Transcript pptx

Estuarine Hypoxia Modeling Breakout
Carl Friedrichs (VIMS) and the Estuarine Hypoxia Team
Outcomes from breakout session:
1) What are the tangible deliverables from the testbed?
Include:
-- Summaries of results of head-to-head model comparisons. [check]
-- Model validation with observations. [check]
-- Legacy data sets. [in progress]
-- Skill assessment tools. [in progress]
Presented at U.S.IOOS/SURA Modeling Testbed All-Hands Annual Meeting
Washington, DC, June 23, 2011
Estuarine Hypoxia Modeling Breakout
2) Specify elements of testbed work that could be brought to operational readiness or
significantly inform current operations:
Possible pathway to operational use of 1-term hypoxia model:
-- 1-term hypoxia model has been added to CSDL CBOFS research model. [check]
-- Estuarine Hypoxia Team vets the hypoxia formulation. [in progress]
-- EHT convinces CSDL that the operational formulation for hypoxia has value. [in progress]
-- CSDL makes a request to CO-OPS to update the operational CBOFS with 1-term hypoxia.
-- CO-OPS agrees and CO-OPS makes a request to NCEP to update to operational CBOFS.
-- NCEP agrees and updates operational CBOFS with 1-term hypoxia.
-- NCEP releases operational hypoxia forecasts with their present CBOFS output.
-- CO-OPS posts operational output of hypoxia released by NCEP.
Example: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ofs/cbofs/cbofs.html
Estuarine Hypoxia Modeling Breakout
3) Lessons learned:
-- Chesapeake Bay hydrodynamic models behave remarkably similarly, including their errors.
-- All the hydrodynamic models under-predict salinity stratification.
-- Hypoxia is predicted with more skill than salinity stratification for all models.
-- Strongest control of seasonal hypoxia appears to be wind speed & direction.
-- Over-mixing is likely due in part to incorrect setting of minimum background TKE.
-- Multiple models predict hypoxia with more skill than individual models.
Estuarine Hypoxia Modeling Breakout
4) Priorities for next 6 months -- Complete our proposed first year work:
-- Complete 2005 simulations.
-- Complete hydrodynamic-hypoxia model combinations.
-- Provide written recommendations for possible transition paths to agencies.
-- Inventory/recommend standard skill assessment metrics.
5) Publications and presentations:
-- CZ11, Gordon Conference, CERF, ECM12, AMS, Ocean Sciences.
-- Hydrodynamic comparison (C. Friedrichs et al.); Hypoxia comparison (M. Friedrichs
et al.); Wind sensitivity paper (Scully et al.); Background TKE paper (Scully et al.);
Improving interpretation of monitoring (A. Bever et al.).
Estuarine Hypoxia Modeling Breakout
6) Priorities for next 2 years:
-- Continue to work closely with NOAA-CSDL and NOAA-NCEP to transition our
findings for use in short-term (≤ ~15 day) hypoxia forecast tools at NOAA.
-- Continue to work closely with the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to incorporate our
findings into the future evolution of CBP scenario hypoxia forecast models.
-- Further explore the model properties that lead to the inability of hydrodynamic
models to capture the observed intensity of density stratification.
-- More fully include unstructured grid models in the Year 2 estuarine hydrodynamics
and hypoxia intercomparison.
-- Expand the parameter space of model runs to include additional degrees of
biological model complexity as well as coordinated, idealized sensitivity runs across
multiple models.