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.