C.H.1983/D:2Statistics Committee
Time Series Models of Mean Monthly Temperatureon the AtlanticContinental Shelf
Trina A. 1I0smerUniversity Computing CenterUniversity of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
ABSTRACT
Box-Jenkins Time Series techniquesautoregressive, integrated, moving averagewater temperature data collected for theContinental Shelf, (Cape Hatteras, NC, to1950 through 1980 by lunar month.
are used to fit seasonal(ARIMA) time series models toNortheastern United States
Cape Sable, NS) for the years
,Ce
For geographical as well as oceanographical reasons the area issubdivided into six major areas: Nova Scotia, Gulf of Maine East, Gulfof MaineWest, Georges Bank, Middle Atlantic, and Gulf Stream. Eachmajor area is further split into a shallow area (water depth less the150 meters) and a deep area (water depth greater than 150 meters). Foreach of the twelve regions, ARIMA models are developed. The processused to develop the ARIMA models as well as the parameter estimates,residual mean-squares and Q-statistics are given. Tho performance ofthe fitted models is displayed by plotting the observed and forecastcdtemperature over time.
ARIMA models are developed primarily for forecasting purposes. Inthis paper we are more interested in comparing the form and content ofthe various time series models in order to better und erstand the oceandynamics. . For example, we find one basic ARIMA model that fi ts all theseries but with variations on the necessary lag time parameters. ThiiJvariation supports existing hypotheses about theunderstanding of watermovement in the particular areas.
C.M.1983/D:2Statistics Committee
This paper not to be cited without prior reference to the author
Time Series Models of Mean Monthly Temperatureon the Atlantic Continental Shelf
by
Trina HosmerUniversity Computing CenterUniversity of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
C.M.1983/D:2Statistics 'Committee
Des Mod~les type Serie Chronologique de la' TemperatureMensuelle Moyenne sur la eSte Continentale Atlantique.
RESUME
Les techniques de s~rie chronologique Box-Jenkins sont utilisees pourajuster un modele ARI~~ aux temperatures d'eau enregistrees sur la cStecontinentale du nord-est des Etats-Unis (Cape Hatteras, NC, to Cape Sable,NS) par mois lunaire durant les annees de 1950 ~ 1980.
!'()lll- t!l'H COIll-d t!~ rati um, allHH.i Id eil l'.~ograp" i <tUCH qll' oecmli qlleH, LI
rcgion üst suht!ivisee en six: La Nouvelle Ecosse, liest du golfe du Maine,l'ouest dll Rolfe du Maine, Ceorge Rank, 1e Moyen Atlnntique ct 1e Culf St~cam.
Cllaque sub region Cl:>t U l:>on tour t!ivil:>ce en zonc a bas-font! (pro[ont!eurd'eau de moins de 150 metres) et en zone profonde (profondeur d'eau de plusde 150 metres). Pour chacune des douze subregions des mod~les ARIMA ont etedeveloppes. Le procede utilise pour developper les modelcs ARIMA de m~meque les estimations des paramitres, la moyenne des carres des residuels etles Q statistiques sont donnes. La performance de l'ajustement des modelesest presentee en tra~ant les graphiques des temperatures observees et projeteessur une echelle de temps.
•
Des modeles ARlMA sont developpes generalement pour permettre des previsions. Dans cet article nous sommes plus interesses a comparer 1a formeet 1e contenu des differents modeles de serie chronologique afin de mieuxcomprendre la dynamique des oceans. Nous avons trouve par exemple UI1 modlUeA~lMAde base qui s'ajuste a toutes les series etudiees mais avec des variations quant aUK param~tres de decalage dans le temps. Cette variation supportedes hypotheses existantes sur 1a connaissance du mouvement d'eau dans ces ~sub regions particulieres.
•
•
1. Introduction
Since the early 1900's, data items such as temperature, salinity,
phytoplankton and fi sh population have been collected from the waters of the
Northeastern Continental Shelf by the scientific cruises of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and its predessors. Bigelow(1927,1933) and Bigelow
nnd Scars(1935) were the first to fully discuss the oceanographic features
of temperature and salinity by month and season for this region. More
recently. atlases of long ter'm temperature means were drawn by Wal ford and
Wickland(1968), Golton and Stoddard(l972). Erneryand Uchupi (1972) have
drawn similar charts for surface salinity. Pawlowski and Wright(1978) have
prepared charts for Spring and Fall sea-surface temperature and salinity for
the years 1972-1977. From a statistical point of view these studies have
done little more than present the observed data in an organized fashion. No
attempt h3S been made to fit statistical models to the data. This paper
presents an approach to the time series statistical models to analyze the
water ternperature data. The advantage of this approach is that it allows an
extensive and complex set' of data to be characterized by a few parameters
without losing the essential oceanographic information in the data. These
models can be used to better understand the ocean dynamies. They can also
be used to compare and contrast various areas, determine short and long tenn
trends wi thin and between areas and forecast future observations.
The data have been collected over time and the Box and Jenkins time
series methods are used to develop statistical models. Section Ir describes
2
how the 11 time series analyzed in this paper were formed. In Section !II,
we give a techl'1ical description of the Box and Jenkins teehnique. This
seetion eontains the teehnical details of model formulation and readers not
farniliar with the Box and Jenkins methods may want to skip to Seetion IV.
Seetion IV contains a discussion of the fitted models and the conclusions
are given in Section V.
H. Data Description
The ri<lta analyzed in this paper are the largest collection of water
temperature recordings from the Northeastern U.S. Continental She1f (west
of lJt1gitllde 60 degrees Wand north of 30 degrees 20 minutes N), to be
amassed and ana1yzed in one study. It eonsists of over one million water
•
ternperature recordings colleoted by the National Marine Fisheries
Service(NMFS) cruise ships and other sources beginning in 1908. Using a
bathythermograph, water temperatures were reeorded for 13 standard dp.pths:
0, 10,20,30,40,50,75,100,125,150,200,250,300 and 400 meters for over 200,000
~tations or loeations. Since the rnajority of data was colleeted post Wor1d
W:'lr II and time series anal ysi s requires comp1ete data throughout the year,
we chose to use only the data collected from 1950 through 1980.
From these data we created 11 series which consists of 13 month1y ~ean
water temperatures for each of the 31 years (1950-1980). For geographie as
weU as oceanographie reasons, th~ series were determined by dividing the
•
Northeastern U.S. Continental Shelf into six major areas: Nova
•
3
Seotia(NSOT), Georges Bank(GBNK), Gulf of Maine East(GME), Gulf of Maine
Hest (GMW) , Middle Atlantie(MATL), and Gulf' Stream(GSTR). Refer to Figure 1
for exaet lati tude and longitude loeation of eaeh of the six major areas.
Eaeh major area was further divided into a shallow area (water depth less
than 150 meters) and a deep area (water depth greater than 150 meters); thus
rcsultinU in 12 series. fuwever, due to the faet that in the Gulf Stream
area there is so little water wi th depth less than 150 meters, the Gulf
Stream Shallow series was dropped from the analyses •
The 13 lunar months were determined by dividing the ealendar year into
28 day periods, with the exeeption of the last Month which eontains 29 days
and on leap ycar 30 day~. The monthly means for each year were then
computed by averaging a11 the temperature reeordings within that month for
that year for depths 0,10,20,30,40,50, 15,100,125 and 150 meters for a given
area. \~e have 31 years each with 13 months per year yielding a total of 403
data points per series.
One requirement for the time series techniques used in this paper is
• that the series be complete with no rnissing data. However, none of tha 11
series met this criteria for numerous reasons: bad weather, mechanical
failures,reducert nurn')er of cruises during the Christmas Holidays, or lirnit8d
budget. Each series has at most 10% missing with the exception of Gulf
Maine East, Gulf Maine West Shallow and Deep which have approximately 15%
missing. Before the full analysis W3S performed a forecasting technique was
used to replace each missing value with apredicted value to cornplete each
series. The longest stretch of contiguous years wi th no missing data was
4
used from each series to fit a model. Values were then forecasted using the
fitted model for the missing data points. The effect of using a time series
model to forecast missing val ues will be to bias the analysi s in favor of
the model. However, for most series less than 10% of the data were missing
so this effect should be negligible.
ur. Time Series Methods
The time series methods of Box and Jenkins were used to fit seasonal
autoregressive, integrated, moving average(ARIMA) models to the 11 water
temperature series. The general form for a p-th order autoregressive , d-th
order iritegrated, q-th order moving average and seasonal P-th order
autoregressive, D-th order integrated, Q-th order moving average model with
s observations per season, also referred to as a (p,d,q)x(P,D,Q) ARIMA
model is
•
where
and
r (BsP ) S 2s sPP l-rlB -r2B - ••• -rpB
8 (B) 2 PP
1-8I B-82B - .•• -8pB
A (BsQ) s 2s sQQ I-AlB -A2B - ... -AQB
ep (B) 2 qq l-epIB-ep2B - •.• -epqB
d DV Yt Yt-Yt - d Vs Yt Yt-Ytt- SD
BYt Yt - l Bm= Yt - mYt
monthly water temperature
2zero mean white noise with variance 0 a
5
° The identification and selection of the appropriate time series models
for each of the 11 series was accomplished following the methods of Box and
Jenkins (1970, Chapters 6,9). The generation of the autocorrelations,
parOtial-autocorrelations and parameter estimates was performed by the
BMDP2T(1981) computer program.
Box and Jenkins technique for determing the appropriate time series
•model is a three step procedure: (1) identification- use of the data and any
information on how the series was formed to suggest an appropriate model,
(2) estimation of the parameters using a non-linear least squares algorithm.
(3) diagnostic checking- examination of the fitted model in its relation to
The first step in identification is to determine if the data is
the data to determine model inadequacies and how to improve the fit.
autocorrelations Which have been computed from the data for lags of
we ex amine thestationari ty,forcheckTo
the data displays an affinity to a mean value).
If the data is stationary the computed autocorrelations should
(i .e.
technique.
1.2••••• K•
stationary
Stationarity is a necessary property in order to perform the Box and Jenkins
modeling
• die out gradually as the lags increase. If the data is not stationary, by
differencing the data an dappropriate number of times (V =y - Y )d we cant t-
achieve stationarity. If the data is seasonal, like the water temperature
data. then we will have to consider a seasonal di fferencing (VD= y -y ) ast t-D
weIl. Table I gives the typical sampie autocorrelations for the water
temperature series (y ) for (1) no differencing (y =y ) (2)differenced witht t t
respect to lunar month only (Vd=~ ;y =y ) (3)differenced with respect tot t t-l
6
year only (VD=~ ;y =y ) (4)differenced with respect to lunar month andt t t-l3
year . (vd=lvD=ly ;y =y +y -y ). From Table I, we can see thet t t-l t-l3 t-l4
autocorrelations for Yt are large and fail to die out. With the simple
difference (Vd=l), the autocorrelations die out butthere remains a high
autocorrelation at seasonal lags. With the simple differencing with respect
~l .to seasonality (V), the autocorrelations are first persistently positive
and then persistently negative. By contrast the differencing with respect
d=l D=lto month and year (V V ) reduces the autocorrelations throughout. Since
this pattern was typical with all the series, they were all differenced
mcnthly as weIl as yearly to obtain stationarity.
Once the appropriate differencing has been decided, then we examine the
autocerrelations and partial-autocorrelations to indicate the possible
chocies of order for p,P,q,Q for autoregressive, seasonal autoregressive and
•
mcving average, seasonal moving average operators. In general, for a
nonseasonal model, if the autocorrelations tail off to zero after lag p and
the partial-autocorrelations. truncate after lag p, then we have an
truncate after lag q and the partial-autocorrelations tail off after lag q,
autoregressive model of order p. Conversely, if' the autocorrelations
•then we have a moving average model of order q. If both autocorrelations
and partial-autocorrelations tail off, then we have a mixed process. The
autocorrelation and partial-autocorrelation structure for seasonal models is
ccmpletely analagous to that of ncnseasonal models except we only examine
lags S,25 and so forth. That is, if the autocorrelations appear to truncate
after lag s or 2s and the partial- autocorrelations at seasonal lags s,2s,
and 3s appear to tail off towards zero, then a seasonal moving average
operator of order 1 or 2 should be included in the model.
TABtE I
Autccorrelations for No Di fferencing. Monthly. Seasonaland both Monthly and Seasonal
AUTOCORRELATIONS Vd=O VD=O
1- 12 .56 .37 .15 -.12 -.30 -.43 -.45 -.35 -.18 .04 .28 .42ST. E. ~05 .06 .07 .07 .07 .07 .08 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09
13- 24 .50 .45 .26 .06 -.16 -.36 -.46 -.43 -.33 -.16 .04 .26ST. E. .10 .10 • 11 • 11 • 11 • 11 • 11 .12 .12 .12 .12 .12
25- 36 .43 .46 .41 .27 -.02 -.21 -.38 -.48 -.48 -.38 -.19 .03ST.E. .12 .13 .13 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .15 .15 .15
• AUTOCORRELATIONS vd=1 vo=O .
7
1- 12ST.E.
13- 24ST.E.
25- 36ST.E.
-.29 .03 .06 -.11 -.04 -.14 -.13 -.09 -.05 -.02 .11 .07.05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
.15 .14 .03 .01 -.01 -.13 -.14 -.09 -.07 -.04 -.02 -.06
.06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
.16 .08 .10 .17 -.11 -.03 -.08 -.10 -.12 -.09 -.04 -.01
.06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .07 .07 .07 .07
AUTOCORRELATIONS f=O iJ=1
1- 12ST. E.
13- 24ST.E.
25- 36ST. E.
.22 .18 .19 .08 .14 .05 -.04 -.08 -.07 -.10 -.06 -.13
.05 .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 ~06 .06 .06
-.45 -.06 -.11 -.02 .03 -.06 .01 .09 .08 .05 .02 -.04.06 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07
.03 -.09 -.10 -.02 -.19 -.12 -.06 -.10 -.10 -.12 -.12 -.04
.07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07
AUTOCORRELATIONS Vd= 1 VD= 1
1- 12 -.47 -.04 .08 -.10 .09 0.0 -.03 -.03 .03 -.05 .07 .17ST.E. .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
13- 24ST.E.
25- 36ST. E.
-.46 .28 -.09 .03 .08 -.09 -.01 .06 .01 .01 .01 -.08.06 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08
.12 -.07 -.05 .15 -.14 -.01 .07 -.03 .02 -.02 -.05 .02
.08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08
J
8
Again examining the autocorrelations in Table I which have been
differenced both monthly and year1y, spikes ceeur at lags 1,13 and the on1y
nonzero autocorrelations are at lags 1,12,13,14. Also the autocorrelations
truncate at lags 13 and 26. The corresponding partial-autocorrelaticns
given in Table II, generally tail off at lags 1,2,3,4 and at lags 13,26.
This suggests a moving average model of order q=1,Q=1 or (0,1,1)x(0,1,n •
Since these autocorrelations are typical of most of the water temperature
series, a moving average of order q=1,Q=1 was first fit to the series. Then
depending on the results of diagnostic checking (to be explained next} ,
various parameters may have been added to improve the fit.
TAsLE Ir
Partial Autocorrelaticn for both Monthly and Seasonal Di fferencing
•
PARTIAL AUTOCORRELATIONS vd=1 ~=1
1- 12 -.41 -.34 -.15 -.20 -.01ST.E. .05 .05 .05 .05 .05
-.01.05
0.0 -.01 -.04 -.11 -.03.05 .05 .05 .05 .05
.21
.05
13- 24 -.30 -. 14 -.23 -. 11 -.01 -.03 -.10 -.04 -.01 .03 .02 -.03ST.E. .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05
25- 36 .30 -.11 -.09 -.04 -.01 -.11 -.04 -.08 .01 .02 -.03 -.05ST. E. .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05
9·
The third step, diagnostic checking, and ways to improve the fit, are
performed by examining (1) whether the parameter estimates are significantly
different trom zero (2)the residual mean square error trom the fitted model
(3)the autocorrelations of the residuals (4)portmanteau lack of fit test and
(5)parsimony. The parameter estimates are considered to be significantly
different from zero if
z = estimated parameter < 1.96
•s.e. of parameter
If z is greater than 1.96, then this is an indication that the corresponding
term should be included in the model. However if a z ratio trom a parameter
estimate is less than 1.96, then one.may consider dropping that term from
the. model. The residual mean square error should be as low as possible.
The autocorrelations of the residuals should become close to a white noise
process. All residual autocorrelations should be less than 2 times their
standard error. In fact, recognizable patterns in the estimated residual
autocorrelation could suggest an appropriate modification in the model. The
portmllnteau lack of fit test says for K autocorrelations, if the fitted
model is appropriate,
K -ZQ = nE r where r is residual autocorrelation at lag k
k-l k
is approximately di stributed as Chi-Square Cl) wi th K-p-q-P-Q degrees of
freedom where n=N-d-D. If the model is inadequate then Q will be inflated.
Therefore, the test of hypothesis of model adequacy may be made by referring
an observed value of Q. to table of percentage points of XZ • In general we
prefer to have as few estimated parameters as possible in the final model.
In other words. we wish to have a parsimonious model.
J
10
. Generally , for each water temperature series, the model wi th the
smallest value of Q with no significant residual autocorrelations was chosen
for the final model. Ir there were 2 or more models for the same series
with small and approximately equal values of Q, the one withthe smallest
residual mean square error was chosen. If these were about the same, the
most parsimonious model was chosen.
IV. Discussion ofthe Fitted Models
Of the 11 water temperature series, 6 were fitted with models which
yielded values of Q that had probablities of occurrence greater than .50,
two series had probabilities greater than .25 and the remaining three series.
had probabilites greater than .10. Since none of these models yielded Q
values with probabilites which were significant (p-value less than .05), the
models presented in Table 111 represent the data quite welle A further
indicaticn of the adequacy of the fitted model was to plot the forecasted
values and the' observed values for the last 4 years of data. The series
Gulf Haine West Shallow and Middle Atlantic Shallow, were chosen to be
plotted since their respective models have generated Q values which have the
highest and lowest associated probabilities. As we can see from the plots
in Figure 2, we have a close likeness between observed and forecasted.
All the fitted models are -parsimonious. At most 4 parameters have been
estimated. Six cf the series: NSOTD, GMES, GMED, GMWD, GBNKD, and GSTRD are
fit with the same model, a simple moving average of order 1 and 13. We also
•
11
note from Table III that the 2 parameter estimates for the 6 series are very
similar. This seems a reasonable result since these 6 series are all the
deep water areas with the exception of GMES and would therefore have less
coastal and bottom effect complicating the model. Since GMES is directly
influenced by the inflow from the very deep waters of the Northeast Channel,
we can understand why this would have a model similar to the other deep
water areas. The only deep series that was not fit with a simple moving
average of order 1 and 13 is MATLD. The MATLD area i srenowned for i ts deep
water cold pockets which have a tremendous effect on the surrounding water
~ temperatures thus requiring a more complicated model.
In order to relate to a simple moving average model of order 1 and 13
where the data has been differenced monthly and yearly, we give the
prediction equation:
In other words, i f we wi sh to predict the monthlyI
mean temperature for
•September 83, we would take the temperature for August 83 plus the
difference in temperature between September 82 and August 82,plus parameter
estimates times residual for August 83 minus the difference in residual
between September 82 and August 82. It simply states for the deep water
areas, there is both a monthly and seasonal relationship for past
observations as weIl as past residuals. Although this is not a new
discovery, we have been able to statistically portray the massive amounts of
data for these areas into a very simple statistical model which has
unlimited potential for future uses.
12
The remaining 5 series N30TS. GMWS. GBNKS, MATLS. and MATLD cou1d not
l)e fit with just the simple moving average of order 1 and 13 but required
other terms as well. Although. these additional terms are smal1er in size
th~n the terms of order 1 and 13, they are statistically signlficant. Since
these waters are primari1y coasta1 waters with the exception of
HATLD(reasons explained previously), we wou1d expect a more cornplex model to
be necessary since fresh water inflow, tides and land temperatures are
having rrJOre impact on the water temperatures. For exarnple, GHHS and HATLS
both required a moving average parameter of order 5 as weIl as and 13.
Thus not on1y is the previous months residual important but the previous 5
months residual as w~ll. This 5 month lag parameter cou1d represent the
re1atlol1s1üp between the winter water temperatures and the su'mner water
temperatures. In other words. the co1der the waters in the winter, the
colder the waters in the summer and vice versa. Also G~~S 1s the on1y
series that required an autoregressive term as wel1 as rnoving average terms.
This merlns thCit the model requires not only parameter estimates times past
residual but a parameter estimate times past observations, making the past
observations even more important. From Table III, we see we have similar
deviations for GBNKS, MATLS and MATLD series. Whether these slight
deviations, a1though statistica1ly significant, are oceanographica11y
significant must be investigated further.
V. Conclusion
Box and Jenkins time series mode1ing techniques have been app1ied to 11
series created from w~ter temperature recordings from the Northeastern
Continental Shelf. Six of the series were fit with a very simple Box and
•
•
•
•
13
Jenkins model, a moving average of order 1 and 13. The other 5 series were
fit with the same model and additional lag parameters depending upon the
series. How these additional parameters relate to the basic understanding
of water movement in each of the respective series remains to be seen.
However, i t does appear that the Box and Jenkins models are able to
distinguish a relatively stable body of water from a more complex body of
water. All the shallow series which are primarily coastal waters, thus
being more affected by fresh water inflow, tides and land currents required
the more complicated Box and Jenkins model •
It seems reasonable from the way each of the series was created that
only general findings and broad conclusions could be made from this
exercise. The data used to create each of the series involved averaging
together data values from hundreds of square miles and from surface
temperatures down to 150 meters. Consequently, we have averaged out minor
disturbances and site specific phenomenon. In conclusion, it appears that
the Box and Jenkins time series technique is a reasonable approach to model
the water temperature data. However, in order to obtain more specific
information about water movement, we need to create the series for much
smaller areas and for several depth zones.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge Dr. Robert Edwards (Northeast Fisheries, U.S.)
who motivated this research. He not only obtained the data and decided how
the series should be formulated but also supplied the necessary oceanograph
ic background to perform the analysis.
I wou1d also 1ike to acknow1edge the continuing assistance Bob Gonter
has given to this project in writing programs to manipulate the data.
TABLE III
"Best" Fitting ARIMA Models for Time Series of Water Temperaturefor Northeastern Continental Shelf, 1950-1980
P- Resid. MA AR
Model Q- value Mean COEF's COEF's
Series (p.d.g)x(P .P.Q) ~ .LU Square Lag~ Lag Z Lag .J Lag~ Lag 2 Lag ~ Lag II Lag ~
NSOTD (0,1,1) (0,1,1) 22 >.50 8.29 .7874 .7782
GMES (0,1,1) (0,1,1) 21 >.50 1.13 .7884 .7160
GMEP (0,1,1) (0,1,1) 21 >.50 1.07 .7430 .7984
GMWD (0,1,1) (0,1,1) 17 >.75 .89 .8789 .8215
GBNKD (0,1,1) (0,1,1 ) 23 >.50 4.31 .7540 .8384
GSTRD (0,1,1) (0,1,1) 27 >.25 4.61 .7545 .7736
NSOTS (0,1,2) (0,1,1) 30 >.10 1.36 .4875 .1872 .7577
GMWS (1,1,2) (0,1,1) 16 >.75 1.32 .8961 .1664 .9601 .2228
GBNKS (0,1,2) (0,1,1) 30 >.10 2.33 .7196 .1028 .7165
MATLS (0,1,3) (0,1,1) 31 >.10 3.31 .6011 .1480 -.1769 .5809
MATLD (0,1,3) (0,1,1) 23 >.25 2.66 .6595 .1577 .1554 .7680
(1) Pegrees of freedom -27-p-q-P-Q
......~
LlO ";
11 '.-
b
\'Z.
1
Col .tob
FIGURE 1
Map Locating the 6 Major Areas11. '1\
'II-~=r-~---D-I-+--"'~~-I---J--I-4--t--+--II~~.
.f•..- • • ..• • • ··~ • • ..• _·······..-··..·-· - - - - _-- ,....................... ...-co -:r -'Ir ..• :~ #, -. " ,'. ...,".......,
'.",
"
"
.1',
'I'
!
~. ----------
FORECASTED AND OBSERVED FOR GMWS
'" 20.0r-l
W -1B.00
~C> 16.0I-ZW0 14.0
Z
W 12.0
A0:::::>~ 10.0
.0::W0.. 8.02wI-
0::6.0
W
~ 4.03:
1977I
1978I
1979I
1980
~ FORECASTED--E'r- OBSERVED
JAN. 1977 - DEC. 1980
FIGURE 2a
FORECASTED AND OBSERVED FOR MATLS
"r-l20.0 I
I
W 18.01 ~ FORECASTED0
'fl .-0-- OBSERVED4:Cl:: ' .
<p~'j, .
L? 16.0 G~ "i=
, , , lI>, , , ,Z
, ,~' I, , , I
W,
~ : "tb \,0 14.0
,~
I,
~, I
I I,, , ,
Z,
I,
• , \I • , •
l, , ,
12.0 , , I
W ~, I
Cl:: Q,
I
:::>, ,• I
t-, ,
10.0 , ,« • ,I
Cl:: •,,
W I • I. I ,0... \ I ~
,2 B.O
V• tp,
W • ,•i-I
~ ,6.0 I 'oJ!>
Cl:: II
LU 1: ·~, ,'0
4.0 ' ,3 "0
I
2.0 -1 j I I1977 1978 1979 1980
JAN. 1977 OEC. 1980
FIGURE 2b
e el ~~~~.:.=..:..._=_~~~~~~~~~~__~~~~
18
References or Literature Cited
Bige1ow, H. B. 1927. Physica1 Oceanography of the Gu1f of Maine. Bu11.U. S. Bur. Fish 40(2):511-1027.
Bige1ow, H. B. 1933. Studies of the Waters on the Continental Shelf,Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay. I. The cyc1e of temperature. Pap. Phys.Oceanogr. and Met. 4(1). 135 pp.
Bige1ow, H. B., ·and M. Sears. 1935. Studies of the Waters on the Continental Shelf, Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay. 11. Pap. Phys.Oceanogr. and Met. 94 pp.
Box, G. and Jenkins, G. 1976. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting andContro1, Ho1den-Day, San Francisco.
Colton, J. B., and R. R. Stoddard. 1972. Average Monthly Seawater Temperatures, Nova Scotia to Lang Is1and, 1940-1959. Amer. Geogr.Soc. Sero Atlas Mar. Envir. Folio 21. 2pp.
McCleary, R. and Hay, R. 1980. Applied Time Series Analysis for theSocial Science, Sage Publications, Beverly Hi1ls.
Nelson, C., 1973. Applied Time Series Analysis for Managerial Forecasting, Holden-Day, San Francisco.
O'Donovan, T. M. 1983. Short Term Forecasting, An Introduction to theBox-Jenkins Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Pawlowski, R. J. and Wright, W. R. 1978. Spring and Fall Sea-SurfaceTemperature and Salinity on the Northeastern Continental Shelf;Cape Hatteras to Cape·Sab1e, 1972-1978.
Walford, L. A. , and R. I. Wick1and. 1968. Monthly Sea TemperatureStructure from the Florida Keys to Cape Cod.Amer. Geogr. Soc.Sero Atlas Mar. Envir. Folio 15. 2pp.