Download
1 / 7
70 likes | 207 Views
US IOOS Modeling Testbed Leadership Teleconference May 3, 2011. BIO Waves Group Will Perrie, Bedford Institute of Oceanography Email william.perrie@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Phone (902) 426-3985. Outcomes and Scientific Insights Gained.
E N D
US IOOS Modeling TestbedLeadership TeleconferenceMay 3, 2011 BIO Waves Group Will Perrie, Bedford Institute of Oceanography Email william.perrie@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Phone (902) 426-3985
Outcomes and Scientific Insights Gained • The main scientific insight gained is that comprehensive consistent dynamical coupling of models must be done to accurately simulate storms • We see this notably with respect to storm surge, coupling of waves and surge can ~1 m compared to ‘no-waves’, in one of the Gulf storms. • In just wave models alone, a problem is that winds can compare well with buoy winds, but wave estimates are sometimes notably underestimated atmosphere-ocean-wave models need to be bi-directionally coupled, NOT just scale up the winds with a tuning factor, e.g. called ‘gustiness’, etc.. • Support by and integration with Cyberinfrastructure effort: • SURA testbed server was a definite help in the upload and exchange of data, models, etc. • Teragrid, loni resources were abundant and a great help • Working partnerships with Federal operational entities • Excellent collaboration and working relation on model development, testing bug-reporting, etc. for the WAVEWATCHIII model • Excellent working relation and collaboration with CS Chen, B Beardsley and UMass colleagues/ and by extension their Federal partners.
Summarize Testbed Products Completed by June • Completed wave simulations using a series of nested structured grids to hindcast the storms from 2005 and 2007 • Used SWAN for innermost 3 grids, and WAVEWATCHIII (WW3) for outer two grids. • Winds are NARR and WRF for the 2007 storm, and NARR and MM5 for the 2005 storm. WRF and MM5 winds are 9km resolution, constructed by UMass.
Anticipated Progress During NCE (Jun-Dec) • Include estimated effort of team members who are carrying over funds • Quantify the improvement to wave simulations using 29 frequencies and 36 directions (Δθ = 10o) rather that 25 frequency bins and 24 directions (Δθ = 15o). • Test wave model sensitivity for time-space varying water depth by using outputs, e.g. from UMass, to prescribe the water depth as a time progresses in the wave model simulation of the storm. • Use wetting / drying formulation in SWAN to estimate inundation from SWAN run, for each storm • Output 2-d wave spectra at locations of buoys where observed 2-d wave spectra are available, for model-data comparisons, in 1-d and 2-d. • Reduce Δt so as not to exceed 10 CFL so that we can use high-order propagation scheme in SWAN • Explore different shallow water physics options in SWAN, triads, etc.
Challenges to Progress and Lessons Learned • How can we run a parallelized, coupled waves-ocean model with unstructured grid? • Modeled winds compare well to buoy observations, but why are waves notably underestimated (e.g. see figures)? • Can we get higher resolution winds, e.g. 2.5km from WRF?
How Can TAEG Help You?How can SURA Mgmt Help You? • Computer resources to allow completion of milestones and objectives for this project • No-cost extension of this project
Presentations at Scientific Meetings • Past • Planned (Perrie has to attend NOPP PI meeting at this workshop) • 12th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and • 3rd Coastal Hazards Symposium (October 30, 2011 - November 4, 2011)
