1. Introduction

2. The Oil Spill Models

3. The Oil Spill Forcing Models

3.1. Wind Fields

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and United States Navy government website provides several datasets, that have been widely be used as model wind data inputs in the several oil spill test-cases. Firstly, at global scale, the NOAA and the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) supports the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) model, which was created and implemented as a worldwide, high-resolution, linked atmosphere-ocean-land surface-sea-ice system to properly predict the conditions of these coupled domains during a 32-year period (January 1979—March 2011) [75,76]. The CFSR has a spatial horizontal resolution of 0.5° (~56 km) with hourly time step (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/climate-forecast-system). The CFSR has been applied for oil spill modeling studies by French-McCay et al. [66] and Meza-Padill et al. [77]. Moreover, NOAA and the US Navy provide meteorological model outputs of the Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS) with horizontal resolution of 0.5^o (~56 km) and temporal resolution of 6 hours, globally (ttps://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/navyoperational-global-atmospheric-prediction-system). The NOGAPS has been integrated in several oil spill test cases, as in King et al. [78], Brushett et al. [79], Le Hénaff et al. [80], Vaz et al. [81] and French-McCay et al. [66]. Similarly, the NCEP (National Centers for Environmental Prediction) provides atmospheric data from the GFS (Global Forecasting System) for dozens of atmospheric and land-soil variables, including water temperature, winds, precipitation, soil moisture, and atmospheric ozone concentration [82]. NCEP-GRF produces forecasts at three spatial resolutions of 0.25°, 0.5°, and 1° (https://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/products/gfs/) covering the whole globe [83]. Most oil spill models have been forced with the 0.25° horizontal resolution [44,50,70,83]. The temporal resolution of GFS is 3 hours and the NCEP contains wind velocity 10 meters above sea level, for the entire planet from May 6, 2011 to the present [84].

At regional scales, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) maintains the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model, which is a cutting-edge mesoscale numerical weather prediction system, intended for both atmospheric research and operational forecasting. In oil spill modeling, the WRF has been implemented by Zacharias et al. [44] in a region from 20° S, 50° W to 10° N, 20° W, with 1-hour time interval and 0.15° horizontal resolution [85]. Moreover, the NOAA NCEP system (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/north-american-mesoscale) provides atmospheric forecasts for the North America through the North American Mesoscale Forecast System (NAM). NAM creates different grids (or domains) of weather forecasts with varying horizontal resolutions [86]. Temperature, precipitation, light intensity, and turbulent kinetic energy are just a few of the weather elements estimated at each grid cell. NAM employs additional numerical weather models to create high-resolution predictions over fixed regions and, on occasion, to track major weather events, such as hurricanes. In oil spill modeling NAM has been applied at 12 km horizontal resolution, with 1-hour time step, by French-McCay et al. [66]. In addition, the NOAA NCEP provides the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) system for weather reanalysis, (http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rreanl/) having 3-hr time step and 0.3° (~ 32 km) spatial resolution over the North America [87,88]. NARR project has been applied in oil spill modeling by French-McCay et al. [66,89]. Moreover, NARR system is based on a version of the Eta Model and its 3D variational data assimilation system (EDAS) has been operational since April 2003 [90].

Furthermore, the NOAA and FNMOC (Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center) Regional Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM) (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/fnmoc-regional-navy-coastal-ocean) provides the hindcast wind data, through the dataset “AmSeas Prior”, with a spatial resolution 1/36° (~ 3 km) (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/thredds-coastal/catalog/ncom_amseas_agg_20130405_20201216/catalog.html). The dataset covers a time period from 2013-04-05 to 2020-12-16, with 3-hour time step. The system supports only the broader region of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Using the Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation (NCODA) system, this model assimilates all available satellite and in-situ observations within the domain [91]. The NCOM model has been coupled with the oil spill model BLOSOM, as in Grubesic and Nelson [74].

In addition, the short-term model results produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts [92] have been widely used as forcing in oil spill modelling. ECMWF provides reliable daily global atmospheric forcing with three-hourly winds and spatial resolution of 0.125° (approx. 27 km). Specifically, ERA5 contains wind forcing reanalysis data (https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era5) and is derived from fifth-generation ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis of the global climate, which integrates multi-source measurements with numerical simulations, using an assimilation model. This dataset has been produced using the 4D-Var data assimilation scheme and model forecasts in CY41R2 of the ECMWF Integrated Forecast System (IFS) [48]. It has a high temporal-spatial resolution (1 hour - 0.25°) and a long-time span from January 1, 1979 to the present [93]. Data can be obtained by visiting https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/. Recent model upgrades have improved the overall performance of the forecasting system throughout the medium range. Further details on model description and verification can be found in the works of Ehard et al. [94], Haiden et al. [95] and Hersbach et al. [96]. ERA5 has been used as wind boundary forcing in various oil spill scenarios, as in Zhang et al. [83], Abdallah & Chantsev [69,71], Davis Morales et al. [51] and Liu et al. [42]. In parallel, in case of simulating retrospective oil spills, the ERA-Interim dataset could be used [97], a global reanalysis data product covering the data-rich period since 1979. Originally, ERA-Interim was run from 1989, but the 10-year extension for 1979-1988 was produced in 2011, providing data every 6 hours, with a 1/8° spatial resolution [57,98] [99]. ERA-Interim has been applied in oil spill simulations in several test cases all over the world [46,47,48,49,53,54,56,57]. Moreover, Kampouris et al. [55] has used the ECMWF ensemble prediction system at ∼ 9 km and ~18 km horizontal resolution for wind forcing.

The Eta/NCEP model [100,101] has been in operational use at the Hellenic National Meteorological Service and at the University of Athens (http://forecast.uoa.gr). Moreover, the high frequency winds from the SKIRON non-hydrostatic forecasting model [102], with 5 and 10 km spatial resolution has been utilized during real oil spill pollution [58,62] and in numerous oil spill test-cases, such as in Zafirakou-Koulouris et al. [103], Ribotti et al. [104], Zodiatis et al. [60,63], Goldman et al. [105], De Dominicis et al. [19] and Sepp-Neves et al. [53], both in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. In parallel, the HCMR (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research) provides meteorological forecasts via the POSEIDON weather forecasting system [106], also based on SKIRON/Eta model [102], which covers an area broader than the Mediterranean basin, with a horizontal resolution of ~5 km. POSEIDON has been coupled with oil spill models, as in Annika et al. [107], and Zodiatis et al. [108] . Finally, The University of Malta (UoM) provides meteorological forecasts through the MALTA Maria ETA Model (http://www.capemalta.net/maria/regional/results.html) with a horizontal resolution of ~4 km, covering the Central Mediterranean Sea and the Maltese Islands [109]. The model has temporal resolution of 3 hours, providing forecasts for only 1 day in advance. MARIA/Eta High Resolution Atmospheric Forecasting System is based on the atmospheric limited area NCEP/Eta model [101,110] and it has been applied in oil spill case studies, like in Drago et al. [109].

The Spanish Met Office, AEMET (Spanish State Meteorological Agency) (https://www.aemet.es/es/portada), produces meteorological forcing forecasts using the HIRLAM (High Resolution Limited Area Model) [111,112]. This forecasting system runs with a horizontal resolution at 1/7° (~15 km) over the whole Western Mediterranean, providing hourly data every 6 hours, for the next 72-hours [113]. HIRLAM has been coupled to the oil spill model TESEO, and has been applied in the Prestige oil spill accidental release in the Bay of Biscay [113,114]. Météo-France contributes with atmospheric data through the ARPEGE model (Action de Recherche Petite Echelle Grande Echelle) for the entire Mediterranean basin (http://www.umr-cnrm.fr/spip.php?article121&lang=en). ARPEGE is a numerical model for global general circulation. Météo-France developed it in collaboration with ECMWF (Reading, UK) for operational numerical weather forecasting [115,116,117]. The ARPEGE model has incorporated the four-dimensional variational assimilation (4D-Var). The spatial resolution of the ARPEGE model is ~10 km in the Mediterranean Sea and the temporal resolution is 3 hours [118]. Recently, the model was upgraded in its vertical grid, composing of 105 levels, with horizontal grid of ~5 km over Europe and 24 km elsewhere [119]. This fine resolution 5 km edition has not yet been applied to oil spill modeling. Oil spill models have been coupled only to the 10 km resolution version.

Figure 1. General concept of Operational oil spill modeling.

Figure 1. General concept of Operational oil spill modeling.

Table 1. Atmospheric models with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions used in oil spill modeling.

Table 1. Atmospheric models with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions used in oil spill modeling.

Wind	Provider	Geographical area	Spatial Resolution	Data Type	Reference
Poseidon	HCMR	Mediterranean	~5 km	Forecast	[106]
HIRLAM	AEMET	Western Mediterranean	~ 15 km	Forecast	[108,112,113,114]
ARPEGE	Meteo-France	Mediterranean	~10 km	Forecast	[108,118]
SKIRON	UOA	Mediterranean and Black Sea	~5 and 10 km	Forecast	[53,102,120] [19,58,61,103,104,121]
MALTA/Maria ETA model	UOM	Central Mediterranean	~4 km	Forecast	[108,109]
NAM	NOAA/NCEP	North America	12km	Forecast	[66,86]
NARR	NOAA/NCEP	North America	0.3° (32 km)	Reanalysis	[66,89,90]
NCOM AMSEAS	NOAA/FNMOC	Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean	1/36° (~ 3km)	Hindcast	[74]
WRF	NCAR/NCEP	Regional	0.15° (~16 km)	Forecast	[44]
NOGAPS	NOAA/United States Navy	Global	0.5° (~56 km)	Forecast	[66,81]
CFSR	NOAA/NCEP	Global	0.5° (~56 km)	Reanalysis	[66,77]
GFS	NOAA/NCEP	Global	0.25° (~27 km)	Forecast	[50,69,70,71,83]
ERA5	ECMWF	Global	0.25° (~27 km)	Reanalysis	[42,51]
Era-Interim	ECMWF	Global	0.125° (~12.5 km)	Reanalysis	[46,47,48,49,53,54,56,57]

3.2. Hydrodynamics

The Copernicus Marine Environmental Monitoring Service (CMEMS) provides several hydrodynamic datasets at global and six regional seas. In the present study, only the data products relevant to oil spill modeling will be discussed. Firstly, the Global Ocean 1/12° Physics Analysis and Forecast model, provides daily and monthly-mean data for sea temperature, salinity, currents, sea level, mixed layer depth and ice parameters, from the top to the bottom of the global ocean [122]. In addition, it produces the hourly-mean surface fields for sea level height, temperature and currents. The global ocean output files have a horizontal resolution of 1/12° (~ 9 km) and a regular longitude/latitude equirectangular projection. This dataset has been widely applied in oil spill simulations, like in the studies of Devis Morales et al. [51], Sepp Neves et al. [53] and Siqueira et al. [57]. Moreover, CMEMS provides the dataset Mediterranean Sea Physics Analysis and Forecast (MEDSEA_ANALYSISFORECAST_PHY_006_013) [123] which is being produced from a coupled hydrodynamic-wave model, implemented over the entire Mediterranean Basin. It consists the physical component of the Mediterranean Forecasting System (Med-Currents), with a horizontal grid resolution of 1/24° (approximately 4 km) and it has 141 unevenly spaced vertical levels. This dataset has been implemented in oil spill boundary forcing, e.g., in Liubartseva et al. [54], Kampouris et al. [55] and Keramea et al. [50]. The hydrodynamics are provided by the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO v3.6). The model solutions are corrected by a variational data assimilation scheme (3DVAR) of temperature and salinity vertical profiles, as well as along track satellite Sea Level Anomaly observations [124]. Finally, CMEMS supports the GLO-CPL dataset (Global Ocean 1/4° physics analysis and prediction) which is a data assimilation and forecast system that provides 10 days of 3D global ocean forecasts at ~27 km spatial resolution. The system employs the Met Office Unified Model v10.6 atmosphere configuration (at 40 km resolution) that is hourly coupled to NEMO v3.4 [125] ocean configuration and the CICE v4.1 multi-thickness category sea ice model (both on the ORCA025 grid) [126]. The GLO-CPL dataset has been used as forcing input in the GNOME oil spill simulations of Abdallah & Chantsev [71] for the Red Sea.

The NOAA National Ocean Service (NOAA/NOS) Coast Survey Development Laboratory (CSDL) runs the NOS GOM Nowcast/Forecast Model (NGOM) [127], which is an application of the POM model [128] in the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, the spatial resolution of NGOM is 5–6 km in the northeastern and central GoM, with 37 levels in the vertical (https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/831523). Furthermore, the forecasts are obtained every 3 hours. NGOM has been used as forcing data in oil spill simulations, as in the case of the Deepwater Horizon buoyant plume simulation in combination with the OILMAP DEEP model [66,67]. In parallel, the NOAA and FNMOC (Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center) provides operational ocean predictions using the Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM), with horizontal resolution of 1/36° (~3km) and 40 levels in the vertical. The model is capable to produce 4-day forecasts at 3-hour time steps. French-McCay et al. [67] and Grubesic et al. [74] have applied NCOM in oil spill simulations of OIL-MAPDEEP and BLOSOM, respectively. The AMSEAS ocean prediction system assimilates all quality-controlled observations, including satellite sea surface temperature and altimetry, as well as surface and profile temperature and salinity data, using the NRL-developed Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation (NCODA) system [129].

The hydrodynamic model, Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM; hycom.org), uses as outer model the operational GLoBal HYCOM (GLB-HYCOM) with horizontal resolution 1/12° (approximately 9 km) and 32 vertical layers (https://www.nrl.navy.mil/) [130]. The GLB-HYCOM model has been used in oil spill simulations, as in the case of a Brazilian oil spill model implementation, using the Spill, Transport, and Fate Model (STFM) [44], and in offshore India, coupled with GNOME [70]. In the Gulf of Mexico, the Gom-HYCOM model has 1/25° horizontal resolution, vertical resolution of 20 hybrid layers, and current predictions every 3 hours [131]. Retrospective model results are included in the reanalysis dataset of GoM-HYCOM, i.e., the HYCOM-NRL Reanalysis product (GOMu0.04/expt_50.1) produced by the US Naval Research Laboratory’s (NRL). The product has 1/25°spatial resolution (~ 3.5 km) at mid-latitudes, 36 vertical layers, and contains current predictions for the Gulf of Mexico every 3 hours. This dataset can be downloaded from these links: http://tds.hycom.org/thredds/catalog/datasets/GOMu0.04/expt_50.1/data/netcdf/catalog.html, http://hycom.org/data/gomu0pt04/expt-50pt1. Similarly, the GoM-HYCOM includes the Real-time dataset, the HYCOM-NRL Real-time [130] that uses the product HYCOM + NCODA GOM 1/25° with spatial horizontal resolution of 1/25° and 36 vertical layers, producing hourly 3D outputs in netCDF format (https://www.hycom.org/data/goml0pt04/expt-31pt0). These two datasets, HYCOM-NRL Reanalysis and HYCOM-NRL Real-time, have been used as forcing inputs in several oil spill case-studies, as in French-McCay et al. [66,67]. On the other hand, the GLB-HYCOM 1/12° is used to provide boundary conditions to a regional implementation for the GoM, having higher horizontal resolution (1/50°) with 32 hybrid vertical layers (GoM-HYCOM 1/50°) for the Atlantic Ocean areas, over the Southeastern US Continental Shelf. The GoM-HYCOM model has been implemented in a near-real time mode, by the Coastal and Shelf Modeling Group at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS), University of Miami (https://coastalmodeling.rsmas.miami.edu/), together with the Ocean Modeling and OSSE Center (OMOC) between RSMAS and the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML). The model covers the entire Gulf of Mexico, as well as a portion of the Caribbean Sea, the Florida Straits, and a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, along Florida, Georgia, and the Bahamas Islands. Le Hénaff and Kourafalou [22] and Androulidakis et al. [132] conducted detailed descriptions of the technical characteristics of the GoM-HYCOM 1/50° simulation (parameterizations, initial, boundary, and atmospheric forcing) and extended evaluations against non-assimilated in situ and satellite observations. The model user's manual contains additional information about the HYCOM model (www.hycom.org). The GoM-HYCOM with 1/50° horizontal resolution has been used in oil spill simulations, like in the studies of Hole et al. [47], Androulidakis et al. [46], and Kourafalou et al. [49]. Moreover, the FKeys-HYCOM model, based on HYCOM, is a high-resolution forcing model for oil spill simulations, covering the Southern Florida coastal and shelf areas and the Straits of Florida, with horizontal resolution 1/100° (~ 1 km) and 26 vertical layers. Besides, it has enabled new findings in eddy variability, with Kourafalou et al. [133,134] presenting more detailed information and data-based evaluation of its simulations. FKeys-HYCOM has been integrated in the oil spill simulations of Hole et al. [48] and Androulidakis et al. [46].

The North Carolina State University (NCSU) developed the South Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Mexico (SABGOM) hydrodynamic model, based on the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS). A model implementation for the GoM exists [135,136] with horizontal resolution ~5 km and 36 vertical layers. French-McCay, et al. [66] used SABGOM in their oil spill model. Moreover, SABGOM has now been replaced by the Coupled Northwest Atlantic Prediction System (CNAPS) (http://omgsrv1.meas.ncsu.edu:8080/CNAPS/), covering a larger area than SABGOM [137]. CNAPS is a three-dimensional marine environmental nowcast and forecast model, developed by OOMG (Ocean Observing and Modeling Group). The model computes the daily fields of ocean circulation, wave, and atmospheric variables. In addition, the SABGOM developed the Intra-Americas Sea Regional Ocean Modeling System (IAS ROMS) with a horizontal resolution of ~ 6 km and 30 vertical levels. Chao et al. [138] developed an IAS ROMS simulation (version "4C") for year 2010, including a 2-km nested grid within the coarser and extended IAS ROMS domain, as part of the trustees' NRDA program.

SANIFS (Southern Adriatic Northern Ionian coastal Forecasting System) is an operational coastal-ocean model, developed by the CMCC-OPA (Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate Change), producing short-term forecasts. The operational chain is based on a downscaling approach that begins with a large-scale system for the entire Mediterranean basin (MFS, Mediterranean Forecasting system, e.g., Oddo et al. [139]; Tonani et al. [140]) for the derivation of the open-sea fields. SANIFS is based on the finite-element three-dimensional hydrodynamic SHYFEM model, using an unstructured grid [141,142]. The horizontal resolution ranges from 3 km in open-sea to 500-50 m in coastal areas. The model configuration has been outlined to provide reliable hydrodynamics and active tracer forecasts in the mesoscale-shelf-coastal waters of South Eastern Italy (Apulia, Basilicata, and Calabria regions). The model is forced in two ways: (a) at the lateral open boundaries, using a full nesting strategy, directly imposed by the MFS (temperature, salinity, sea surface height, and currents) and the OTPS (tidal forcing) fields; and (b) at the sea surface using two alternative atmospheric forcing datasets (ECMWF-12km and COSMOME-6km) through the MFS-bulk-formulae [143,144]. SANIFS open-sea features were validated by comparing model results to observed data, such as Argo floats, CTDs, XBTs, and satellite SSTs, as well as MFS operational products. The model's large-scale oceanographic dynamics are completely consistent with MFS [145]. SANIFS model results have been imported as sea surface boundary condition in MEDSLIK-II model [56].

Moreover, the NorShelf model, developed by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, provides forecasted ocean currents for the Norwegian Shelf Sea, based on the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS), with a 4D-variational (4D-Var) DA assimilation scheme (MET Norway). To accommodate the scale of the available observations and to compromise the need to resolve high resolution eddy dynamics, while confining non-linearities that limit the 4D-Var DA capabilities, a horizontal model resolution of 2.4 km was chosen. The model is intended to be used for the forecasting of ocean circulation and hydrography beyond the coastal area, including the entire shelf sea and the dynamics of the North Atlantic current at the shelf slope [146]. Röhrs et al., [23] used the NorShelf model outputs in OpenOil simulations.

In parallel, the IRD (French Institute of Research for the Development) provides the oceanic modeling system, CROCO (Coastal and Regional Ocean COmmunity model), which is based on the ROMS-UCLA model [147] and ROMS AGRIF model [148]. CROCO is a free surface hydrostatic C-grid model with a terrain-following coordinate system and an efficient split-explicit approach for distinguishing between barotropic and baroclinic terms. It is the oceanic component of a complex coupled system that includes the atmosphere, surface waves, marine sediments, biogeochemistry, and ecosystems, among others [68,149]. CROCO also offers MATLAB-based pre-processing tools [150] for creating a model grid, interpolating atmospheric and oceanic data as boundary and forcing input, and setting tides and rivers in the grid model. MPI and OPENMP computations are supported by CROCO. In GNOME oil spill simulations, CROCO has been implemented with 1 km horizontal resolution and 25 vertical layers in the study of Nugroho et al. [68].

In addition, the DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute) developed the MIKE 21 model (https://www.mikepoweredbydhi.com/areas-of-application), a comprehensive simulation system for hydraulics and hydraulic-related phenomena in estuaries, coastal waters, and seas [151]. It simulates unsteady two-dimensional flows in a single layer of fluid (vertically homogeneous) [152]. In oil spill modeling MIKE 21 has been applied by Liu et al. [42]. Hydrodynamics, advection-dispersion, short waves, sediment transport, water quality, eutrophication, and heavy metals are all simulated by the system's various modules. The system has many engineering and environmental applications, including coastal hydraulics, oceanography, wave dynamics, harbors, rivers, environmental hydraulics, and sediment processes. A comprehensive pre- and post-processing module allows for the analysis and graphical presentation of data and model results [153]. The versatile, interactive menu system simplifies data entry, model input, and program execution.

SHYFEM (Shallow water HYdrodynamic Finite Element Model) is 3D hydrodynamic model, developed by ISMAR-CNR (Institute of Marine Sciences - National Research Council). The model solves the system of primitive equations by vertically integrating them across each vertical layer, using the Boussinesq approximation horizontally and the hydrostatic approximation vertically. It employs the generic ocean turbulence model [154] to calculate vertical diffusivity and viscosity. It was integrated with a transport simulation module and has a spatial resolution ranging from 25 m in extremely coastal areas or shallow waters, to a few kilometers offshore [142,155]. In oil spill modeling SHYFEM has been used by Cucco and Daniel [156], integrating the Lagrangian trajectory and weathering module (FEMOIL) into the operational forecasting system (BOOM), and Ribotti et al. [104], coupling it with the MEDSLIK-II model.

The POSEIDON System was established by the Hellenic Center for Marine Research (HCMR) and provides its hydrodynamic forecasting products [157] also in the MEDESS4MS format to suit the needs of oil spill models for the entire Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea. The POSEIDON hydrodynamical forecasts are released through the implementation of the Princeton Ocean model (POM) [128] with a spatial resolution of 10 km and 24 vertical sigma layers [19,108]. The POSEIDON Mediterranean model provides boundary conditions at the POSEIDON Aegean model’s western and eastern open boundaries [107,157]. Every week, the POSEIDON Aegean Sea model is re-initialized using the HCMR Mediterranean model analysis at 3.5 km horizontal resolution [108].

The CYCOFOS (Cyprus Coastal Ocean Forecasting System) provides hydrodynamic data [158] for the Eastern Mediterranean, covering the Aegean Sea and the Levantine basin. CYCOFOS hydrodynamic model is based on a modified version of POM [128,159] with a spatial resolution of 2 km and 30 vertical sigma layers, while for oil spill models produce 15 vertical z-layers in MEDESS4MS format [108]. The CYCOFOS hydrodynamical model is nested to the Copernicus marine service, while the surface forcing is provided by the ECMWF. CYCOFOS generates daily, 6-hourly mean forecasts for the following four and a half days in a dedicated NetCDF files, designed specifically to cover the needs of oil spill models, known as MEDESS4MS format [108]. The CYCOFOS ocean forecasts have been extensively validated and compared to the parent models, as well as satellite remote SST and in-situ observations [60,158]. The CYCOFOS hydrodynamical forecasts have been used in real oil spill pollution incidents [58,62] and in several oil spill test-cases [59,108,160].

The INGV (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) provides hydrodynamic data products utilizing the MFS (Mediterranean Forecasting System) model [144,161] and the high-resolution Adriatic Forecasting System (AFS) model [162]. The MFS is based on the NEMO Ocean General Circulation Model (OGCM), which is applied on a model domain with a spatial resolution of 6.5 km. The model spans the whole Mediterranean Sea, and provides daily 10-day forecasts. It has been implemented in many oil spill scenarios, such as the works of Coppini et al. [163] and De Dominicis et al. [19]. The OGCM is linked to a Wave Watch III implementation [164] for the entire Mediterranean Sea, at the same resolution with the hydrodynamics. Furthermore, the Adriatic Forecasting System (AFS) model receives the initial and lateral boundary conditions for temperature, salinity, and velocity from the MFS to produce high resolution (~2.2 km) forecasting outputs for the Adriatic Sea with ECMWF forcing. AFS has been coupled with MEDSLIK-II in oil spill simulations via the De Dominicis et al. [29].

The CNR, Institute for the Marine and Coastal Environment (Naples) (CNR - IAMC) computes hydrodynamics using the Western Mediterranean Model (WMED) [155]. This forecasting system of the marine circulation at sub-regional scale (about 3.5 km) covers the Western Mediterranean, around Sardinia. The model is based on the three- dimensional primitive equation, finite difference hydrodynamic model, named POM [128]. It has been coupled with MEDSLIK-II oil spill model [19,108] and MOTHY model [156].

The IASA provides forecasting ocean products for the Eastern Mediterranean for the next 5 days via the Aegean Levantine Eddy Resolving Model (ALERMO) [165]. This model is a high-resolution implementation of the POM used in the Aegean-Levantine basins, with horizontal resolution of 3.5 km and 25 logarithmic sigma levels in the vertical. The Copernicus Med-MFC (https://marine.copernicus.eu/about/producers/med-mfc) is used to define the one-way nested open boundary conditions [166]. ALERMO has been applied in oil spill modeling as forcing data by Zafirakou-Koulouris et al. [103] and Zodiatis et al. [108,158]. Moreover, the IFREMER (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea) provides oceanographic forecasts, produced by the PREVIMER-MENOR model, which cover the northern part of the Western Mediterranean Sea with 1.2 km horizontal resolution and 60 sigma levels, refined near the surface. The boundary conditions of PREVIMER-MENOR are provided via the Copernicus Med-MFC model. This configuration, which is based on a primitive equation model devoted to regional and coastal modeling, is utilized for both operational and academic reasons [167,168]. The PREVIMER-MENOR model has been coupled to oil spill simulations by De Dominicis et al. [19] and Zodiatis et al. [108].

Table 2. Hydrodynamics models with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions.

Table 2. Hydrodynamics models with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions.

Hydrodynamics	Provider	Geographic Coverage	Spatial Resolution	Reference
Poseidon Med Model	HCMR	Mediterranean	~ 10 km	[19,108]
Poseidon Aegean Model	HCMR	Aegean Sea	~ 3.5 km	[108]
CYPOM	CYCOFOS	Aegean-Levantine	~ 2 km	[108,160,163]
WMED	CNR IAMC	Western Mediterranean	~ 3.5 km	[19,108,156]
ALERMO	IASA	Eastern Mediterranean	~ 3.5 km	[103,108,158]
MFS	INGV	Mediterranean	~ 6.5 km	[19,108,163]
AFS	INGV	Adriatic Sea	~ 2.2 km	[29,108]
PREVIMER MENOR	IFREMER	North Western Mediterranean	~ 1.2 km	[19,108]
ΜΙΚΕ21	DHI	Regional	-	[42]
CROCO	IRD	Regional	1 km	[68]
NorShelf	Norwegian Meteorological Institute	Norwegian Shelf Sea	2.4 km	[23]
SANIFS	CMCC-OPA	Mediterranean basin	3 km	[56]
SHYFEM	ISMAR-CNR	Regional	4 km, 1km	[104,155]
NEMO	CMEMS	Mediterranean Global Global	(1/24°) ~ 4 km (1/12°) ~ 9 km (1/4°)~27 km	[50,54,55] [51,53,57] [69]
NGOM	NOAA- CSDL	North-eastern and Central GOM	5-6 km	[66]
NCOM	NOAA FNMOC	American Seas and Alaska	3 km	[66,74]
SABGOM	NCSU	GOM	~ 5 km	[66]
IASROMS	NCSU	GOM	~ 2 km	[66]
GLB-HYCOM	NOAA NRL	Global	1/12° (~ 9 km)	[44,70]
GoM-HYCOM	NOAA NRL	GOM	$1/25\text{°}$(~ 4 km)	[66,67]
GoM-HYCOM	NOAA NRL	GOM	1/50° (~ 2 km)	[46,47,49]
Fkeys-HYCOM	NOAA NRL	South Florida coastal, shelf areas and Straits of Florida	1/100° (~ 1 km)	[46,48]

3.3. Waves

The ECMWF provides global wave forecasts with a spatial resolution 1/8° using the third generation spectral WAve Model (WAM), [95,169,170]. With 25 frequencies and 24 directions, the WAM model computes the two-dimensional wave distribution. In addition, WAM model has a 1/8° horizontal resolution with outputs every 12-hours. It is the first wave model to solve the complete action density equation, which includes non-linear wave-wave interactions. The WAM model is used operationally in global and regional applications to forecast the sea state. The model may be used for a variety of applications, including ship routing and offshore activities, as well as the validation and interpretation of satellite observations. The output of this wave data product is provided in netCDF format (https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/set-ii).

Moreover, the CMEMS, Copernicus Marine System [171] performs operational wave simulations and provides several wave datasets. In this review two datasets are considered: (a) The Global Reanalysis, which is a global wave reanalysis product, describing historic sea states, since 1993. This dataset is based on the WAVERYS model (WAVeReanalYSis) [172], subject to the MFWAM (Météo-France WAve Model) model [173], a third-generation wave model that calculates the directional wave spectrum (i.e., the distribution of sea state energy in frequency and direction) on a 1/5° irregular grid. Average wave quantities derived from this wave spectrum are the significant wave height, the average wave period and the sea surface wave Stokes drift (u and v velocities). These are provided on a regular 1/5° grid, with 3-hour time step. Besides, WAVERYS incorporates oceanic currents from the GLORYS12 physical ocean reanalysis [174] as well as the significant wave height, observed from historical altimetry missions and directional wave spectra from Sentinel 1 SAR, since the beginning of 2017. Detailed information of this dataset is presented by Law-Chune et al. [172]. (b) The main wave product of the Mediterranean Sea Forecasting system (MEDSEA_ANALYSISFORECAST_WAV_006_017) [175], which is made up of hourly wave parameters, with a horizontal resolution of 1/24° that cover the Mediterranean Sea and extend up to 18.125W into the Atlantic Ocean [176]. The wave forecast component (Med-Waves system) is based on the upgraded WAM Cycle 4.6.2. (https://github.com/mywave/WAM). With 24 directional and 32 logarithmically distributed frequency bins, the Med-Waves modeling system resolves the prognostic part of the wave spectrum, and the model solutions are corrected by an optimal interpolation data assimilation scheme of all available along track satellite significant wave height observations. The model employs wave spectra from the GLOBAL ANALYSIS FORECAST WAV 001 027 product (https://data.marine.copernicus.eu/product/GLOBAL_ANALYSISFORECAST_WAV_001_027/description) for Open Boundary Conditions [177,178]. The wave system includes two forecast cycles that provide a Mediterranean wave analysis twice per day and wave forecasts for the next ten days.

The POSEIDON System, established by Hellenic Center for Marine Research (HCMR) [157], provides the sea state forecasting outputs for the Mediterranean and Aegean/Ionian Seas via WAM Cycle 4 model with spatial resolutions of 10 km and 3.5 km, respectively [179]. It is a third-generation wave model capable to compute the spectra of randomly produced short-crested wind waves. The wave forecasting system generates wave forecasts for the next five days, based on hourly analysis and forecasted winds, generated by the POSEIDON weather prediction system.

The Cyprus Coastal Ocean Forecasting and Observing System products (CYCOFOS) [180,181] provides hourly wave forecasting data using the WAM4 model for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, at 5 km horizontal resolution [19,181], in MEDESS4MS netCDF format to suit the oil spill models.

The UoM provides the wave forecasting data produced by the MALTA Maria WAM model for the central Mediterranean region, with 12.5 km horizontal resolution, using the 3rd generation spectral wave model WAM Cycle 4 [109,182].

The IFREMER provides wave data for the whole Mediterranean, as distributed to the MEDESS-4MS service, through the PREVIMER-MENOR-WW3 model, with 10 km spatial resolution. This wave model is based on the WaveWatch III configuration [183]. Also, it is forced by the atmospheric model of the French Metoffice, the ARPEGE. In parallel, the Puertos del Estado (PdE) (https://www.mitma.gob.es/empresas-fomento/puertos-del-estado ) distributes wave data through the PdE WAM wave forecasting model, with 8 km horizontal resolution, covering the western Mediterranean domain [108].

The Météo-France supports a global forecasting wave system, named MFWAM [184], which is based on the wave model WAM [177]. It is a global model that has 1/12° horizontal resolution and 3-hour instantaneous temporal resolution [83].

Table 3. Wave models and wave products with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions.

Table 3. Wave models and wave products with the corresponding domains and horizontal resolutions.

Wave system	Provider	Geographical area	Spatial Resolution	Data Type	Reference
Poseidon WAM Cycle 4 Med	HCMR	Mediterranean	~ 10 km	Forecast	[108,179]
Poseidon WAM Cycle 4 Aegean	HCMR	Aegean	~ 3.5 km	Forecast	[108,179]
WAM4	CYCOFOS	Mediterranean and Black Sea	~ 5 km	Forecast	[19,108,181]
PdE-WAM	PdE	Western Mediterranean	~ 8 km	Forecast	[108]
PREVIMER-MENOR-WW3	IFREMER	Mediterranean	~ 10 km	Forecast	[19,108]
MALTA/Maria WAMI	UOM	Central Mediterranean	~ 12.5 km	Forecast	[108,109]
WAM Cycle 6, WAM 4.6.2	CMEMS	Mediterranean	1/24° (~ 4.5 km)	Forecast/Reanalysis	[50,176]
MFWAM	Meteo-France	Global	1/12° (~9 km)	Forecast	[83,177]
WAVERYS	CMEMS	Global	1/5° (~ 22 km)	Reanalysis	[51,172]
WAM	ECMWF	Global	0.125° (~ 13 km)	Forecast	[23,46,47,48,49,185]

4. Analysis of Selected Oil Spill Models, in terms of Boundary Forcing

4.4. Biogeochemical model

The majority of oil spill test-cases take into account only the main oil weathering processes, such as spreading, evaporation, emulsification, dispersion and beaching. Furthermore, from the 24 applications, only in 4 cases the process of biodegradation was included, in 2 cases dissolution and sedimentation were considered and in one the photo-oxidation process was integrated.

In the OpenOil simulations (5 in 7 cases), the physico-chemical processes integrated are evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, beaching, vertical mixing and resurfacing. In only two test-cases [50,51] the biodegradation process is included. However, the biodegradation in these cases takes into account only temperature as input parameter, so there is a need for further improvement. In addition, in all case-studies of MEDSLIK models, the physico-chemical processes included are evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, spreading and beaching. It is worth mentioning that MEDSLIK-II [18,186] included biogeochemical processes, but none of these simulations was applied to actual or hypothetical scenarios. As for GNOME model, in almost all test-cases (3 of 4 cases), evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, spreading and beaching are obtained, except from one case [68] which did not consider any OWP. The most comprehensive oil spill model in terms of biochemical processes is SIMAP, which takes into account all OWPs, such as evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, spreading, beaching, dissolution, sedimentation, biodegradation and photo-oxidation. However, in both test-cases using SIMAP, no one was coupled with a wave model. Concerning the STFM and MIKE 21 OS FM test simulations, only evaporation, emulsification and dispersion was included, while the BLOSOM simulations involved evaporation, emulsification, dispersion, spreading and beaching, although the model additionally supports the dissolution process.

Table 5. 7-Case studies of OpenOil model (2018-2022) according to Metocean data and initial satellite observations.

Table 5. 7-Case studies of OpenOil model (2018-2022) according to Metocean data and initial satellite observations.

Time period	SAR data	Currents	Waves	Wind	Sal/Temp	Reference
22/2/11-4/3/11 3-13/1/2011 5-15/1/2011 7-17/1/2011 (10 days)	No	NorShelf model (2.4 km)	ECMWF (0.125°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	No	[23]
20-27/5/2010 (7-days) 2-10/6/2010 (8 days)	Yes	GoM-Hycom (1/50°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	$\mathrm{ECMWF}$(0.125°)	Only Salinity - GoM-HYCOM (1/50°)	[47]
2011-2016 (6 years)	No	GoM-Hycom (1/50°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	No	[46]
Feb. 2017 (5 days) August 2017 (5 days)	Yes	GoM-Hycom (1/50°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	Only Salinity - GoM- HYCOM (1/50°)	[49]
2010-2017 (7 years)	No	GoM-Hycom (1/50°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	ECMWF (0.125°)	GoM- HYCOM (1/50°)	[48]
25-30/10/2020 (5 days)	No	CMEMS- Mediterranean Forecast (1/24°)	CMEMS- Mediterranean Forecast (1/24°)	$\mathrm{NOAA}-\mathrm{GFS}(0.25^{\mathrm{o}}$)	CMEMS- Mediterranean Forecast (1/24°)	[50]
20-23/07/2014 (3 days) 21-23/08/2014 (2 days)	No	CMEMS-Global Forecast (1/12°)	CMEMS-Global Reanalysis (1/5°)	$\mathrm{ECMWF}-\mathrm{ERA}5\left(0.25^{\mathrm{o}}\right)$	No	[51]

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Future Outlook

References

1. Crain, C.M.; Halpern, B.S.; Beck, M.W.; Kappel, C.V. Understanding and Managing Human Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2009, 1162, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Walker, A.H.; Pavia, R.; Bostrom, A.; Leschine, T.M.; Starbird, K. Communication Practices for Oil Spills: Stakeholder Engagement During Preparedness and Response. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2015, 21, 667–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Fingas, M.; Brown, C. Review of oil spill remote sensing. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014, 83, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Azevedo, A.; Oliveira, A.; Fortunato, A.B.; Zhang, J.; Baptista, A.M. A cross-scale numerical modeling system for management support of oil spill accidents. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2014, 80, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Zafirakou, A. Oil Spill Dispersion Forecasting Models. In Monitoring of Marine Pollution; IntechOpen London, UK: 2019.
6. Mishra, A.K.; Kumar, G.S. Weathering of Oil Spill: Modeling and Analysis. Aquatic Procedia 2015, 4, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Keramea, P.; Spanoudaki, K.; Zodiatis, G.; Gikas, G.; Sylaios, G. Oil Spill Modeling: A Critical Review on Current Trends, Perspectives, and Challenges. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Webler, T.; Lord, F. Planning for the Human Dimensions of Oil Spills and Spill Response. Environmental Management 2010, 45, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Zhong, Z.; You, F. Oil spill response planning with consideration of physicochemical evolution of the oil slick: A multiobjective optimization approach. Computers and Chemical Engineering 2011, 35, 1614–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Davies, A.J.; Hope, M.J. Bayesian inference-based environmental decision support systems for oil spill response strategy selection. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015, 96, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Grubesic, T.H.; Wei, R.; Nelson, J. Optimizing oil spill cleanup efforts: A tactical approach and evaluation framework. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2017, 125, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Chang, S.E.; Stone, J.; Demes, K.; Piscitelli, M. Consequences of oil spills a review and framework for informing planning. Ecology and Society 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Li, C.; Miller, J.; Wang, J.; Koley, S.S.; Katz, J. Size Distribution and Dispersion of Droplets Generated by Impingement of Breaking Waves on Oil Slicks. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 2017, 122, 7938–7957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Wenning, R.J.; Robinson, H.; Bock, M.; Rempel-Hester, M.A.; Gardiner, W. Current practices and knowledge supporting oil spill risk assessment in the Arctic. Marine Environmental Research 2018, 141, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Barker, C.H.; Kourafalou, V.H.; Beegle-Krause, C.J.; Boufadel, M.; Bourassa, M.A.; Buschang, S.G.; Androulidakis, Y.; Chassignet, E.P.; Dagestad, K.-F.; Danmeier, D.G.; et al. Progress in Operational Modeling in Support of Oil Spill Response. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Alves, T.M.; Krestenitis, Y.; Perivoliotis, L.; Sofianos, S.; Spanoudaki, K. Oil spill forecasting (prediction). Journal of Marine Research 2017, 75, 923–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Spaulding, M.L. State of the art review and future directions in oil spill modeling. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2017, 115, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Spanoudaki, K.; Sofianos, S.; Radhakrishnan, H.; Coppini, G.; Liubartseva, S.; Kampanis, N.; Krokos, G.; Hoteit, I.; et al. Chapter 5 - Operational oil spill modelling assessments. In Marine Hydrocarbon Spill Assessments, Makarynskyy, O., Ed.; Elsevier: 2021; pp. 145–197.
19. De Dominicis, M.; Bruciaferri, D.; Gerin, R.; Pinardi, N.; Poulain, P.M.; Garreau, P.; Zodiatis, G.; Perivoliotis, L.; Fazioli, L.; Sorgente, R.; et al. A multi-model assessment of the impact of currents, waves and wind in modelling surface drifters and oil spill. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 2016, 133, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Dearden, C.; Culmer, T.; Brooke, R. Performance Measures for Validation of Oil Spill Dispersion Models Based on Satellite and Coastal Data. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 2022, 47, 126–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Pisano, A.; De Dominicis, M.; Biamino, W.; Bignami, F.; Gherardi, S.; Colao, F.; Coppini, G.; Marullo, S.; Sprovieri, M.; Trivero, P.; et al. An oceanographic survey for oil spill monitoring and model forecasting validation using remote sensing and in situ data in the Mediterranean Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 2016, 133, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Le Hénaff, M.; Kourafalou, V.H. Mississippi waters reaching South Florida reefs under no flood conditions: synthesis of observing and modeling system findings. Ocean Dynamics 2016, 66, 435–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Röhrs, J.; Dagestad, K.F.; Asbjørnsen, H.; Nordam, T.; Skancke, J.; Jones, C.E.; Brekke, C. The effect of vertical mixing on the horizontal drift of oil spills. Ocean Science 2018, 14, 1581–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Spaulding, M.L. A state-of-the-art review of oil spill trajectory and fate modeling. Oil and Chemical Pollution 1988, 4, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Dagestad, K.F.; Röhrs, J.; Breivik, O.; Ådlandsvik, B. OpenDrift v1.0: A generic framework for trajectory modelling. Geoscientific Model Development 2018, 11, 1405–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Lardner, R.; Zodiatis, G.; Loizides, L.; Demetropoulos, A. An operational oil spill model for the Levantine Basin(Eastern Mediterranean Sea; 1011-4289; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Monaco, 5-6 October, 1988 1998; pp. 542–543. [Google Scholar]
27. Lardner, R.; Zodiatis, G. MEDSLIK oil spill model recent developments. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 17-22 April, 2016; pp. EPSC2016–16240.
28. De Dominicis, M.; Pinardi, N.; Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R. MEDSLIK-II, a Lagrangian marine surface oil spill model for short-term forecasting – Part 1: Theory. Geosci. Model Dev. 2013, 6, 1851–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. De Dominicis, M.; Pinardi, N.; Zodiatis, G.; Archetti, R. MEDSLIK-II, a Lagrangian marine surface oil spill model for short-term forecasting – Part 2: Numerical simulations and validations. Geosci. Model Dev. 2013, 6, 1871–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. McCay, D.F. Development and application of damage assessment modeling: Example assessment for the North Cape oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003, 47, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. McCay, D.F.; Li, Z.; Horn, M.; Crowley, D.; Spaulding, M.; Mendelsohn, D.; Turner, C. Modeling oil fate and subsurface exposure concentrations from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In Proceedings of the 39th AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, Ottawa, Canada; 2016; pp. 115–150. [Google Scholar]
32. Beegle-Krause, C.J. General NOAA oil modeling environment (GNOME): A new spill trajectory model. 2005 International Oil Spill Conference, IOSC 2005 2005, 2001, 3277–3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Zelenke, B.; O'Connor, C.; Barker, C.H.; Beegle-Krause, C.J.; Eclipse, L. General NOAA Operational Modeling Environment (GNOME) technical documentation. 2012.
34. Duran, R.; Romeo, L.; Whiting, J.; Vielma, J.; Rose, K.; Bunn, A.; Bauer, J. Simulation of the 2003 Foss Barge - Point Wells Oil Spill: A Comparison between BLOSOM and GNOME Oil Spill Models. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2018, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Crowley, D.; Mendelsohn, D.; Mulanaphy, N.W.; Li, Z.; Spaulding, M. Modeling Subsurface Dispersant Applications for Response Planning and Preparation. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 2014, 2014, 933–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Spaulding, M.; Mendelsohn, D.; Crowley, D.; Li, Z.; Bird, A. DRAFT Technical Reports for Deepwater Horizon Water Column Injury Assessment: WC_TR. 13: Application of OILMAP DEEP to the Deepwater Horizon Blowout. DWH NRDA Water Column Technical Working Group Report. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by RPS ASA, South Kingstown, RI 2015, 2879, 386–386. [Google Scholar]
37. Spaulding, M.; Li, Z.; Mendelsohn, D.; Crowley, D.; French-McCay, D.; Bird, A. Application of an Integrated Blowout Model System, OILMAP DEEP, to the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2017, 120, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Nelson, J.R.; Grubesic, T.H.; Sim, L.; Rose, K.; Graham, J. Approach for assessing coastal vulnerability to oil spills for prevention and readiness using GIS and the Blowout and Spill Occurrence Model. Ocean and Coastal Management 2015, 112, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Sim, L.H. Blowout and spill occrrence model. 2013, 1-90.
40. Murray, K.J.; Boehm, P.D.; Prince, R.C. The Importance of Understanding Transport and Degradation of Oil and Gasses from Deep-Sea Blowouts. In Deep Oil Spills, Murawski, S.A., Ainsworth, C.H., Gilbert, S., Hollander, D.J., Paris, C.B., Schlüter, M., Wetzel, D.L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2020; pp. 86–106. [Google Scholar]
41. Benard, L.D.; Mohd Tuah, P. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in seawater: Oil spill plume modelling approaches. In Microbial Action on Hydrocarbons, Kumar, V., Kumar, M., Prasad, R., Eds.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2019; pp. 35–62. [Google Scholar]
42. Liu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, C.; Han, Z.; Cai, B.; Liu, Y. Oil spill modeling of Chengdao oilfield in the Chinese Bohai Sea. Ocean Engineering 2022, 255, 111422–111422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Zacharias, D.C.; Rezende, K.F.O.; Fornaro, A. Offshore petroleum pollution compared numerically via algorithm tests and computation solutions. Ocean Engineering 2018, 151, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Zacharias, D.C.; Gama, C.M.; Harari, J.; da Rocha, R.P.; Fornaro, A. Mysterious oil spill on the Brazilian coast – Part 2: A probabilistic approach to fill gaps of uncertainties. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 173, 113085–113085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. GitHub. OpenDrift. Available online: https://github.com/OpenDrift/opendrift/ (accessed on 25 February 2022).
46. Androulidakis, Y.; Kourafalou, V.; Robert Hole, L.; Le Hénaff, M.; Kang, H. Pathways of Oil Spills from Potential Cuban Offshore Exploration: Influence of Ocean Circulation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Hole, L.R.; Dagestad, K.-F.; Röhrs, J.; Wettre, C.; Kourafalou, V.H.; Androulidakis, Y.; Kang, H.; Le Hénaff, M.; Garcia-Pineda, O. The DeepWater Horizon Oil Slick: Simulations of River Front Effects and Oil Droplet Size Distribution. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Hole, L.R.; de Aguiar, V.; Dagestad, K.F.; Kourafalou, V.H.; Androulidakis, Y.; Kang, H.; Le Hénaff, M.; Calzada, A. Long term simulations of potential oil spills around Cuba. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 167, 112285–112285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Kourafalou, V.; Justic, D.; Androulidakis, Y.; Bracco, A. From the deep ocean to the coasts and estuaries through the shelf: linking coastal response to a deep blow-out. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 2021, 2021, 685087–685087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Keramea, P.; Kokkos, N.; Gikas, G.D.; Sylaios, G. Operational Modeling of North Aegean Oil Spills Forced by Real-Time Met-Ocean Forecasts. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Devis Morales, A.; Rodríguez Rubio, E.; Rincón Martínez, D. Numerical modeling of oil spills in the Gulf of Morrosquillo, Colombian Caribbean. CT&F - Ciencia, Tecnología y Futuro 2022, 12, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Hasselmann, K. On the spectral dissipation of ocean waves due to white capping. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 1974, 6, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Sepp Neves, A.A.; Pinardi, N.; Navarra, A.; Trotta, F. A General Methodology for Beached Oil Spill Hazard Mapping. Frontiers in Marine Science 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Liubartseva, S.; Smaoui, M.; Coppini, G.; Gonzalez, G.; Lecci, R.; Cretì, S.; Federico, I. Model-based reconstruction of the Ulysse-Virginia oil spill, October–November 2018. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2020, 154, 111002–111002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Kampouris, K.; Vervatis, V.; Karagiorgos, J.; Sofianos, S. Oil spill model uncertainty quantification using an atmospheric ensemble. Ocean Science 2021, 17, 919–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Liubartseva, S.; Federico, I.; Coppini, G.; Lecci, R. Stochastic oil spill modeling for environmental protection at the Port of Taranto (southern Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 171, 112744–112744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Siqueira, P.G.S.C.; Silva, J.A.M.; Gois, M.L.B.; Duarte, H.O.; Moura, M.C.; Silva, M.A.; Araújo, M.C. Numerical simulations of potential oil spills near Fernando de Noronha archipelago. In Trends in Maritime Technology and Engineering Volume 2; CRC Press: London, 2022; pp. 273–282. [Google Scholar]
58. Zodiatis, G.; Coppini, G.; Peña, J.; Benjumeda, P.; Sepp-Neves, A.A.; Lardner, R.; Liubartseva, S.; Soloviev, D.; Scuro, M.; Viola, F. Operational response to the Syrian oil pollution crisis in 2021. May 01, 2022, 2022; pp. EGU22–1098.
59. Alves, T.M.; Kokinou, E.; Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Panagiotakis, C.; Radhakrishnan, H. Modelling of oil spills in confined maritime basins: The case for early response in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Pollution 2015, 206, 390–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Zodiatis, G.; Liubartseva, S.; Loizides, L.; Pellegatta, M.; Coppini, G.; Lardner, R.; Kallos, G.; Kalogeri, C.; Bonarelli, R.; Sepp Neves, A.A.; et al. CMEMS AND CYCOFOS ASSESSING THE POLLUTION RISK FROM THE LEVIATHAN OFFSHORE PLATFORM IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA CMEMS ET CYCOFOS : ÉVALUATION DU RISQUE DE POLLUTION DE LA PLATE-FORME OFFSHORE LEVIATHAN EN MER MÉDITERRANÉE ORIENTALE. In Proceedings of the 9th EuroGOOS International conference, Brest, France, 2021; 2021-05-03; pp. 169–177. [Google Scholar]
61. Liubartseva, S.; Zodiatis, G.; Coppini, G.; Sepp Neves, A.A.; Peña, J.; Benjumeda, P.; Lecci, R.; Soloviev, D. Operational simulations of a Mediterranean oil spill in February 2021. May 01, 2022, 2022; pp. EGU22–2276.
62. Lardner, R.; Zodiatis, G.; Hayes, D.; Pinardi, N. Application of the MEDSLIK oil spill model to the Lebanese spill of July 2006. In Proceedings of the European Group of Experts on satellite monitoring of sea based oil pollution, European Communities ISSN, Brussels, Belgium; 2006; pp. 1018–5593. [Google Scholar]
63. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Solovyov, D.; Panayidou, X.; De Dominicis, M. Predictions for oil slicks detected from satellite images using MyOcean forecasting data. Ocean Sci. 2012, 8, 1105–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Hoteit, I.; Abualnaja, Y.; Afzal, S.; Ait-El-Fquih, B.; Akylas, T.; Antony, C.; Dawson, C.; Asfahani, K.; Brewin, R.J.; Cavaleri, L.; et al. Towards an End-to-End Analysis and Prediction System for Weather, Climate, and Marine Applications in the Red Sea. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2021, 102, E99–E122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Youssef, M.; Spaulding, M. Drift current under the action of wind and waves; Canada, 1993; pp. 587–615.
66. French-McCay, D.P.; Spaulding, M.L.; Crowley, D.; Mendelsohn, D.; Fontenault, J.; Horn, M. Validation of Oil Trajectory and Fate Modeling of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Frontiers in Marine Science 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. French-McCay, D.P.; Jayko, K.; Li, Z.; Spaulding, M.L.; Crowley, D.; Mendelsohn, D.; Horn, M.; Isaji, T.; Kim, Y.H.; Fontenault, J.; et al. Oil fate and mass balance for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 171, 112681–112681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Nugroho, D.; Pranowo, W.S.; Gusmawati, N.F.; Nazal, Z.B.; Rozali, R.H.B.; Fuad, M.A.Z. The application of coupled 3d hydrodynamic and oil transport model to oil spill incident in karawang offshore, indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2021, 925, 012048–012048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Abdallah, I.M.; Chantsev, V.Y. Simulating oil spill movement and behavior: a case study from the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 2022, 8, 4553–4562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Pradhan, B.; Das, M.; Pradhan, C. Trajectory modelling for hypothetical oil spill in Odisha offshore, India. Journal of Earth System Science 2022, 131, 205–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Abdallah, I.M.; Chantsev, V.Y. Modeling marine oil spill trajectory and fate off Hurghada, Red Sea coast, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 2022, 26, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Sim, L.; Graham, J.; Rose, K.; Duran, R.; Nelson, J.; Umhoefer, J.; Vielma, J. Developing a Comprehensive Deepwater Blowout and Spill Model; 2015; pp. 48–48.
73. Lehr, W.; Jones, R.; Evans, M.; Simecek-Beatty, D.; Overstreet, R. Revisions of the ADIOS oil spill model. Environmental Modelling and Software 2002, 17, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74. Grubesic, T.H.; Nelson, J.R. Estimating potential oil spill trajectories and coastal impacts from near-shore storage facilities: A case study of FSO Nabarima and the Gulf of Paria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2022, 78, 103117–103117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75. Saha, S.; Nadiga, S.; Thiaw, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Q.; Van den Dool, H.M.; Pan, H.L.; Moorthi, S.; Behringer, D.; et al. The NCEP Climate Forecast System. Journal of Climate 2006, 19, 3483–3517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Fuka, D.R.; Walter, M.T.; MacAlister, C.; Degaetano, A.T.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Easton, Z.M. Using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis as weather input data for watershed models. Hydrological Processes 2014, 28, 5613–5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Meza-Padilla, R.; Enriquez, C.; Appendini, C.M. Rapid assessment tool for oil spill planning and contingencies. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2021, 166, 112196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Brian, K.; Ben, B.; Charles, L. A case study of consensus modelling for tracking oil spills. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2010, 11, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Brushett, B.A.; King, B.A.; Lemckert, C.J. Evaluation of met-ocean forecast data effectiveness for tracking drifters deployed during operational oil spill response in Australian waters. Journal of Coastal Research 2011, 991–994. [Google Scholar]
80. Le Hénaff, M.; Kourafalou, V.H.; Paris, C.B.; Helgers, J.; Aman, Z.M.; Hogan, P.J.; Srinivasan, A. Surface Evolution of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Patch: Combined Effects of Circulation and Wind-Induced Drift. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46, 7267–7273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Vaz, A.C.; Faillettaz, R.; Paris, C.B. A Coupled Lagrangian-Earth System Model for Predicting Oil Photooxidation. Frontiers in Marine Science 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. NOAA. Global Forecast System (GFS). Available online: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/global-forecast (accessed on 15 November 2022).
83. Zhang, X.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, F.; Wu, J.; Li, S.; Liu, J.; Chu, S.; Xia, N.; Min, K.; Zuo, X.; et al. Evaluation of multi-source forcing datasets for drift trajectory prediction using Lagrangian models in the South China Sea. Applied Ocean Research 2020, 104, 102395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. NCEP, G. 0. 25 Degree Global Forecast Grids Historical Archive. ds084. 1. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Skamarock, W.C.; Klemp, J.B.; Dudhia, J.; Gill, D.O.; Liu, Z.; Berner, J.; Wang, W.; Powers, J.G.; Duda, M.G.; Barker, D.M. A description of the advanced research WRF model version 4. National Center for Atmospheric Research: Boulder, CO, USA 2019, 145, 145. [Google Scholar]
86. Lichiheb, N.; Hicks, B.B.; Myles, L. An evaluation of meteorological data prediction over Washington, D.C.: Comparison of DCNet observations and NAM model outputs. Urban Climate 2023, 48, 101410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Bukovsky, M.S.; Karoly, D.J. A Brief Evaluation of Precipitation from the North American Regional Reanalysis. Journal of Hydrometeorology 2007, 8, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. Ainsworth, C.H.; Chassignet, E.P.; French-McCay, D.; Beegle-Krause, C.J.; Berenshtein, I.; Englehardt, J.; Fiddaman, T.; Huang, H.; Huettel, M.; Justic, D.; et al. Ten years of modeling the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environmental Modelling & Software 2021, 142, 105070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
89. French-McCay, D.; Crowley, D.; Rowe, J.J.; Bock, M.; Robinson, H.; Wenning, R.; Walker, A.H.; Joeckel, J.; Nedwed, T.J.; Parkerton, T.F. Comparative Risk Assessment of spill response options for a deepwater oil well blowout: Part 1. Oil spill modeling. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2018, 133, 1001–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
90. Mesinger, F.; DiMego, G.; Kalnay, E.; Mitchell, K.; Shafran, P.C.; Ebisuzaki, W.; Jović, D.; Woollen, J.; Rogers, E.; Berbery, E.H.; et al. North American Regional Reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2006, 87, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Feehan, C.J.; Sharp, W.C.; Miles, T.N.; Brown, M.S.; Adams, D.K. Larval influx of Diadema antillarum to the Florida Keys linked to passage of a Tortugas Eddy. Coral Reefs 2019, 38, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92. ECMWF. European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Available online: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/ forecasts/accessing-forecasts (accessed on 25 November 2022).
93. Zhang, L.; Shi, H.; Wang, Z.; Yu, H.; Yin, X.; Liao, Q. Comparison of Wind Speeds from Spaceborne Microwave Radiometers with In Situ Observations and ECMWF Data over the Global Ocean. Remote Sensing 2018, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94. Ehard, B.; Malardel, S.; Dörnbrack, A.; Kaifler, B.; Kaifler, N.; Wedi, N. Comparing ECMWF high-resolution analyses with lidar temperature measurements in the middle atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 2018, 144, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95. Haiden, T.; Janousek, M.; Bidlot, J.; Ferranti, L.; Prates, F.; Vitart, F.; Bauer, P.; Richardson, D.S. Evaluation of ECMWF forecasts, including the 2016 resolution upgrade; European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reading, UK: 2016.
96. Hersbach, H.; Bell, B.; Berrisford, P.; Hirahara, S.; Horányi, A.; Muñoz-Sabater, J.; Nicolas, J.; Peubey, C.; Radu, R.; Schepers, D.; et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 2020, 146, 1999–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
97. Dee, D.P.; Uppala, S.M.; Simmons, A.J.; Berrisford, P.; Poli, P.; Kobayashi, S.; Andrae, U.; Balmaseda, M.A.; Balsamo, G.; Bauer, P.; et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 2011, 137, 553–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
98. Berrisford, P.; Dee, D.; Poli, P.; Brugge, R.; Fielding, K.; Fuentes, M.; Kallberg, P.; Kobayashi, S.; Uppala, S.; Simmons, A. The ERA-Interim Archive Version 2.0; 1; ECMWF: Shinfield Park, Reading, 2009; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
99. ECMWF. ERA Interim, Daily, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Available online: https://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/interim-fulldaily/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
100. Black, T.L. The New NMC Mesoscale Eta Model: Description and Forecast Examples. Weather and Forecasting 1994, 9, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101. Mesinger, F.; Chou, S.C.; Gomes, J.L.; Jovic, D.; Bastos, P.; Bustamante, J.F.; Lazic, L.; Lyra, A.A.; Morelli, S.; Ristic, I.; et al. An upgraded version of the Eta model. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 2012, 116, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102. Kallos, G.; Nickovic, S.; Papadopoulos, A.; Jovic, D.; Kakaliagou, O.; Misirlis, N.; Boukas, L.; Mimikou, N.; Sakellaridis, G.; Papageorgiou, J. The regional weather forecasting system SKIRON: An overview. 1997, 1997; p. 17.
103. Zafirakou-Koulouris, A.; Koutitas, C.; Sofianos, S.; Mantziafou, A.; Tzali, M.; Dermissi, S.C. Oil spill dispersion forecasting with the aid of a 3D simulation model. Journal of Physical Science and Application 2012, 2. [Google Scholar]
104. Ribotti, A.; Antognarelli, F.; Cucco, A.; Falcieri, M.F.; Fazioli, L.; Ferrarin, C.; Olita, A.; Oliva, G.; Pes, A.; Quattrocchi, G.; et al. An Operational Marine Oil Spill Forecasting Tool for the Management of Emergencies in the Italian Seas. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
105. Goldman, R.; Biton, E.; Brokovich, E.; Kark, S.; Levin, N. Oil spill contamination probability in the southeastern Levantine basin. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2015, 91, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Papadopoulos, A.; Katsafados, P.; Kallos, G.; Nickovic, S. The Weather Forecasting System for Poseidon - an Overview. Journal of Atmospheric & Ocean Science 2002, 8, 219–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107. Annika, P.; George, T.; George, P.; Konstantinos, N.; Costas, D.; Koutitas, C. The Poseidon Operational Tool for the Prediction of Floating Pollutant Transport. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2001, 43, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Zodiatis, G.; De Dominicis, M.; Perivoliotis, L.; Radhakrishnan, H.; Georgoudis, E.; Sotillo, M.; Lardner, R.W.; Krokos, G.; Bruciaferri, D.; Clementi, E.; et al. The Mediterranean Decision Support System for Marine Safety dedicated to oil slicks predictions. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 2016, 133, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109. Drago, A.; Azzopardi, J.; Gauci, A.P.; Tarasova, R.; Bruschi, A. Assessing the offshore wave energy potential for the Maltese Islands. 2013.
110. Mesinger, F.; Janjić, Z.I.; Ničković, S.; Gavrilov, D.; Deaven, D.G. The Step-Mountain Coordinate: Model Description and Performance for Cases of Alpine Lee Cyclogenesis and for a Case of an Appalachian Redevelopment. Monthly Weather Review 1988, 116, 1493–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111. Eerola, K. Twenty-One Years of Verification from the HIRLAM NWP System. Weather and Forecasting 2013, 28, 270–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112. Navascués, B.; Calvo, J.; Morales, G.; Santos, C.; Callado, A.; Cansado, A.; Cuxart, J.; Díez, M.; del Río, P.; Escribà, P.; et al. Long-term verification of HIRLAM and ECMWF forecasts over Southern Europe: History and perspectives of Numerical Weather Prediction at AEMET. Atmospheric Research 2013, 125-126, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113. Castanedo, S.; Perez-Diaz, B.; Abascal, A.J.; Cardenas, M.; Olabarrieta, M.; Medina, R.; Receveur, J.; Evrard, E.; Guyomarch, J. A HIGH RESOLUTION OPERATIONAL OIL SPILL MODEL AT SANTANDER BAY (SPAIN): IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 2014, 2014, 516–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
114. Castanedo, S.; Medina, R.; Losada, I.J.; Vidal, C.; Méndez, F.J.; Osorio, A.; Juanes, J.A.; Puente, A. The Prestige Oil Spill in Cantabria (Bay of Biscay). Part I: Operational Forecasting System for Quick Response, Risk Assessment, and Protection of Natural Resources. Journal of Coastal Research 2006, 22, 1474–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115. Déqué, M.; Dreveton, C.; Braun, A.; Cariolle, D. The ARPEGE/IFS atmosphere model: a contribution to the French community climate modelling. Climate Dynamics 1994, 10, 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
116. Daniel, P. FORECASTING OIL SPILL DRIFT AT METEO-FRANCE. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 1997, 1997, 990–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117. Yessad, K. Basics about ARPEGE/IFS, ALADIN and AROME in the cycle 40 of ARPEGE/IFS. Meteo-France/CNRM Technical Notes 2013.
118. Declerck, A.; Ourmières, Y.; Molcard, A. Assessment of the coastal dynamics in a nested zoom and feedback on the boundary current: the North-Western Mediterranean Sea case. Ocean Dynamics 2016, 66, 1529–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
119. Radice, C.; Brogniez, H.; Kirstetter, P.E.; Chambon, P. Novel assessment of numerical forecasting model relative humidity with satellite probabilistic estimates. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022, 22, 3811–3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
120. Sepp Neves, A.A.; Pinardi, N.; Martins, F. IT-OSRA: applying ensemble simulations to estimate the oil spill risk associated to operational and accidental oil spills. Ocean Dynamics 2016, 66, 939–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
121. Nickovic, S.; Kallos, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Kakaliagou, O. A model for prediction of desert dust cycle in the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2001, 106, 18113–18129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
122. CMEMS. Global Ocean 1/12° Physics Analysis and Forecast updated Daily, Copernicus Marine Service. [CrossRef]
123. CMEMS. Mediterranean Sea Physics Analysis and Forecast, Copernicus Marine Service. [CrossRef]
124. Clementi, E.; Chiara Goglio, A.; Aydogdu, A.; Pistoia, J.; Escudier, R.; Drudi, M.; Grandi, A.; Mariani, A.; Lyubartsev, V.; Lecci, R.; et al. The new Mediterranean Sea analysis and forecasting system including tides: description and validation. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 2021; pp. EGU21–13531–EGU13521–13531. [Google Scholar]
125. Stephenson, D.; Müller, S.A.; Sévellec, F. Tracking water masses using passive-tracer transport in NEMO v3.4 with NEMOTAM: application to North Atlantic Deep Water and North Atlantic Subtropical Mode Water. Geosci. Model Dev. 2020, 13, 2031–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
126. Lea, D.J.; Mirouze, I.; Martin, M.J.; King, R.R.; Hines, A.; Walters, D.; Thurlow, M. Assessing a new coupled data assimilation system based on the met office coupled atmosphere-land-ocean-sea ice model. Monthly Weather Review 2015, 143, 4678–4694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
127. Bilskie, M.V.; Hagen, S.C.; Alizad, K.; Medeiros, S.C.; Passeri, D.L.; Needham, H.F.; Cox, A. Dynamic simulation and numerical analysis of hurricane storm surge under sea level rise with geomorphologic changes along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Earth's Future 2016, 4, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
128. Blumberg, A.F.; Mellor, G.L. A Description of a Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Circulation Model. In Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models; Coastal and Estuarine Sciences; 1987; pp. 1–16.
129. Metzger, E.J.; Smedstad, O.M.; Thoppil, P.G.; Hurlburt, H.E.; Cummings, J.A.; Wallcraft, A.J.; Zamudio, L.; Franklin, D.S.; Posey, P.G.; Phelps, M.W.; et al. US Navy Operational Global Ocean and Arctic Ice Prediction Systems. Oceanography 2014, 27, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
130. Chassignet, E.P.; Hurlburt, H.E.; Smedstad, O.M.; Halliwell, G.R.; Hogan, P.J.; Wallcraft, A.J.; Bleck, R. Ocean prediction with the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM). Ocean Weather Forecasting: An Integrated View of Oceanography 2006, 22, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
131. Chassignet, E.P.; Srinivasan, A. Data Assimilative Hindcast for the Gulf of Mexico. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters, Sterling, VA 2015, OCS Study, 46 p.
132. Androulidakis, Y.; Kourafalou, V.; Le Hénaff, M.; Kang, H.S.; Sutton, T.; Chen, S.; Hu, C.; Ntaganou, N. Offshore Spreading of Mississippi Waters: Pathways and Vertical Structure Under Eddy Influence. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 2019, 124, 5952–5978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
133. Kourafalou, V.; Androulidakis, Y.; Le Hénaff, M.; Kang, H.S. The Dynamics of Cuba Anticyclones (CubANs) and Interaction With the Loop Current/Florida Current System. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 2017, 122, 7897–7923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
134. Kourafalou, V.H.; Androulidakis, Y.S.; Kang, H.; Smith, R.H.; Valle-Levinson, A. Physical connectivity between Pulley Ridge and Dry Tortugas coral reefs under the influence of the Loop Current/Florida Current system. Progress in Oceanography 2018, 165, 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
135. Hyun, K.H.; He, R. Coastal upwelling in the South Atlantic Bight: A revisit of the 2003 cold event using long term observations and model hindcast solutions. Journal of Marine Systems 2010, 83, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
136. Xue, Z.; He, R.; Fennel, K.; Cai, W.J.; Lohrenz, S.; Hopkinson, C. Modeling ocean circulation and biogeochemical variability in the Gulf of Mexico. Biogeosciences 2013, 10, 7219–7234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
137. Zambon, J.B.; He, R. Development of the Coupled Northwest Atlantic Prediction System (CNAPS). , 2016, 2016; pp. PO14B–2775. 01 February.
138. Chao, Y.; Li, Z.; Farrara, J.; McWilliams, J.C.; Bellingham, J.; Capet, X.; Chavez, F.; Choi, J.K.; Davis, R.; Doyle, J.; et al. Development, implementation and evaluation of a data-assimilative ocean forecasting system off the central California coast. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 2009, 56, 100–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
139. Oddo, P.; Bonaduce, A.; Pinardi, N.; Guarnieri, A. Sensitivity of the Mediterranean Sea level to atmospheric pressure and free surface elevation numerical formulation in NEMO. Geoscientific Model Development 2014, 7, 3001–3015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
140. Tonani, M.; Pinardi, N.; Dobricic, S.; Pujol, I.; Fratianni, C. A high-resolution free-surface model of the Mediterranean Sea. Ocean Science 2008, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
141. Ferrarin, C.; Bajo, M.; Umgiesser, G. Model-driven optimization of coastal sea observatories through data assimilation in a finite element hydrodynamic model (SHYFEM v. 7565). Geoscientific Model Development 2021, 14, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
142. Umgiesser, G.; Ferrarin, C.; Cucco, A.; De Pascalis, F.; Bellafiore, D.; Ghezzo, M.; Bajo, M. Comparative hydrodynamics of 10 Mediterranean lagoons by means of numerical modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 2014, 119, 2212–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
143. Gaeta, M.G.; Samaras, A.G.; Federico, I.; Archetti, R.; Maicu, F.; Lorenzetti, G. A coupled wave-3-D hydrodynamics model of the Taranto Sea (Italy): A multiple-nesting approach. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 2016, 16, 2071–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
144. Pinardi, N.; Allen, I.; Demirov, E.; De Mey, P.; Korres, G.; Lascaratos, A.; Le Traon, P.Y.; Maillard, C.; Manzella, G.; Tziavos, C. The Mediterranean ocean forecasting system: First phase of implementation (1998-2001). Annales Geophysicae 2003, 21, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
145. Federico, I.; Pinardi, N.; Coppini, G.; Oddo, P.; Lecci, R.; Mossa, M. Coastal ocean forecasting with an unstructured grid model in the southern Adriatic and northern Ionian seas. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 2017, 17, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
146. Röhrs, J.; Sperrevik, A.K.; Christensen, K.H. NorShelf: A reanalysis and data-assimilative forecast model for the Norwegian Shelf Sea; 2018; pp. 1–42.
147. Shchepetkin, A.F.; McWilliams, J.C. The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): a split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model. Ocean Modelling 2005, 9, 347–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
148. Debreu, L.; Marchesiello, P.; Penven, P.; Cambon, G. Two-way nesting in split-explicit ocean models: Algorithms, implementation and validation. Ocean Modelling 2012, 49-50, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
149. Dong, J.; Fox-Kemper, B.; Zhu, J.; Dong, C. Application of Symmetric Instability Parameterization in the Coastal and Regional Ocean Community Model (CROCO). Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 2021, 13, e2020MS002302–e002020MS002302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
150. Penven, P.; Marchesiello, P.; Debreu, L.; Lefèvre, J. Software tools for pre- and post-processing of oceanic regional simulations. Environmental Modelling and Software 2008, 23, 660–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
151. Warren, I.R.; Bach, H.K. MIKE 21: a modelling system for estuaries, coastal waters and seas. Environmental Software 1992, 7, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
152. Dhi, M. MIKE 21 & MIKE 3 flow model FM, hydrodynamic and transport module, scientific documentation. DHI Water & Environment 2017.
153. Symonds, A.M.; Vijverberg, T.; Post, S.; van der Spek, B.-J.; Henrotte, J.; Sokolewicz, M. COMPARISON BETWEEN MIKE 21 FM, DELFT3D AND DELFT3D FM FLOW MODELS OF WESTERN PORT BAY, AUSTRALIA. Coastal Engineering Proceedings 2017, 1, currents–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
154. Burchard, H.; Petersen, O. Models of turbulence in the marine environment —a comparative study of two-equation turbulence models. Journal of Marine Systems 1999, 21, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
155. Cucco, A.; Sinerchia, M.; Ribotti, A.; Olita, A.; Fazioli, L.; Perilli, A.; Sorgente, B.; Borghini, M.; Schroeder, K.; Sorgente, R. A high-resolution real-time forecasting system for predicting the fate of oil spills in the Strait of Bonifacio (western Mediterranean Sea). Marine Pollution Bulletin 2012, 64, 1186–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
156. Cucco, A.; Daniel, P. Numerical Modeling of Oil Pollution in the Western Mediterranean Sea. In Oil Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea: Part I: The International Context, Carpenter, A., Kostianoy, A.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2018; pp. 255–274. [Google Scholar]
157. Korres, G.; Nitti, K.; Perivoliotis, L.; Tsiaras, K.; Papadopoulos, A.; Triantafyllou, G.; Hoteit, I.; Abdullah, K. Forecasting the Aegean Sea hydrodynamics within the POSEIDON-II operational system. Journal of Operational Oceanography 2010, 3, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
158. Zodiatis, G.; Coppini, G.; Perivoliotis, L.; Lardner, R.; Alves, T.; Pinardi, N.; Liubartseva, S.; De Dominicis, M.; Bourma, E.; Sepp Neves, A.A. Numerical Modeling of Oil Pollution in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. In Oil Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea: Part I: The International Context, Carpenter, A., Kostianoy, A.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2018; pp. 215–254. [Google Scholar]
159. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Lascaratos, A.; Georgiou, G.; Korres, G.; Syrimis, M. High resolution nested model for the Cyprus, NE Levantine Basin, eastern Mediterranean Sea: implementation and climatological runs. Ann. Geophys. 2003, 21, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
160. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Nikolaidis, M.; Sofianos, S.; Vervantis, V.; Zhuk, E.; Spanoudaki, K.; Kampanis, N.; Kallos, G.; Sylaios, G. The new CYCOFOS forecasting at coastal, sub-regional and regional scales in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. , 2021, 2021; pp. EGU21–2392. 01 April.
161. Pinardi, N.; Coppini, G. Preface "Operational oceanography in the Mediterranean Sea: the second stage of development". Ocean Sci. 2010, 6, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
162. Oddo, P.; Pinardi, N.; Zavatarelli, M. A numerical study of the interannual variability of the Adriatic Sea (2000–2002). Science of The Total Environment 2005, 353, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
163. Coppini, G.; De Dominicis, M.; Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Pinardi, N.; Santoleri, R.; Colella, S.; Bignami, F.; Hayes, D.R.; Soloviev, D.; et al. Hindcast of oil-spill pollution during the Lebanon crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean, July–August 2006. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2011, 62, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
164. Clementi, E.; Oddo, P.; Gerasimos, K.; Drudi, M.; Pinardi, N. Coupled wave-ocean modelling system in the Mediterranean Sea; 2013.
165. Korres, G.; Lascaratos, A. A one-way nested eddy resolving model of the Aegean and Levantine basins: implementation and climatological runs. Ann. Geophys. 2003, 21, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
166. Tonani, M.; Teruzzi, A.; Gerasimos, K.; Pinardi, N.; Crise, A.; Adani, M.; Oddo, P.; Dobricic, S.; Fratianni, C.; Drudi, M.; et al. The Mediterranean Monitoring and Forecasting Centre, a component of the MyOcean system; 2011.
167. Garreau, P.; Garnier, V.; Schaeffer, A. Eddy resolving modelling of the Gulf of Lions and Catalan Sea. Ocean Dynamics 2011, 61, 991–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
168. Schaeffer, A.; Garreau, P.; Molcard, A.; Fraunié, P.; Seity, Y. Influence of high-resolution wind forcing on hydrodynamic modeling of the Gulf of Lions. Ocean Dynamics 2011, 61, 1823–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
169. Group, T.W. The WAM Model—A Third Generation Ocean Wave Prediction Model. Journal of Physical Oceanography 1988, 18, 1775–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
170. ECMWF. Wave Forecasts. Available online: http://apps.ecmwf.int/mars-catalogue/?class=od&stream=wave (accessed on 15 November 2022).
171. CMEMS. Global Ocean Waves Reanalysis WAVERYS. [CrossRef]
172. Law-Chune, S.; Aouf, L.; Dalphinet, A.; Levier, B.; Drillet, Y.; Drevillon, M. WAVERYS: a CMEMS global wave reanalysis during the altimetry period. Ocean Dynamics 2021, 71, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
173. Aouf, L.; Dalphinet, A.; Hauser, D.; Delaye, L.; Tison, C.; Chapron, B.; Hermozo, L.; Tourain, C. On the assimilation of CFOSAT wave data in the wave model MFWAM: Verification phase. In Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS); 2019; pp. 7959–7961. [Google Scholar]
174. Ferry, N.; Parent, L.; Garric, G.; Barnier, B.; Jourdain, N.C. Mercator global Eddy permitting ocean reanalysis GLORYS1V1: Description and results. Mercator-Ocean Quarterly Newsletter 2010, 34, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
175. CMEMS. Mediterranean Sea Waves Analysis and Forecast, Copernicus Marine Service. [CrossRef]
176. Korres, G.; Ravdas, M.; Zacharioudaki, A.; Denaxa, D.; Sotiropoulou, M. Mediterranean sea waves analysis and forecast (CMEMS MED-Waves, MedWAM3 system)(Version 1)[Data set]. Copernicus Monitoring Environment Marine Service (CMEMS). Epub ahead of print. [CrossRef]
177. Ardhuin, F.; Rogers, E.; Babanin, A.V.; Filipot, J.F.; Magne, R.; Roland, A.; van der Westhuysen, A.; Queffeulou, P.; Lefevre, J.M.; Aouf, L.; et al. Semiempirical dissipation source functions for ocean waves. Part I: Definition, calibration, and validation. Journal of Physical Oceanography 2010, 40, 1917–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
178. CMEMS. Global Ocean Waves Analysis and Forecast. [CrossRef]
179. Korres, G.; Papadopoulos, A.; Katsafados, P.; Ballas, D.; Perivoliotis, L.; Nittis, K. A 2-year intercomparison of the WAM-Cycle4 and the WAVEWATCH-III wave models implemented within the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science 2011, 12, 129–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
180. Zodiatis, G.; Lardner, R.; Hayes, D.R.; Georgiou, G.; Sofianos, S.; Skliris, N.; Lascaratos, A. Operational ocean forecasting in the Eastern Mediterranean: implementation and evaluation. Ocean Sci. 2008, 4, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
181. Zodiatis, G.; Galanis, G.; Nikolaidis, A.; Radhakrishnan, H.; Emmanouil, G.; Nikolaidis, G.; Lardner, R.; Sofianos, S.; Stylianou, S.; Nikolaidis, M. Downscaling the Copernicus CMEMS Med-MFC in the Eastern Mediterranean: The new CYCOFOS forecasting systems at regional and sub-regional scales. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Eight EuroGOOS International Conference, Bergen, Norway, 3-5 October 2017, 2017; pp. 305–310.
182. Sammut, S.; Gauci, R.; Drago, A.; Gauci, A.; Azzopardi, J. Pocket beach sediment: A field investigation of the geodynamic processes of coarse-clastic beaches on the Maltese Islands (Central Mediterranean). Marine Geology 2017, 387, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
183. Tolman, H. User manual and system documentation of WAVEWATCH III version 3.14. MMAB Contribution 2009, 166, 311. [Google Scholar]
184. Pleskachevsky, A.; Tings, B.; Wiehle, S.; Imber, J.; Jacobsen, S. Multiparametric sea state fields from synthetic aperture radar for maritime situational awareness. Remote Sensing of Environment 2022, 280, 113200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
185. Janssen, P. The wave model. Meteorological Training Course Lecture Series 2002. [Google Scholar]
186. Spanoudaki, K. Mathematical modelling of oil spill fate and transport in the marine environment incorporating biodegradation kinetics of oil droplets. , 2016, 2016; pp. EPSC2016–13155. 01 April.
187. Zheng, Y.; Bourassa, M.A.; Hughes, P. Influences of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients and Surface Roughness Changes on the Motion of Surface Oil: A Simple Idealized Study. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2013, 52, 1561–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
188. Romero, I.C.; Toro-Farmer, G.; Diercks, A.R.; Schwing, P.; Muller-Karger, F.; Murawski, S.; Hollander, D.J. Large-scale deposition of weathered oil in the Gulf of Mexico following a deep-water oil spill. Environmental Pollution 2017, 228, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]