Working Group: Oil and Ice Interactions (approximately meter scale)
- NOAA OR&R Representative: Chris Barker
- Objectives: Determine outputs from sub ice models including what they are and how could they be used to better understand sub models and used in an oil model to define when oil is going to show up on a surface vs encapsulation vs enter water under ice
- Experts who do this kind of sub modeling – what their sub models look like
- How to include oil in the existing ice sub models, how do we use output from existing ice sub models to predict the behavior of the ice.
- Discuss how models may mesh with oil spill modelers (e.g., inform high resolution coupled simulations that can feed into larger scale models)
- How does oil affect what ice is doing?
- How do different types/characteristics of ice affect oil behavior?
- Value in including traditional knowledge with specialty in small scale ice interactions
- What are the key timescales for the information and processes (nearterm vs longterm)?
- Experts who do this kind of sub modeling – what their sub models look like
- Deliverables: Recommendations about how you could put oil of a certain size in the ice and determine probability of moving to a certain location (will it be encapsulated, move through ice, etc.)
- Summary of what ice sub modules do
- What they tell you about the ice
- How they can inform oil spill models and understanding of how oil behaves
- Discuss where they’d like this information to go, what would we like to know but we’re not there yet
Working Group: Oil and Ice Interactions (approximately kilometer + scale)
- NOAA OR&R Representative: Amy MacFadyen
- Objectives: What is the current state of the art ice modeling, revisit oil and ice modified fate and transport algorithms for what improvements can be made?
- Review widely adopted algorithms include: 80/20% rule, degradation, overused spreading algorithm
- Propose algorithms for: Under ice storage capacity, effect of roughness, other aspects of oil in ice that we can already use to improve the model without new data (e.g., using ice velocity from coupled ice ocean model is better than previous rules of thumb, temporal component)
- How does the type of oil affect the algorithms used (e.g., higher pour point for crude oils, thermal effects from blowouts in shallow water that cause melting ice)?
- Are there existing parameters from existing ice-ocean models that are not being used in oil models and could be?
- What is the scale of information that is useful for USCG decision making? How well tested are the algorithms and how do they inform what’s happening? How much information is available in a timely enough manner to be useful? How do the algorithms inform the response options?
- Deliverables:
- Catalog of observational models.
Working Group: New and Existing Technologies for Observing Ice and Informing Models
- NOAA OR&R Representative: Dylan Righi
- Objectives: Operationalizing, what capabilities exist/should be used, make recommendations.
- Include Alaska IOOS to determine what data is already being collected (e.g., HF Radar data) that might be useful
- What new technologies might be available (e.g., induced polarization, satellite remote sensing, LRAUV – US and Canadian)?
- How long does it take to deploy certain sensors (e.g., buoys)
- Summarizing information on what technologies/sensors are available, how accessible are they, network between resources within ice modeling and oil spill modeling (e.g., suitable formats to ensure compatibility)
- How would we take what we learn and move it into working groups A and B? When should this be done (during working group period)?
- Deliverables:
- To be determined.
Working Group: Visualization/Uncertainty
- NOAA OR&R Representative: Catherine Berg
- Objectives: How uncertainty is shown and the extent to which it is demonstrated in existing oil and ice forecasts?
- What would responders like to see/know that they aren’t getting now? Especially specific to oil in ice/Arctic.
- Circular error of probability, thickness estimates?
- Which aspects of current model outputs are preferred/do you like?
- How will model outputs be presented into visualization systems utilized by NOAA (e.g., ERMA) or USCG (e.g., CG1View, HSIN, AIS)?
- Are standard trajectory products an effective communication strategy (if not, what needs to be done (i.e., response community, public))?
- How should this product evolve to suit modern needs in the Arctic (e.g., show where the ice is)?
- How to visualize/convey uncertainty? How are these things currently conveyed by oil and ice models?
- How can model outputs and field data be compared (e.g. not just visually)?
- Do the models accurately predict what actually happens and how can models be adjusted in real time to make predictions better?
- What would responders like to see/know that they aren’t getting now? Especially specific to oil in ice/Arctic.
- Deliverables:
- To be determined.
