wp5: integration & validation
DESCRIPTION
WP5: Integration & Validation. IFREMER, NERSC, NIERSC, ODL, NAVTOR, NERC. 4 Tasks, 2 Deliverables. T5.1: Validation of remote sensing products IFREMER, NERSC, NIERSC, ODL Months 13-24 T5.2: Validation of the wave model IFREMER Months 13-24 T5.3: Validation of the sea ice model - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
WP5: Integration & Validation
IFREMER, NERSC, NIERSC, ODL, NAVTOR, NERC
4 Tasks, 2 Deliverables
• T5.1: Validation of remote sensing products– IFREMER, NERSC, NIERSC, ODL– Months 13-24
• T5.2: Validation of the wave model– IFREMER– Months 13-24
• T5.3: Validation of the sea ice model– NERSC, NIERSC, NERC– Months 13-24
4 Tasks, 2 Deliverables• T5.4: Integration
– NAVTOR, NERSC– Months 13-24
• D5.1: Validation reports– NERSC– Month 24
• D5.2: Upgraded software– NavTracker & NavPlanner to include waves-in-ice and ice
forecasts– NAVTOR– Month 24
Total contributions from partners
Task 5.1: Validation of remote sensing products
• Validate independent satellite data from WP4 against each other and available in-situ data.
1. SAR wave spectra (ODL)– near MIZ: ice-free SAR wave spectra– far MIZ: simple wave sensor (3-axis accelerometer) developed in
SWARP (ready 2015)– Other buoys
2. Ice classification (MIZ area)– from scatterometers/radiometers (Ifremer)
• Low resolution (25km)– from SAR/optical images (NIERSC)
• High resolution
Generic validation of wave parameters: • Altimeters (Hs & mss ): in ice-free water• Permanent buoys: general context (Iceland + Barents Sea )
WIFAR 2012 + other field data validation: • Detailed estimation of spectra, specific validation of wave attenuation
rates
SAR-derived attenuation rates
5.1 Validation of the wave model a) wave parameters
Ardhuin et al. 2010
Ardhuin et al. 2010
(Prévimer)
rms error for H
s (%)
Task 5.2: Validation of the wave model
Fluxes to ice, ocean and atmosphere:Wave energy balance ↔ wave momentum balance
• Relevance for atmospheric forcing? • Input to the ice model (extra drag on ice) ?• Forced vs coupled modeling → implementation of OASIS3-MCT in
WW3.
• Possible additional runs with IFS+WAM for wind stress diagnostics. • Validation of all « operational centers » with permanent buoys:
5.1 Validation of the wave model b) fluxes to ice, ocean & atmosphere Task 5.2: Validation of the wave model
Task 5.3: Validation of the sea ice model
• In-situ data from cruises (August-September 2012 & September 2013)– Two 5-day periods of drift, recording acceleration
in 3 axes.– Other data: local thickness, wind, temperature,
ambient noise– High resolution SAR for navigation (2013); wide
swath SAR (2012,2013)
Task 5.3: Validation of the sea ice model
• MIZ? Can make out at least 1 floe about 100m in the ‘pack’.• Need to look at the floe size distribution in the pack to see what the lines
correspond to.
Task 5.3: Validation of the sea ice model
• Model results compared to SAR (red lines).• Concentration (AMSR2, 3.125km grid), thickness=1.5m.• Black lines: Dmax=100m (Left), 110m (Right)
Task 5.3: Validation of the sea ice model
• Model results compared to SAR (red lines).• Concentration (AMSR2, 3.125km grid), thickness=2.5m.• Black lines: Dmax=130m (Left), 150m (Right)
Task 5.3: Validation of the sea ice model
• Other possible data sets– Beaufort Sea 2011-2013 (Hwang et al, 2013):
18 SAR images analysed for FSD– Australian Antarctic SIPEX2 expedition (Sep-Nov
2012):Wave measurements (Kohout) and FSD/thickness observations (video by Toyota)
– Images/analysis from WP4
Task 5.4: Integration
• Making waves-in-ice forecast stable– eg. back-up options if some input data is unavailable.
• Converting model outputs to correct format/grid– NAVTOR uses GRIB1 or GRIB2 (General Regularly-
distributed Information in Binary form).• Transferal of model outputs to NAVTOR servers.• Upgrading NavTracker/NavPlanner to include
wave/ice information.