003 to 2007. Cont. Shelf Res. 29(17):2099–
2109.
Coppini G, De Dominicis M, Zodiatis G, Lardner R, Pinardi N,
Santoleri R, Colella S, Bignami F, Hayec DR, Soloviev D,
et al. 2011. Hindcast of oil-spill pollution during the
Lebanon crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean, July–August
2006. Marin Poll. Bull. 62:140–153. doi:10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2010.08.021.
De Dominicis M, Pinardi N, Zodiatis G, Archetti R. 2013.
MEDSLIK-II, a Lagrangian marine surface oil spill model
for short-term forecasting – part 2: numerical simulations
and validations. Geosci. Model Dev. 6:1871–1888. doi:10.
5194/gmd-6-1871-2013.
Gabersek S, Sorgente R, Natale S, Ribotti A, Olita A, Astraldi
M, Borghini M. 2007. The Sicily channel regional model
forecasting system: initial boundary conditions sensitivity
and case study evaluation. Ocean Sci. 3:31–41. doi:10.
5194/os-331-2007.
Hellerman S, and Rosenstein M. 1983. Normal monthly wind
stress over the world ocean with error estimates. J. Phys.
Oceanogr. 13:1093–1104.
Lorenz EN. 1965. A study of predictability of a 28-variable
atmospheric model. Tellus. 17:321–333. doi:10.1111/j.
2153-3490.1965.tb01424.x.
Kallos G, Nickovic S, Papadopoulos A, Jovic D, Kakaliagou O,
Misirlis N, Boukas L, Mimikou NGSJP, Anadranistakis E,
Manousakis M. 1997. The regional weather forecasting sys-
tem Skiron: an overview. In: Proceedings of the Symposium
on Regional Weather Prediction on Parallel Computer
Environments, 109–122, Athens, Greece.
Kallos G, Pitharoulis I, Katsafados P. 2005. Limited area
weather forecasting for the mfstep activities: sensitivity
and performance analysis. In: 4th EuroGOOS, Brest,
France.
Manzella GMR, Hopkins TS, Minnet PJ, Nancini E. 1990.
Atlantic water in the strait of Sicily. J. Geophys. Res. 95
(C7):1569–1575.
Mellor GL, Yamada T. 1982. Development of a turbulent clo-
sure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev. Geophys.
Space Phys. 20:851–875.
Murphy AH. 1993. What is a good forecast? an essay on the
nature of goodness in weather forecasting. Wea.
Forecasting. 8:281–293. doi:10.1175/1520-0434.
Oddo P, Pinardi N. 2008. Lateral open boundary conditions
for nested limited area models: a scale selective approach.
Ocean Modelling. 20(2008):134–156.
Patti B Bonanno A, Basilone G, Cuttitta A, Mazzola S. 2010.
Role of physical forcing and nutrient availability on the con-
trol of satellite-based chlorophyll a concentration in the
coastal upwelling area of the Sicilian channel. Scientia
Marina. 74(3):577–588.
Pinardi N, Allen I, Demirov E, De Mey P, Korres G, Lascaratos
A, Le Traon P.-Y, Maillard C, Manzella G, and Tziavos C.
2003. The Mediterranean ocean forecasting system: first
phase of implementation (1998–2001). Ann. Geophys.
21:3–20. doi:10.5194/angeo-21-3-2003.
Pinardi N, Coppini G. 2010. Preface “operational oceanogra-
phy in the Mediterranean Sea: the second stage of develop-
ment”. Ocean Sci. 6:263–267.
Poulain PM, Zambianchi E. 2007. Surface circulation in the
central Mediterranean Sea as deduced from Lagrangian drif-
ters in the 1990s. Cont. Shelf Res. 27:981–1001.
Santoleri R, Volpe G, Marullo S, Buongiorno Nardelli B. 2008.
Open waters optical remote sensing of the Mediterranean
Sea. Remote Sens. of the Med. Sea. 103–116. doi:10.1007/
978-1-4020-6772-3_8.
Smagorinsky J. 1993. Some historical remarks on the use of
nonlinear viscosities. In: Galperin B, Orszag S, editor.
Large eddy simulations of complex engineering and geo-
physical flows. Cambridge: Cambrige Univ. Press; p. 1–34.
Sorgente R, Drago AF, Ribotti A. 2003. Seasonal variability in
the central Mediterranean Seacirculation. Ann. Geophys.
21:299–322. doi:10.5194/angeo-21-299-2003.
Sorgente R, Olita A, Oddo P, Fazioli L, Ribotti A. 2011. Numerical
simulation and decomposition of kinetic energy in the central
Mediterranean: insigh on mesoscale circulation and energy
conversion. Ocean Sci. 7:503–519. doi:10.5194/os-7-503-2011.
Tonani M, Pinardi N, Dobricic S, Pujol I, Fratianni C. 2008. A
high-resolution free-surface model of the Mediterranean
Sea. Ocean Sci. 4:1–14. doi:10.5194/os-4-1-2008.
Zodiatis G, Lardner R Hayes D, Soloviev D, Georgiou G. 2007.
The successful application of the Mediterranean oil spill
model in assisting the decision makers during the oil spill
pollution crisis of Lebanon in summer 2006. Rapp.
Comm. Int. Mer. Medit. 38:214.