Fukushima: Texas A&M forecasts, other simulations.

The Texas A&M forecasts are in:

Monday, April 4
• 2011-04-04 12Z - forecast only
• 2011-04-04 06Z - forecast only
• 2011-04-04 00Z - forecast only

I also found some readings from KEK in Tokyo, that are similar but more frequently updated than the SPEED! measurements. They are here and here. As shown earlier, these measurements show several spikes stemming from the releases from the reactors and a larger set of bump starting around March 21st that seem to correlate with the pool cooling events. As soon as the pools are filled, i.e. cooled, the sources terms stops immediately.

At the start of the accidents, there was not much data with regards to the source term at Fukushima, i.e how much elements were escaping from the reactors. Most of the computations performed by different groups were focused on  a worst case scenario of continuous release, which was never supported by any of the SPEED! measurements. The simulations include:

• Special Forecast products for Fukushima produced by NILU-ATMOS (disclaimer: These products are highly uncertain based on limited information for the source terms. Please use with caution and understand that the values are likely to change once we obtain more information on the overall nature of the accident. The products should be considered informational and only indicate 'worst case scenario' releases. From what we've learned recently, it seems releases of this magnitude have not yet occurred. Furthermore, these modeling products are based on global meteorological data, which are too coarse to provide reliable details of the transport of the plume across Japan.)
• Eurad simulations. (Fukushima site) Disclaimer: This simulation is a so called "worst case scenario" with continuous release rate. The value of 0001 Bq / m 3 correspond to appr. one millionth of the concentration at the source. At distances more than appr. 2000 km away from the source, the concentrations are not harmful to health. The simulation starts at fictitious 15.03. 00 UTC and will continue to run in order to Demonstrate the InterContinental. Relaese exact transport When rates are published we will restart the simulation with reliable values.

When given more data from the CTBTO, the german Eurad model was re-run and the dispersion model was compared as to when CTBTO stations would detect the plume from the Fukushima plant. The animated gif is here.

and seems to show a pretty good fit with regards to when the stations would detect elements given the new simulations. Finally, an NOAA HYSPLIT model is currently being run by somebody which seems to give similar result with regards to particle trajectories. It is here. 

Fukushima: TAMU Forecast March 31st, Analysis for Ibakari

The Texas A&M prediction maps for tomorrow are in:

Thursday, March 31

1. • 2011-03-31 12Z - forecast only
2. • 2011-03-31 06Z - forecast only
3. • 2011-03-31 00Z - forecast only
   
   

Please note that 06Z means 6:00 GMT or (6:00 + 9:00) 15:00 JST.

Yesterday, the prediction showed some trajectories going in the direction of Ibakari. Yesterday's map of the  region showed:

 Today's readings show the following map:

At first, there is no obvious difference using the color coding of that map. The historical charts in the same region show the following trend:

or a tiny increase of less than 0.2 microSv/hr at Takahagi. The map from Texas A&M is the one dated March 29th at 18 GMT or March 30 03:00 JST:

Fukushima: TAMU Forecasts Tuesday March 29, a note on the TAMU model, Microsievert.net

Texas A&M Forecasts and status updates are in;

Tuesday, March 29

1. • 2011-03-29 12Z - forecast only
2. • 2011-03-29 06Z - forecast only
3. • 2011-03-29 00Z - forecast only

I have had a small exchange with Dr. Ken Bowman on the model used for these simulations:

Dear Igor,

... I finally found a little time to look at your blog. I like the way that you are bringing things together.

The model that I am running is good for giving a general idea of where a release might go on the large scale. The resolution of the global winds is about 50 km. At that resolution, the model does a poor job of representing the mountainous topography of Japan. My maps should not be called an 'aerosol simulation', as they have no aerosol physics in them, just passive advection by the winds....

Thanks Ken.

Finally, microsioevert.net is a new site featuring a different kind of vizualisation than we have been accustomed to,

Fukushima: Texas A&M Forecasts Sun March 27, Air Share, Comments on Source Term

The Texas A&M predictions just came out:

Sunday, March 27
• 2011-03-27 12Z - forecast only
• 2011-03-27 06Z - forecast only
• 2011-03-27 00Z - forecast only

The Google Maps Mania blog pointed out to another instance of trajectory computation called Shared Air by the folks at University of Michigan. In these maps, you choose a city in Japan and figure out if the winds and particle came from Fukushima. It really is the reverse problem that the Texas A&M computations do.

Cheryl Rofer has a series of blog entries of interest to plume:

Is There a Leak at Fukushima #3?
And Now...Becquerels!
If You're Anywhere But Japan, Don't Take Potassium Iodide!

Frank Munger mentions the fact that Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) is providing computational suport to DOE on the modeling of what is currently going on in each of the reactors and pools.