• Journal of Climate Change Research
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.55-68
• /
• 2011

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) has identified the causes of climate change and come up with measures to address it at the global level. Its key component of the work involves developing and assessing future climate change scenarios. The IPCC Expert Meeting in September 2007 identified a new greenhouse gas concentration scenario "Representative Concentration Pathway(RCP)" and established the framework and development schedules for Climate Modeling (CM), Integrated Assessment Modeling(IAM), Impact Adaptation Vulnerability(IAV) community for the fifth IPCC Assessment Reports while 130 researchers and users took part in. The CM community at the IPCC Expert Meeting in September 2008, agreed on a new set of coordinated climate model experiments, the phase five of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project(CMIP5), which consists of more than 30 standardized experiment protocols for the shortterm and long-term time scales, in order to enhance understanding on climate change for the IPCC AR5 and to develop climate change scenarios and to address major issues raised at the IPCC AR4. Since early 2009, fourteen countries including the Korea have been carrying out CMIP5-related projects. Withe increasing interest on climate change, in 2009 the COdinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment(CORDEX) has been launched to generate regional and local level information on climate change. The National Institute of Meteorological Research(NIMR) under the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) has contributed to the IPCC AR4 by developing climate change scenarios based on IPCC SRES using ECHO-G and embarked on crafting national scenarios for climate change as well as RCP-based global ones by engaging in international projects such as CMIP5 and CORDEX. NIMR/KMA will make a contribution to drawing the IPCC AR5 and will develop national climate change scenarios reflecting geographical factors, local climate characteristics and user needs and provide them to national IAV and IAM communites to assess future regional climate impacts and take action.

• Korean Journal of Remote Sensing
• /
• v.34 no.6_2
• /
• pp.1299-1310
• /
• 2018

In this study, we analyzed distribution and movement trends using in-situ observations and particle tracking methods to understand the movement of the drift ice in the Arctic Ocean. The in-situ movement data of the drift ice in the Arctic Ocean used ITP (Ice-Tethered Profiler) provided by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) from 2009 to 2018, which was analyzed with the location and speed for each year. Particle tracking simulates the movement of the drift ice using daily current and wind data provided by HYCOM (Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model) and ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, 2009-2017). In order to simulate the movement of the drift ice throughout the Arctic Ocean, ITP data, a field observation data, were used as input to calculate the relationship between the current and wind and follow up the Lagrangian particle tracking. Particle tracking simulations were conducted with two experiments taking into account the effects of current and the combined effects of current and wind, most of which were reproduced in the same way as in-situ observations, given the effects of currents and winds. The movement of the drift ice in the Arctic Ocean was reproduced using a wind-imposed equation, which analyzed the movement of the drift ice in a particular year. In 2010, the Arctic Ocean Index (AOI) was a negative year, with particles clearly moving along the Beaufort Gyre, resulting in relatively large movements in Beaufort Sea. On the other hand, in 2017 AOI was a positive year, with most particles not affected by Gyre, resulting in relatively low speed and distance. Around the pole, the speed of the drift ice is lower in 2017 than 2010. From seasonal characteristics in 2010 and 2017, the movement of the drift ice increase in winter 2010 (0.22 m/s) and decrease to spring 2010 (0.16 m/s). In the case of 2017, the movement is increased in summer (0.22 m/s) and decreased to spring time (0.13 m/s). As a result, the particle tracking method will be appropriate to understand long-term drift ice movement trends by linking them with satellite data in place of limited field observations.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.40-46
• /
• 2009

The applicability of a well-type autotrophic sulfur-oxidizing reactive barrier (L $\times$ W $\times$ D = $3m\;{\times}\;4\;m\;{\times}\;2\;m$) as a long-term treatment option for nitrate removal in groundwater was evaluated. Pilot-scale (L $\times$ W $\times$ D = $8m\;{\times}\;4\;m\;{\times}\;2\;m$) flow-tank experiments were conducted to examine remedial efficacy of the well-type reactive barrier. A total of 80 kg sulfur granules as an electron donor and Thiobacillus denitrificans as an active bacterial species were prepared. Thiobacillus denitrificans was successfully colonized on the surface of the sulfur granules and the microflora transformed nitrate with removal efficiency of ~12% (0.07 mM) for 11 days, ~24% (1.3 mM) for 18 days, ~45% (2.4 mM) for 32 days, and ~52% (2.8 mM) for 60 days. Sulfur granules attached to Thiobacillus denitrificans were used to construct the well-type reactive barrier comprising three discrete barriers installed at 1-m interval downstream. Average initial nitrate concentrations were 181 mg/L for the first 28 days and 281 mg/L for the next 14 days. For the 181 mg/L (2.9 mM) plume, nitrate concentrations decreased by ~2% (0.06 mM), ~9% (0.27 mM), and ~15% (0.44 mM) after $1^{st}$, $2^{nd}$, and $3^{rd}$ barriers, respectively. For the 281 mg/L (4.5 mM) plume, nitrate concentrations decreased by ~1% (0.02 mM), ~6% (0.27 mM), and ~8% (0.37 mM) after $1^{st}$, $2^{nd}$, and $3^{rd}$ barriers, respectively. Nitrate plume was flowed through the flow-tank for 49 days by supplying $1.24\;m^3/d$ of nitrate solution. During nitrate treatment, flow velocity (0.44 m/d), pH (6.7 to 8.3), and DO (0.9~2.8 mg/L) showed little variations. Incomplete destruction of nitrate plume was attributed to the lack of retention time, rarely transverse dispersion, and inhibiting the activity of denitrification enzymes caused by relatively high DO concentrations. For field applications, it should be considered increments of retention time, modification of well placements, and intrinsic DO concentration.

• Journal of Bio-Environment Control
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 1996

The thermal analysis by mathematical model simulation makes it possible to reasonably predict heating and/or cooling requirements of certain greenhouses located under various geographical and climatic environment. It is another advantages of model simulation technique to be able to make it possible to select appropriate heating system, to set up energy utilization strategy, to schedule seasonal crop pattern, as well as to determine new greenhouse ranges. In this study, the control pattern for greenhouse microclimate is categorized as cooling and heating. Dynamic model was adopted to simulate heating requirements and/or energy conservation effectiveness such as energy saving by night-time thermal curtain, estimation of Heating Degree-Hours(HDH), long time prediction of greenhouse thermal behavior, etc. On the other hand, the cooling effects of ventilation, shading, and pad ||||&|||| fan system were partly analyzed by static model. By the experimental work with small size model greenhouse of 1.2m$\times$2.4m, it was found that cooling the greenhouse by spraying cold water directly on greenhouse cover surface or by recirculating cold water through heat exchangers would be effective in greenhouse summer cooling. The mathematical model developed for greenhouse model simulation is highly applicable because it can reflects various climatic factors like temperature, humidity, beam and diffuse solar radiation, wind velocity, etc. This model was closely verified by various weather data obtained through long period greenhouse experiment. Most of the materials relating with greenhouse heating or cooling components were obtained from model greenhouse simulated mathematically by using typical year(1987) data of Jinju Gyeongnam. But some of the materials relating with greenhouse cooling was obtained by performing model experiments which include analyzing cooling effect of water sprayed directly on greenhouse roof surface. The results are summarized as follows : 1. The heating requirements of model greenhouse were highly related with the minimum temperature set for given greenhouse. The setting temperature at night-time is much more influential on heating energy requirement than that at day-time. Therefore It is highly recommended that night- time setting temperature should be carefully determined and controlled. 2. The HDH data obtained by conventional method were estimated on the basis of considerably long term average weather temperature together with the standard base temperature(usually 18.3$^{\circ}C$). This kind of data can merely be used as a relative comparison criteria about heating load, but is not applicable in the calculation of greenhouse heating requirements because of the limited consideration of climatic factors and inappropriate base temperature. By comparing the HDM data with the results of simulation, it is found that the heating system design by HDH data will probably overshoot the actual heating requirement. 3. The energy saving effect of night-time thermal curtain as well as estimated heating requirement is found to be sensitively related with weather condition: Thermal curtain adopted for simulation showed high effectiveness in energy saving which amounts to more than 50% of annual heating requirement. 4. The ventilation performances doting warm seasons are mainly influenced by air exchange rate even though there are some variations depending on greenhouse structural difference, weather and cropping conditions. For air exchanges above 1 volume per minute, the reduction rate of temperature rise on both types of considered greenhouse becomes modest with the additional increase of ventilation capacity. Therefore the desirable ventilation capacity is assumed to be 1 air change per minute, which is the recommended ventilation rate in common greenhouse. 5. In glass covered greenhouse with full production, under clear weather of 50% RH, and continuous 1 air change per minute, the temperature drop in 50% shaded greenhouse and pad ＆ fan systemed greenhouse is 2.6$^{\circ}C$ and.6.1$^{\circ}C$ respectively. The temperature in control greenhouse under continuous air change at this time was 36.6$^{\circ}C$ which was 5.3$^{\circ}C$ above ambient temperature. As a result the greenhouse temperature can be maintained 3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. But when RH is 80%, it was impossible to drop greenhouse temperature below ambient temperature because possible temperature reduction by pad ||||&|||| fan system at this time is not more than 2.4$^{\circ}C$. 6. During 3 months of hot summer season if the greenhouse is assumed to be cooled only when greenhouse temperature rise above 27$^{\circ}C$, the relationship between RH of ambient air and greenhouse temperature drop($\Delta$T) was formulated as follows : $\Delta$T= -0.077RH＋7.7 7. Time dependent cooling effects performed by operation of each or combination of ventilation, 50% shading, pad ＆ fan of 80% efficiency, were continuously predicted for one typical summer day long. When the greenhouse was cooled only by 1 air change per minute, greenhouse air temperature was 5$^{\circ}C$ above outdoor temperature. Either method alone can not drop greenhouse air temperature below outdoor temperature even under the fully cropped situations. But when both systems were operated together, greenhouse air temperature can be controlled to about 2.0-2.3$^{\circ}C$ below ambient temperature. 8. When the cool water of 6.5-8.5$^{\circ}C$ was sprayed on greenhouse roof surface with the water flow rate of 1.3 liter/min per unit greenhouse floor area, greenhouse air temperature could be dropped down to 16.5-18.$0^{\circ}C$, whlch is about 1$0^{\circ}C$ below the ambient temperature of 26.5-28.$0^{\circ}C$ at that time. The most important thing in cooling greenhouse air effectively with water spray may be obtaining plenty of cool water source like ground water itself or cold water produced by heat-pump. Future work is focused on not only analyzing the feasibility of heat pump operation but also finding the relationships between greenhouse air temperature(T$_{g}$ ), spraying water temperature(T$_{w}$ ), water flow rate(Q), and ambient temperature(T$_{o}$).