
Citation: | Feng Nan, Zhuolin Li, Jie Yu, Suixiang Shi, Xinrong Wu, Lingyu Xu. Prediction of three-dimensional ocean temperature in the South China Sea based on time series gridded data and a dynamic spatiotemporal graph neural network[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2024, 43(7): 26-39. doi: 10.1007/s13131-023-2252-0 |
On 21 April 2021 local time (20 April UTC), the Indonesian Navy submarine (KRI Nanggala-402) sank near the Lombok Strait, ~100 km north of the Bali Island (see magenta star in Fig. 1a), with 53 crew members dead. On the basis of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite images (Jackson, 2007), NASA demonstrated that powerful “underwater waves” happened in the treacherous region and likely hit the vessel resulting in its disappearance (
There are three conditions generating oceanic ISWs, namely the oscillatory surface (i.e., barotropic) tides, the abrupt topography (e.g., underwater sill and slope), and the stratified water. The Lombok Strait was well-known for all three (Murray and Arief, 1988; Mitnik et al., 2000; Ningsih et al., 2010; Purwandana et al., 2021), so whether the ISWs were the culprit causing the shipwreck in the Lombok Strait was of particular interest. To address this problem, we need to understand the physical dynamics and spatial characteristics of ISWs. Here two approaches were used to investigate ISWs in the Lombok Strait: first using the satellite image to present the spatial variability of ISWs, second numerically reproducing the ISW dynamics on the day of the accident.
Convergence/divergence of the currents induced by ISWs on the ocean surface contributed to strong modulations of sea surface roughness, thereby resulting in distinctive features in the optical true-color images (e.g., Susanto et al., 2005). A snapshot on 25 April 2005 (Fig. 1b) depicted that the Lombok Strait generated ISWs radiated both northward and southward. Three stages of northward-going ISWs were captured in the satellite image (Fig. 1b), namely the generation, propagation and shoaling processes. The ISW was presented as an isolated wave with a short crest length on the stage 1, but converted to a wave packet with a long crest length on the stage 2. Eventually on the stage 3, the wave packet approached the wreckage site and reached the shallow region near the Kangean Island (Fig. 1b).
Based on ~7 000 MODIS images over the past 20 years from 2002 to 2021, we identified wave occurrences in April and estimated wave amplitudes by a theoretical method (KdV theory, Ostrovsky and Stepanyants, 1989).
$$ \frac{\partial \eta }{\partial t}+\left({c}_{0}+\alpha \eta \right)\frac{\partial \eta }{\partial x}+\beta \frac{{\partial }^{3}\eta }{\partial {x}^{3}}=0, $$ | (1) |
where the parameters
$$ D=\pm 1.32l=\pm 1.32{\left(\frac{12\beta }{\alpha {\eta }_{0}}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}, $$ | (2) |
where
Regardless of northward- or southward-going ISWs, ISWs were commonly appearing in April (i.e., the month of submarine sinking event), which provided the evidences that ISWs could be the culprit to the shipwreck in April 2021. In terms of northward-going ISWs, the KdV theory was applied to extract wave amplitudes on different stages (Fig. 1a) based on the distance between the bright and dark stripes in the MODIS images. Overall, ISWs had the largest amplitude of ~70 m shortly after generating over the sill (Stage 1), then decreased from ~50 m in the deep water (Stage 2) to ~35 m at the wreckage site (Stage 3).
In comparison with satellite observations, numerical simulations are a more effective approach to characterize the ISW structures in the ocean interior and reproduce wave dynamics in the Lombok Strait (Aiki et al., 2011). Hence, we implemented a three-dimensional primitive equation ocean solver (MIT general circulation model, MITgcm) in the nonhydrostatic mode with realistic conditions during a spring tidal period from 00:00 UTC 17 April 2021 to 00:00 UTC 22 April 2021. Cable News Network (CNN) reported that the submarine started diving at 03:00 on 21 April local time (20:00 UTC 20 April) but lost contact at 04:25 on 21 April local time (21:25 UTC 20 April), so we mainly focused on 20 April (UTC) 2021 (Fig. 2). Model configurations were presented as follows.
Model bathymetry data was derived from the ETOPO1 global dataset (Amante and Eakins, 2009). To ensure these waves were physically derived rather than products of numerical dispersion (Vitousek and Fringer, 2011), a resolution condition (
Parameter | Notation | Value |
Horizontal cell size | $ \Delta x $ | 100 m |
Vertical cell size | $ \Delta z $ | 10–100 m |
Maximum water depth | $ {H}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}} $ | 4 400 m |
Time step | $ \Delta t $ | 5 s |
Starting model time | $ {T}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}} $ | 00:00 UTC 17 April 2021 |
Predicting time | $ {T}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}} $ | 5 d |
Horizontal eddy viscosity coefficient | $ {A}_{{\rm{h}}} $ | 10–1 m2/s |
Vertical eddy viscosity coefficient | $ {A}_{{\rm{v}}} $ | 10–3 m2/s |
Horizontal diffusivity coefficient | $ {K}_{{\rm{h}}} $ | 10–1 m2/s |
Vertical diffusivity coefficient | $ {K}_{{\rm{v}}} $ | 10–3 m2/s |
Bottom stress | $ {C}_{{\rm{d}}} $ | 2.5×10–3 |
Analogous to the stripe brightness in the satellite images, numerically-predicted surface height gradients can measure the surface roughness induced by ISWs. A model snapshot was selected at 01:00 UTC on 20 April (Fig. 1c). Three stages of northward-going ISWs were clearly identified, as well as a southward-going ISW packet, whose locations were reasonably consistent with those in the satellite image (Fig. 1b). To a certain extent, it verified the model accuracy. Moreover, a transect (red dashed line in Fig. 1c) along the wave propagation directions was selected to demonstrate the vertical structures of ISWs from generation in the Lombok Strait to the shoaling process at the wreckage site (Figs 2 and 3).
The model results demonstrated that ISWs, generated from the Lombok Strait, presented different characteristics on three stages, i.e., with the amplitude of 90 m, 50 m and 40 m on the generation, propagation and shoaling processes (Figs 2b, d and f). Maximum ISW amplitudes mainly occurred at the water depth between 150 m to 400 m, covering the submarine’s collapse depth of ~200 m, thereby dragging it down to a more dangerous depth. At 21:30 UTC on 20 April 2021, an ISW packet with a leading wave amplitude of 40 m was shoaling and passing the shipwreck site (Fig. 2f). This time is in coincidence with the reported missing time. The ISW packet had a long characteristic width of approximately 50 km and remained fluctuations for over 10 h. Even though the following waves have relatively small amplitudes of 10−30 m, the continuous wave motions are likely to have a sustained impact on the submarine (Fig. 3). It is noteworthy that the future submarine motion should be more careful when passing the Lombok Strait (Stage 1), where the local ISWs might have a reasonably large amplitude of 90 m (Fig. 2b) in the ocean interior. In future, when submarines sail across the Lombok Strait, the voyage depths would be better in the upper 150 m, where the ISW amplitudes are relatively small, so the ISW is unable to drag the vessel down to a dangerous depth.
In summary, intense ISW events in the Lombok Strait have remarkable vertical displacements within a few minutes, thereby significantly affecting the underwater navigation and action of submarine. This numerical study concludes an ISW packet with a maximum amplitude of 40 m at the wreckage site on 20 April (UTC) 2021, which is likely the culprit to the sunk KRI Nanggala-402 submarine. Although satellite observations and numerical modelling have illustrated the crucial role of ISWs in the ocean interior, in situ observations of ISWs are needed to tell a more complete story in the future.
We acknowledge the use of MODIS-Aqua imagery from the NASA Worldview application (
Aparna S G, D’souza S, Arjun N B. 2018. Prediction of daily sea surface temperature using artificial neural networks. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 39(12): 4214–4231, doi: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1454623
|
Barnston A G, Tippett M K, Ranganathan M, et al. 2019. Deterministic skill of ENSO predictions from the North American Multimodel Ensemble. Climate Dynamics, 53(12): 7215–7234, doi: 10.1007/s00382-017-3603-3
|
Collins D C, Reason C J C, Tangang F. 2004. Predictability of Indian Ocean sea surface temperature using canonical correlation analysis. Climate Dynamics, 22(5): 481–497, doi: 10.1007/s00382-004-0390-4
|
Dong Yihe, Cordonnier J B, Loukas A. 2021. Attention is not all you need: Pure attention loses rank doubly exponentially with depth. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2793–2803
|
Gao Ziheng, Li Zhuolin, Yu Jie, et al. 2023. Global spatiotemporal graph attention network for sea surface temperature prediction. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 20: 1500905
|
Garcia-Gorriz E, Garcia-Sanchez J. 2007. Prediction of sea surface temperatures in the western Mediterranean Sea by neural networks using satellite observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(11): L11603
|
Glorot X, Bordes A, Bengio Y. 2011. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. Fort Lauderdale, 315–323
|
Guo Shengnan, Lin Youfang, Feng Ning, et al. 2019. Attention based spatial-temporal graph convolutional networks for traffic flow forecasting. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Ninth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Honolulu: AAAI Press, 922–929
|
He Kaiming, Zhang Xiangyu, Ren Shaoqing, et al. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas: IEEE, 770–778
|
Kipf T N, Welling M. 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1609.02907
|
Krishnamurti T N, Chakraborty A, Krishnamurti R, et al. 2006. Seasonal prediction of sea surface temperature anomalies using a suite of 13 coupled atmosphere-ocean models. Journal of Climate, 19(23): 6069–6088, doi: 10.1175/JCLI3938.1
|
Laepple T, Jewson S. 2007. Five year ahead prediction of Sea Surface Temperature in the Tropical Atlantic: a comparison between IPCC climate models and simple statistical methods. arXiv preprint physics/0701165, 补充网址[YYYY-MM-DD/ YYYY-MM-DD]
|
Li Yaguang, Yu R, Shahabi C, et al. 2017. Diffusion convolutional recurrent neural network: Data-driven traffic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1707.01926, 补充网址[YYYY-MM-DD/ YYYY-MM-DD]
|
Li Zhuolin, Yu Jie, Zhang Xiaolin, et al. 2022. A multi-hierarchical attention-based prediction method on time series with spatio-temporal context among variables. Physica A:Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 602: 127664, doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.127664
|
Lins I D, Araujo M, das Chagas Moura M, et al. 2013. Prediction of sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic by support vector machines. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 61: 187–198
|
Liu Meng, Gao Hongyang, Ji Shuiwang. 2020. Towards deeper graph neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. USA: ACM, 338–348
|
Luo Jingjia, Masson S, Behera S, et al. 2005. Seasonal climate predictability in a coupled OAGCM using a different approach for ensemble forecasts. Journal of Climate, 18(21): 4474–4497, doi: 10.1175/JCLI3526.1
|
Mendoza V M, Villanueva E E, Adem J. 1997. Numerical experiments on the prediction of sea surface temperature anomalies in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of marine systems, 13(1−4): 83–99, doi: 10.1016/S0924-7963(96)00120-0
|
Neelin J D. 1990. A hybrid coupled general circulation model for El Niño studies. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 47(5): 674–693, doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047<0674:AHCGCM>2.0.CO;2
|
Patil K, Deo M C, Ghosh S, et al. 2013. Predicting sea surface temperatures in the North Indian Ocean with nonlinear autoregressive neural networks. International Journal of Oceanography, 2013: 302479
|
Patil K, Deo M C, Ravichandran M. 2016. Prediction of sea surface temperature by combining numerical and neural techniques. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 33(8): 1715–1726, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0213.1
|
Shi Lei, Zhang Yofan, Cheng Jian, et al. 2019. Two-stream adaptive graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Long Beach: IEEE, 12026–12035
|
Solanki H U, Bhatpuria D, Chauhan P. 2015. Signature analysis of satellite derived SSHa, SST and chlorophyll concentration and their linkage with marine fishery resources. Journal of Marine Systems, 150: 12–21, doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2015.05.004
|
Stockdale T N, Balmaseda M A, Vidard A. 2006. Tropical Atlantic SST prediction with coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Journal of Climate, 19(23): 6047–6061, doi: 10.1175/JCLI3947.1
|
Sumner M D, Michael K J, Bradshaw C J A, et al. 2003. Remote sensing of Southern Ocean sea surface temperature: Implications for marine biophysical models. Remote Sensing of Environment, 84(2): 161–173, doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00103-7
|
Sun Yongjiao, Yao Xin, Bi Xin, et al. 2021. Time-series graph network for sea surface temperature prediction. Big Data Research, 25: 100237, doi: 10.1016/j.bdr.2021.100237
|
Sun Weifu, Zhang Jie, Meng Junmin, et al. 2019. Sea surface temperature characteristics and trends in China offshore seas from 1982 to 2017. Journal of Coastal Research, 90(SI): 27–34
|
Szegedy C, Liu Wei, Jia Yangqing, et al. 2015. Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Boston: IEEE, 1–9
|
Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. 2017. Attention is all you need. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc
|
Wang Tingting, Li Zhuolin, Geng Xiulin, et al. 2022. Time series prediction of sea surface temperature based on an adaptive graph learning neural model. Future Internet, 14(6): 171, doi: 10.3390/fi14060171
|
Wentz F J, Gentemann C, Smith D, et al. 2000. Satellite measurements of sea surface temperature through clouds. Science, 288(5467): 847–850, doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.847
|
Wu Zonghan, Pan Shirui, Long Guodong, et al. 2020. Connecting the dots: Multivariate time series forecasting with graph neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. USA: ACM, 753–763
|
Xiao Changjiang, Chen Nengcheng, Hu Chuli, et al. 2019. A spatiotemporal deep learning model for sea surface temperature field prediction using time-series satellite data. Environmental Modelling & Software, 120: 104502
|
Xiao Lin, Shi Jian, Jiang Guorong, et al. 2018. The influence of ocean waves on sea surface current field and sea surface temperature under the typhoon background. Marine Science Bulletin (in Chinese), 37(4): 396–403
|
Xie J, Zhang J Y, Yu J, et al. 2020. An adaptive scale sea surface temperature predicting method based on deep learning with attention mechanism. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 17(5): 740–744, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2019.2931728
|
Xiong Ruibin, Yang Yunchang, He Di, et al. 2020. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning. JMLR. org, 10524–10533
|
Xue Yan, Leetmaa A. 2000. Forecasts of tropical Pacific SST and sea level using a Markov model. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(17): 2701–2704, doi: 10.1029/1999GL011107
|
Yang Yuting, Dong Junyu, Sun Xin, et al. 2018. A CFCC-LSTM model for sea surface temperature prediction. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 15(2): 207–211, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2780843
|
Yu F, Koltun V. 2016. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1511.07122补充网址[YYYY-MM-DD/ YYYY-MM-DD]
|
Zhang Kun, Geng Xupu, Yan Xiaohai. 2020a. Prediction of 3-D ocean temperature by multilayer convolutional LSTM. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 17(8): 1303–1307, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2019.2947170
|
Zhang Xiaoyu, Li Yongqing, Frery A C, et al. 2022. Sea surface temperature prediction with memory graph convolutional networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19: 8017105
|
Zhang Zhen, Pan Xinliang, Jiang Tao, et al. 2020b. Monthly and quarterly sea surface temperature prediction based on gated recurrent unit neural network. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(4): 249, doi: 10.3390/jmse8040249
|
Zhang Qin, Wang Hui, Dong Junyu, et al. 2017. Prediction of sea surface temperature using long short-term memory. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(10): 1745–1749, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2733548
|
Zuo Xinyi, Zhou Xiaofeng, Guo Daquan, et al. 2022. Ocean temperature prediction based on stereo spatial and temporal 4-D convolution model. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19: 1003405
|
Parameter | Notation | Value |
Horizontal cell size | $ \Delta x $ | 100 m |
Vertical cell size | $ \Delta z $ | 10–100 m |
Maximum water depth | $ {H}_{\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}} $ | 4 400 m |
Time step | $ \Delta t $ | 5 s |
Starting model time | $ {T}_{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{t}} $ | 00:00 UTC 17 April 2021 |
Predicting time | $ {T}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}} $ | 5 d |
Horizontal eddy viscosity coefficient | $ {A}_{{\rm{h}}} $ | 10–1 m2/s |
Vertical eddy viscosity coefficient | $ {A}_{{\rm{v}}} $ | 10–3 m2/s |
Horizontal diffusivity coefficient | $ {K}_{{\rm{h}}} $ | 10–1 m2/s |
Vertical diffusivity coefficient | $ {K}_{{\rm{v}}} $ | 10–3 m2/s |
Bottom stress | $ {C}_{{\rm{d}}} $ | 2.5×10–3 |