estuarine hypoxia component of testbed 2 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2. Marjorie Friedrichs, VIMS, lead Carl Friedrichs, VIMS, co-lead Wen Long and Raleigh Hood, UMCES Malcolm Scully, ODU. FY12 Testbed 2 Kick-off Telecon. Objectives.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2' - akasma


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
estuarine hypoxia component of testbed 2

Estuarine Hypoxia Component of Testbed 2

Marjorie Friedrichs, VIMS, lead

Carl Friedrichs, VIMS, co-lead

Wen Long and Raleigh Hood, UMCES

Malcolm Scully, ODU

FY12 Testbed 2 Kick-off Telecon

objectives
Objectives
  • Compare relative skill of various hydrodynamic and dissolved oxygen models in reproducing observations on seasonal time scales in Chesapeake Bay, by examining:
  • bottom/surface temperature
  • bottom/surface salinity
  • bottom/surface dissolved oxygen
  • maximum stratification
  • depth of maximum stratification
  • hypoxic volume
  • Provide information to managers such that results of these analyses could be transitioned to operational/scenario models
five hydrodynamic models configured for the bay
Five Hydrodynamic Models Configured for the Bay

EFDC

Shen

VIMS

CH3D

Cerco & Wang

USACE

UMCES-ROMS

Li & Li

UMCES

CBOFS (ROMS)

Lanerolle & Xu

NOAA

ChesROMS

Long & Hood

UMCES

slide4

Five biological models

  • ICM: CBP model; complex biology
  • BGC: NPZD-type biogeochemical model
  • 1eqn: Simple one equation respiration
            • (includes SOD)
  • 1term-DD: depth-dependent respiration
      • (not a function of x, y, temperature, nutrients…)
  • 1term: Constant net respiration
data from 40 cbp stations
Data from 40 CBP stations

= ~40 CBP stations used in

this model-data comparison

mostly 2004

some 2005 results

bottom T, bottom S,

stratification = max dS/dz,

depth of max dS/dz

bottom DO, hypoxic volume

stratification max ds dz 2004
Stratification (max dS/dz; 2004)

bias [psu/m]

unbiased

RMSD

[psu/m]

Stratification is a challenge; CH3D, EFDC reproduce seasonal/spatial variability best

slide7

Sensitivity Experiments

Maximum

Stratification

CH3D, EFDC

ROMS

Stratification is insensitive to grid resolution and changes in atmospheric forcing

stratification max ds dz 20041
Stratification (max dS/dz; 2004)

bias [psu/m]

unbiased

RMSD

[psu/m]

ROMS with

new TKE

parameter

Adjusting the minimum TKE parameter reduces the bias in ChesROMS

hypoxic volume
Hypoxic Volume

bias [km3]

unbiased

RMSD

[km3]

Several simple DO models reproduce seasonal variability of hypoxic volume about as well as ICM

hypoxic volume1
Hypoxic Volume

bias [km3]

unbiased

RMSD

[km3]

5-model average does better than any single model

overall progress from testbed 1
Overall Progress from Testbed 1
  • Compared 5 different hydrodynamic models
    • with 5 different DO models (examined 12 different combinations of hydrodynamics+DO for 2004, subset of these for 2005)
    • Density stratification at pycnocline is a challenge
    • Simplest DO models reproduce seasonal variability as well as most complex models
    • Multi-model average for hypoxic volume does better than
    • any single model
    • Models do much better in our wet year (2005) than our
    • dry year (2004)
  • 2. Began to examine sensitivity experiments with individual models
    • Strong sensitivities to wind, min TKE, advection scheme
    • Weak sensitivities to river discharge, coastal BC, grid resolution
overall progress from testbed 1 cont
Overall Progress from Testbed 1(cont.)
  • 3. Transitioning information to federal agencies
    • Simple DO model incorporated into the research version of NOAA CSDL’s Chesapeake Bay Operational
    • Forecast System
    • Participated in Eco-Forecasting workshop at NOAA/
    • NCEP to further hammer out transition steps for moving to fully operational version of the DO model
    • Provided advice to the CBP on future estuarine and
    • hypoxia modeling strategies, in support of federally
    • mandated environmental restoration, via a STAC
    • workshop report
update on testbed 1 deliverables
Update on Testbed 1 Deliverables
  • We are on track to provide all deliverables as promised by Dec. 31, 2011
plans for testbed 2 year 1
Plans for Testbed 2 Year 1
  • Improve modeled density stratification
    • Examine choice of turbulence closure scheme
    • and advection scheme
  • 2. Idealized sensitivity experiments with all models
    • Concentrating on wind, may also include river discharge
  • 3. Additional skill metric
    • Averaged Discrete Frechet Distance
  • 4. Presentations/publications
    • Five publications are in preparation
    • Multiple presentations to managers and
    • scientific community
wish list for testbed 2
“Wish List” for Testbed 2
  • Unstructured Grids
    • SELFE
    • FVCOM
  • 2. Potential for < 10 day operational forecasts
    • Need to examine skill of models in reproducing high
    • frequency data sets
  • 3. Interannual/Interdecadal skill
    • We have simulations from 1991-2005 from multiple models, but we do not yet have the resources to make these comparisons