1 / 27

AMSEAS Meteorological Forcing: Progress & Plans Pat Fitzpatrick and Yee Lau

AMSEAS Meteorological Forcing: Progress & Plans Pat Fitzpatrick and Yee Lau Geosystems Research Institute Mississippi State University. Validation efforts Oil spill study using AMSEAS NCOM. Validation effort. Wind Validation, NCOM versus 37 buoys, June 20-July 10, 2010.

shiela
Download Presentation

AMSEAS Meteorological Forcing: Progress & Plans Pat Fitzpatrick and Yee Lau

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AMSEAS Meteorological Forcing: Progress & Plans Pat Fitzpatrick and Yee Lau Geosystems Research Institute Mississippi State University • Validation efforts • Oil spill study using AMSEAS NCOM

  2. Validation effort

  3. Wind Validation, NCOM versus 37 buoys, June 20-July 10, 2010 Wind Validation, NCOM versus 23 buoys, Dec. 1, 2010-Jan. 15, 2011 Most errors less than range extremes shown Wind converted from wind stress using drag coefficient of 0.001 Buoys adjusted to 1-minute average winds, 10-meter height

  4. Summer validation example, 4 offshore buoys

  5. Winter validation example, 4 offshore buoys

  6. Summer validation example, 4 CMAN buoys

  7. Winter validation example, 4 CMAN buoys

  8. Winter validation example, 2 offshore buoys

  9. Summer validation example, 2 offshore buoys

  10. Future plans • Document general error trends • Provide details on vector correlation methodology • Document typical case studies • Detailed tables for CMAN versus offshore buoys; other geographical differences?

  11. Oil spill study using NCOM AMSEAS

  12. Model description • Lagrangian particle tracker with random walk diffusion • Input consisted • latitude and longitude parcel positions in the oil-contaminated area • wind • current • array of pseudo-random numbers (from Mersenne Twister algorithm, • initial seed from machine noise) • new parcels were released damaged Macondo rig location at each timestep • Twenty-five parcels were released at each position, and when combined • with a 10 m2s-1 diffusion coefficient, resulted in a natural trajectory spread with time • Initial positions based interpretation on • NASA MODIS • SAR imagery from http://www.cstars.miami.edu • NOAA/NESDIS Satellite Analysis Branch (SAB) experimental surface oil analysis • products at http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/MPS/deepwater.html • iv. NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration oil trajectory maps • at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov • Parcels advectedat 80% of the ocean current speed and at 3% of the wind speed. • Bilinear interpolation of wind and curent applied from model grid to parcel location.

  13. Oil spill simulation from 6/20/10-7/10/10 Using AMSEAS NCOM data Note inshore movement of oil starting late June

  14. Elevated waterfrom Alex Elevated waterfrom low

  15. Future work High Frequency Radar ocean currents Scatterometer winds (ASCAT) 10:10am CDT 29 June 2010 • Seeking collaborating authors for paper on cyclones’ impact on oil spill • NCOM currents analysis • NCOM water elevation analysis • New oil spill run for whole period, current and wind weights optimized from 3DVAR • Analysis of weather terms • Overall goal: fate and transport analysis

  16. Questions? HAPPYMARDI GRAS!

More Related