Jan‐Victor Björkqvist, Olga Vähä-Piikkiö, V. Alari, A. Kuznetsova, L. Tuomi
{"title":"芬兰群岛的WAM, SWAN和WAVEWATCH III -频谱性能对体波参数的影响","authors":"Jan‐Victor Björkqvist, Olga Vähä-Piikkiö, V. Alari, A. Kuznetsova, L. Tuomi","doi":"10.1080/1755876X.2019.1633236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT WAM, SWAN and WAVEWATCH III® were implemented to the Finnish archipelago with a 0.1 nmi grid. A comparison with coastal wave buoy observations showed that the models agreed on the significant wave height, with biases and root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) differing at most 0.06 m. In a general sense, WAM propagated most long wave energy into the archipelago, while SWAN generated the highest local waves. The performance of WAVEWATCH III was wind direction dependent. The model tendencies caused them to disagree on the peak period near the coast, with differences in mean values being up to 1.4 s. The large scatter (RMSE>2 s) inside the archipelago was mostly explained by the ill-defined nature of the parameter in more complex wave conditions. The mean period had less scatter (RMSE<1.5 s), but changes in the upper integration frequency from 0.6 Hz to 1 Hz affected the bias by roughly 1 s in all models. WAM and WAVEWATCH III underestimated the high-frequency wave energy for certain wind directions, possibly because of a too small friction velocity. A wind forcing taken every 3 h from a 7.4 km operational atmospheric model was found to be sufficient to force the high-resolution wave models.","PeriodicalId":50105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operational Oceanography","volume":"13 558 1","pages":"55 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WAM, SWAN and WAVEWATCH III in the Finnish archipelago – the effect of spectral performance on bulk wave parameters\",\"authors\":\"Jan‐Victor Björkqvist, Olga Vähä-Piikkiö, V. Alari, A. Kuznetsova, L. Tuomi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1755876X.2019.1633236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT WAM, SWAN and WAVEWATCH III® were implemented to the Finnish archipelago with a 0.1 nmi grid. A comparison with coastal wave buoy observations showed that the models agreed on the significant wave height, with biases and root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) differing at most 0.06 m. In a general sense, WAM propagated most long wave energy into the archipelago, while SWAN generated the highest local waves. The performance of WAVEWATCH III was wind direction dependent. The model tendencies caused them to disagree on the peak period near the coast, with differences in mean values being up to 1.4 s. The large scatter (RMSE>2 s) inside the archipelago was mostly explained by the ill-defined nature of the parameter in more complex wave conditions. The mean period had less scatter (RMSE<1.5 s), but changes in the upper integration frequency from 0.6 Hz to 1 Hz affected the bias by roughly 1 s in all models. WAM and WAVEWATCH III underestimated the high-frequency wave energy for certain wind directions, possibly because of a too small friction velocity. A wind forcing taken every 3 h from a 7.4 km operational atmospheric model was found to be sufficient to force the high-resolution wave models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operational Oceanography\",\"volume\":\"13 558 1\",\"pages\":\"55 - 70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operational Oceanography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2019.1633236\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operational Oceanography","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2019.1633236","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
WAM, SWAN and WAVEWATCH III in the Finnish archipelago – the effect of spectral performance on bulk wave parameters
ABSTRACT WAM, SWAN and WAVEWATCH III® were implemented to the Finnish archipelago with a 0.1 nmi grid. A comparison with coastal wave buoy observations showed that the models agreed on the significant wave height, with biases and root-mean-square-errors (RMSE) differing at most 0.06 m. In a general sense, WAM propagated most long wave energy into the archipelago, while SWAN generated the highest local waves. The performance of WAVEWATCH III was wind direction dependent. The model tendencies caused them to disagree on the peak period near the coast, with differences in mean values being up to 1.4 s. The large scatter (RMSE>2 s) inside the archipelago was mostly explained by the ill-defined nature of the parameter in more complex wave conditions. The mean period had less scatter (RMSE<1.5 s), but changes in the upper integration frequency from 0.6 Hz to 1 Hz affected the bias by roughly 1 s in all models. WAM and WAVEWATCH III underestimated the high-frequency wave energy for certain wind directions, possibly because of a too small friction velocity. A wind forcing taken every 3 h from a 7.4 km operational atmospheric model was found to be sufficient to force the high-resolution wave models.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Operational Oceanography will publish papers which examine the role of oceanography in contributing to the fields of: Numerical Weather Prediction; Development of Climatologies; Implications of Ocean Change; Ocean and Climate Forecasting; Ocean Observing Technologies; Eutrophication; Climate Assessment; Shoreline Change; Marine and Sea State Prediction; Model Development and Validation; Coastal Flooding; Reducing Public Health Risks; Short-Range Ocean Forecasting; Forces on Structures; Ocean Policy; Protecting and Restoring Ecosystem health; Controlling and Mitigating Natural Hazards; Safe and Efficient Marine Operations