Wave hindcast under tropical cyclone conditions in the South China Sea: sensitivity to wind fields

Liqun Jia Shimei Wu Bo Han Shuqun Cai Renhao Wu

Liqun Jia, Shimei Wu, Bo Han, Shuqun Cai, Renhao Wu. Wave hindcast under tropical cyclone conditions in the South China Sea: sensitivity to wind fields[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2023, 42(10): 36-53. doi: 10.1007/s13131-023-2227-1
Citation: Liqun Jia, Shimei Wu, Bo Han, Shuqun Cai, Renhao Wu. Wave hindcast under tropical cyclone conditions in the South China Sea: sensitivity to wind fields[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2023, 42(10): 36-53. doi: 10.1007/s13131-023-2227-1

doi: 10.1007/s13131-023-2227-1

Wave hindcast under tropical cyclone conditions in the South China Sea: sensitivity to wind fields

Funds: The Major Projects of the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract No. U21A6001; the Program of Marine Economy Development Special Fund under Department of Natural Resources of Guangdong Province under contract No. GDNRC [2022]18; the Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai) under contract No. SML2021SP207; the Fund of State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. LTO2001.
More Information
    • 关键词:
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  
  • Figure  1.  The study area, bathymetry (color fill), and tracks of five tropical cyclone (TCs) during the study period. The magenta triangles represent buoy positions.

    Figure  2.  Time series of U10 (wind speed at 10 m height), wind direction between four wind data and corresponding buoy observations, with the time period from August 1 to September 30, 2017. The five periods of tropical cyclone (TC) occurrences are marked with a semi-transparent background color, from left to right: TC Hato, TC Pakhar, TC Mawar, TC Guchol, TC Doksuri. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2; OBS: buoy observation.

    Figure  3.  Taylor diagram of wind speeds at 10 m height (U10) comparison at five buoys. The three rows from top to bottom are the entire period of this study (from August 1 to September 30, 2017), tropical cyclone (TC)-only period, and TC-free period, respectively. The Points A, B, C, D, O in the Taylor diagram represent CCMP, ERAI, ERA5, CFSv2, and buoy observations, respectively. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  4.  Scatter diagram of wind speeds at 10 m height (U10) obtained from four wind data and buoy observations between August 1 and September 30, 2017. The five columns from left to right represent five buoys. The x-axis represents U10 selected from the buoy observations, the y-axis represents U10 from the four wind products. The black lines represent for the perfect agreement between wind data and observations. The red lines and blue lines are fitted lines from different fitting formulas. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  5.  Magnitude of time-averaged wind speed in the study area. The four columns from left to right represent four wind data. The three rows from top to bottom represent the entire period, tropical cyclone (TC)-only period, and TC-free period. The black dots are the buoy positions. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  6.  Contour distribution of the 99th percentile on wind speed during tropical cyclones (TCs). The five rows from top to bottom are five TC periods. The four columns are four snapshots during the TCs. The black lines are the TC tracks. The four colored contours represent four wind data. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  7.  Time series comparison of Hs and wave direction obtained from corresponding wave hindcast and buoy observations. The five periods of tropical cyclone occurrences are marked with a semi-transparent background color, from left to right: TC Hato, TC Pakhar, TC Mawar, TC Guchol, TC Doksuri. Hs: significant wave height; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2; OBS: buoy observation.

    Figure  8.  Time series comparison of mean absolute wave period (Tm01) and peak period of variance density spectrum (Rtp) obtained from corresponding wave hindcast and buoy observations. The five periods of tropical cyclone occurrences are marked with a semi-transparent background color. Tm01: mean absolute wave period; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2; OBS: buoy observation.

    Figure  9.  Taylor diagram of significant wave height comparison at five buoys. The three rows from top to bottom are the entire period, tropical cyclone (TC)-only period, and TC-period. The Points A, B, C, D, O in the Taylor diagram represent CCMP, ERAI, ERA5, CFSv2, and buoy observations, respectively. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  10.  Scatter plot of Hs obtained from wave hindcasts and buoy observations over the entire period. The five columns from left to right represent five buoys. The x-axis represents Hs selected from buoy observations, the y-axis represents Hs from the four wind products. The black lines represent perfect agreement between wind data and observations. The red and blue lines are fitted lines from different fitting formulas. Hs: significant wave height; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  11.  Magnitude of time-averaged Hs in the study area. The four columns from left to right represent four wind data. The three rows from top to bottom represent for entire period, tropical cyclone-only period, and tropical cyclone-free period. The black dots are the buoy positions. Hs: significant wave height; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  12.  Contour distribution of the 99th percentile of significant wave heights during tropical cyclone (TCs). The five rows from top to bottom are five TC periods. The four columns are four snapshots during the TCs. The black lines are the TC tracks. The four colored contours represent four wind data. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Figure  13.  Waverose diagram of significant wave height (Hs) and wave direction obtained from experiments with different resolutions. The five rows from top to bottom correspond to the original results (Ori), spatial resolution of 0.5˚, spatial resolution of 1.0˚, temporal resolution of 3 h, and temporal resolution of 6 h, respectively. The five columns from left to right are at Buoys B1−B5. The three colors in each plot represent different ranges of Hs.

    Figure  14.  Contours represent the 99th percentile of significant wave height under different resolution experiments. The five rows from top to bottom are five tropical cyclone (TC) periods. The four columns are four snapshots during the TCs. The black lines are the TC tracks. CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.

    Table  1.   Features of wind datasets

    Data sourceTemporal coverageTemporal resolution/hSpatial resolution
    ERAI1979−201930.25°
    ERA51979−202130.25°
    CFSv22011−present10.125°
    CCMP1987−present60.25°
    Note: ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2.   Features of buoys

    BuoyLatitudeLongitudeDepth/mNumber of Samples
    B121.12°N112.63°E50.431468
    B221.50°N114.00°E54.021478
    B322.28°N115.60°E49.171635
    B422.87°N117.10°E40.601172
    B519.87°N115.46°E1243.691472
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  3.   Average value (mean), maximum value of wind speed at 10 m height (U10) of the four wind data and corresponding hour when reaching the maximum value during each tropical cyclone period

    Mean U10/(m·s−1)Maximum U10/(m·s−1)Occurrence of maximum U10/h
    HatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuriHatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuriHatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuri
    Buoy B16.677.203.383.266.2518.6015.207.4011.1016.60926411333104
    CCMP5.716.852.912.975.6712.969.777.374.3912.4691671153997
    ERAI4.697.302.291.605.7010.059.974.712.9711.6797643142109
    ERA56.227.083.332.165.8414.5712.156.864.9512.7892671182297
    CFSv27.187.304.564.525.5315.7012.7210.338.0512.7187671202699
    Buoy B27.418.114.092.945.5443.4019.3011.1010.6013.908769793996
    CCMP5.537.453.422.824.7115.6813.287.594.5711.6885791153997
    ERAI4.927.922.801.665.0012.0911.595.193.4310.969779433997
    ERA56.698.024.133.155.2221.4215.179.325.5112.1689741122992
    CFSv26.938.354.134.695.1722.3916.8715.346.8312.4791761094291
    Buoy B36.948.227.252.745.2621.8020.0016.905.4013.4083711074380
    CCMP5.336.944.562.094.2115.5213.257.003.599.8291731214591
    ERAI5.166.814.161.233.9813.9112.257.652.129.459176854582
    ERA56.378.066.752.444.8319.6818.1114.945.0011.4183681104182
    CFSv27.488.396.542.495.1724.0420.0115.984.7913.2380741114590
    Buoy B4NaNNaN12.963.035.56NaNNaN19.205.6013.80NaNNaN814082
    CCMP5.545.747.302.454.5615.2911.3111.134.8011.327973434585
    ERAI5.725.706.921.524.3715.4311.6110.572.5510.628261824285
    ERA55.806.1410.463.075.0615.3213.1116.586.5011.617867804180
    CFSv26.896.6510.782.745.7520.2217.9719.336.1814.1580701054585
    Buoy B56.428.596.533.846.0016.8017.0010.306.2013.808176741894
    CCMP6.108.606.784.115.4813.8316.308.815.1311.569173252197
    ERAI5.547.914.641.906.1014.0011.156.693.7711.298876313985
    ERA56.608.507.074.525.7016.3814.5210.047.1612.478258724090
    CFSv27.358.367.714.995.5321.7214.5911.207.5812.928373691887
    Note: CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2. NaN indicates data unavailability.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  4.   Statistical parameters for RMSE, r2, BIAS, SI and fitting coefficients (b and c) of wind speed at 10 m height (U10) based on four wind data and buoy observations during entire period, tropical cyclone (TC)-only period, and TC-free period

    Entire periodTC-only periodTC-free period
    RMSEr2BIASSIbcRMSEr2BIASSIbcRMSEr2BIASSIbc
    Buoy B1CCMP0.490.880.680.090.680.830.480.880.620.090.710.840.500.880.710.090.640.83
    ERAI0.680.730.990.120.550.760.660.751.120.120.600.740.710.710.910.120.480.77
    ERA50.490.870.460.090.760.880.460.890.390.080.780.890.530.850.500.080.750.88
    CFSv20.550.830.190.100.710.910.520.85−0.270.090.730.960.560.830.470.100.680.87
    Buoy B2CCMP0.600.810.820.110.580.780.660.760.950.110.520.720.450.900.740.120.720.84
    ERAI0.740.670.970.130.470.730.770.641.270.130.430.650.670.750.790.150.590.80
    ERA50.550.830.430.100.690.860.580.820.260.100.650.840.510.860.530.110.750.87
    CFSv20.690.740.260.120.630.860.710.710.020.120.610.850.620.780.400.140.660.88
    Buoy B3CCMP0.530.871.280.090.600.720.560.841.570.090.570.690.470.901.100.110.660.76
    ERAI0.650.761.610.120.520.660.650.761.890.100.530.650.680.731.440.130.470.67
    ERA50.370.930.390.070.830.900.330.940.430.050.870.910.440.900.370.070.760.89
    CFSv20.490.880.170.090.860.940.480.890.070.080.920.970.510.860.230.100.690.90
    Buoy B4CCMP0.620.800.860.120.520.740.610.832.120.090.490.620.610.800.390.140.700.87
    ERAI0.650.781.090.130.480.690.610.822.360.090.480.590.710.710.620.140.540.80
    ERA50.430.91−0.080.080.740.930.320.960.590.050.790.870.640.77−0.340.070.671.00
    CFSv20.500.86−0.480.100.760.990.450.890.150.060.800.910.650.77−0.720.100.691.07
    Buoy B5CCMP0.420.910.210.080.790.920.440.900.060.070.770.940.420.910.290.090.760.91
    ERAI0.640.760.570.120.590.830.640.770.920.100.610.800.680.730.370.130.560.86
    ERA50.420.91−0.180.080.820.990.410.91−0.210.060.800.980.470.88−0.170.080.801.00
    CFSv20.540.85−0.200.100.851.000.560.84−0.520.090.841.020.540.85−0.010.110.790.97
    Note: RMSE: root mean square error; r2: correlation coefficient; SI: scatter index; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  5.   The average value of significant wave height (Hs) (mean Hs), maximum value of Hs from wave hindcasts, and the corresponding time when reaching the maximum values during tropical cyclones for buoy observations and four wind data

    Mean Hs/mMaximum Hs/mOccurence of maximum Hs/h
    HatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuriHatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuriHatoPakharMawarGucholDoksuri
    Buoy B11.051.600.700.601.393.203.101.000.803.509470601113
    CCMP0.921.220.770.671.312.321.950.970.792.8793911171100
    ERAI0.841.210.740.611.271.671.880.870.752.549768751110
    ERA51.071.350.900.721.432.722.581.220.783.309070711105
    CFSv21.271.470.990.861.493.742.801.561.033.54887112127102
    Buoy B21.441.961.030.641.368.505.401.800.903.00876982399
    CCMP1.011.460.890.651.232.982.931.120.742.61868359198
    ERAI0.961.360.860.601.222.342.291.050.722.34866570187
    ERA51.271.621.090.681.394.213.491.630.742.868468741103
    CFSv21.431.781.190.811.474.974.042.040.953.16836810942102
    Buoy B31.472.131.850.611.226.106.002.900.802.60827010636121
    CCMP1.191.651.070.701.163.473.551.370.742.34817970188
    ERAI1.271.421.070.651.153.362.611.430.712.31826487184
    ERA51.511.951.610.751.335.005.002.710.842.6583691104282
    CFSv21.792.131.700.761.476.665.702.940.843.0781681134291
    Buoy B4NaNNaN2.860.651.25NaNNaN3.901.102.90NaNNaN9936128
    CCMP1.241.381.250.641.023.642.681.770.672.168080442486
    ERAI1.291.201.150.561.023.652.321.550.582.088164832983
    ERA51.381.532.040.711.163.823.093.140.842.288067824281
    CFSv21.621.782.140.701.335.074.704.290.792.7580711064588
    Buoy B51.602.191.800.811.474.404.202.900.903.50926282893
    CCMP1.211.831.340.841.402.773.761.720.902.81917552184
    ERAI1.051.351.130.751.442.602.031.400.882.87917855182
    ERA51.481.841.540.931.613.543.312.271.013.238459731895
    CFSv21.731.941.690.941.694.883.422.471.103.718659711996
    Note: CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2. NaN indicates data unavailability.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  6.   Statistical parameters of RMSE, r2, BIAS, SI and fitting coefficients (b and c) for Hs obtained from four wind data and buoy observations during entire period, tropical cyclone (TC)-only period, and TC-free period

    Entire periodTC-only periodTC-free period
    RMSEr2BIASSIbcRMSEr2BIASSIbcRMSEr2BIASSIbc
    Buoy B1CCMP0.430.920.090.450.690.850.390.940.080.350.720.860.520.890.090.440.570.83
    ERAI0.550.860.120.580.570.790.480.910.130.440.610.800.700.730.120.540.440.78
    ERA50.390.92−0.030.410.770.960.360.93−0.040.330.800.960.460.90−0.030.410.660.95
    CFSv20.430.90−0.070.450.861.020.380.93−0.160.350.911.070.480.88−0.030.430.680.96
    Buoy B2CCMP0.530.890.170.500.550.740.550.890.270.400.530.700.540.860.120.600.580.81
    ERAI0.630.820.190.600.460.690.630.860.320.460.430.640.720.690.130.690.490.78
    ERA50.430.920.040.410.680.860.440.920.090.320.670.840.510.880.030.480.630.90
    CFSv20.450.890.000.430.770.920.450.89−0.040.330.760.930.530.850.010.490.680.91
    Buoy B3CCMP0.530.880.170.480.570.750.560.860.320.360.550.700.520.880.100.610.610.86
    ERAI0.600.840.200.550.490.700.600.860.360.390.480.660.770.640.130.650.420.79
    ERA50.300.96−0.020.270.820.950.270.970.020.180.840.930.480.89−0.040.300.670.98
    CFSv20.350.94−0.080.320.981.040.350.94−0.150.231.011.060.470.88−0.050.390.720.99
    Buoy B4CCMP0.660.820.190.670.400.670.730.750.550.470.340.540.460.920.110.840.620.87
    ERAI0.710.780.240.720.340.620.730.760.590.470.320.520.720.710.160.850.400.78
    ERA50.340.970.010.350.710.900.310.980.170.200.730.840.450.92−0.030.360.650.99
    CFSv20.430.91−0.040.440.740.940.490.870.060.320.730.890.430.92−0.060.570.681.02
    Buoy B5CCMP0.470.900.130.390.660.830.510.880.270.310.620.780.470.890.060.500.730.91
    ERAI0.640.800.210.530.460.720.660.790.450.400.430.660.670.750.100.660.540.84
    ERA50.370.94−0.010.310.750.930.390.930.110.240.730.890.420.91−0.060.390.821.02
    CFSv20.350.94−0.050.290.911.000.350.94−0.040.210.901.000.480.88−0.050.350.851.01
    Note: Hs: significant wave height; RMSE: root mean square error; r2: correlation coefficient; SI: scatter index; CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multiplatform; ERAI: ECMWF Reanalysis-Interim; ERA5: ECMWF Reanalysis v5; CFSv2: NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • Atlas R, Hoffman R N, Bloom S C, et al. 1996. A multiyear global surface wind velocity dataset using SSM/I wind observations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 77(5): 869–882. doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0869:AMGSWV>2.0.CO;2
    Atlas R, Hoffman R N, Ardizzone J, et al. 2011. A cross-calibrated, multiplatform ocean surface wind velocity product for meteorological and oceanographic applications. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92(2): 157–174. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS2946.1
    Battjes J A, Janssen J P F M. 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Coastal Engineering. Hamburg, Germany: American Society of Civil Engineers, 569–587
    Becerra D, Quezada M, Díaz H. 2022. A deep water and nearshore wave height calibration of the ECOWAVES hindcasting database. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research, 50(4): 573–595. doi: 10.3856/vol50-issue4-fulltext-2811
    Booij N, Ris R C, Holthuijsen L H. 1999. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 104(C4): 7649–7666. doi: 10.1029/98JC02622
    Bourassa M A, Legler D M, O’Brien J J, et al. 2003. SeaWinds validation with research vessels. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108(C2): 3019
    Carvalho D, Rocha A, Gómez-Gesteira M, et al. 2014. Comparison of reanalyzed, analyzed, satellite-retrieved and NWP modelled winds with buoy data along the Iberian Peninsula coast. Remote Sensing of Environment, 152: 480–492. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.017
    Cavaleri L, Rizzoli P M. 1981. Wind wave prediction in shallow water: Theory and applications. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 86(C11): 10961–10973. doi: 10.1029/JC086iC11p10961
    Chalikov D. 2018. Numerical modeling of surface wave development under the action of wind. Ocean Science, 14(3): 453–470. doi: 10.5194/os-14-453-2018
    Chauvin F, Douville H, Ribes A. 2017. Atlantic tropical cyclones water budget in observations and CNRM-CM5 model. Climate Dynamics, 49(11): 4009–4021
    Chelton D B, Freilich M H. 2005. Scatterometer-based assessment of 10-m wind analyses from the operational ECMWF and NCEP numerical weather prediction models. Monthly Weather Review, 133(2): 409–429. doi: 10.1175/MWR-2861.1
    Chen Weibo, Chen Hongey, Hsiao Shihchun, et al. 2019. Wind forcing effect on hindcasting of typhoon-driven extreme waves. Ocean Engineering, 188: 106260. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106260
    Dee D P, Uppala S M, Simmons A J, et al. 2011. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 137(656): 553–597. doi: 10.1002/qj.828
    Gualtieri G. 2021. Reliability of ERA5 reanalysis data for wind resource assessment: A comparison against tall towers. Energies, 14(14): 4169. doi: 10.3390/en14144169
    Hasselmann K, Barnett T, Bouws E, et al. 1973. Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP). In: Ergänzungsheft zur Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift. Hamburg: Deutches Hydrographisches Institut, 8: 1–95
    Hasselmann S, Hasselmann K, Allender J H, et al. 1985. Computations and parameterizations of the nonlinear energy transfer in a gravity-wave spectrum. Part II: Parameterizations of the nonlinear energy transfer for application in wave models. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 15(11): 1378–1391. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1985)015<1378:CAPOTN>2.0.CO;2
    Hawkins S, Eager D, Harrison G P. 2011. Characterising the reliability of production from future British offshore wind fleets. In: IET Conference on Renewable Power Generation (RPG 2011). Edinburgh: IET
    Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, et al. 2020. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730): 1999–2049. doi: 10.1002/qj.3803
    Hoffman R N, Leidner S M, Henderson J M, et al. 2003. A two-dimensional variational analysis method for NSCAT ambiguity removal: Methodology, sensitivity, and tuning. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 20(5): 585–605. doi: 10.1175/1520-0426(2003)20<585:ATDVAM>2.0.CO;2
    Janssen P A E M. 1989. Wave-induced stress and the drag of air flow over sea waves. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 19(6): 745–754. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1989)019<0745:WISATD>2.0.CO;2
    Jun K C, Jeong W M, Choi J Y, et al. 2015. Simulation of the extreme waves generated by typhoon Bolaven (1215) in the East China Sea and Yellow Sea. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 34(12): 19–28. doi: 10.1007/s13131-015-0779-4
    Kanwal A, Tahir Z R, Asim M, et al. 2022. Evaluation of Reanalysis and Analysis Datasets Against Measured Wind Data for Wind Resource Assessment. Bonn, Germany: World Wind Energy Association
    Kara A B, Wallcraft A J, Bourassa M A. 2008. Air-sea stability effects on the 10 m winds over the global ocean: Evaluations of air-sea flux algorithms. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 113(C4): C04009
    Komen G J, Hasselmann K, Hasselmann K. 1984. On the existence of a fully developed wind-sea spectrum. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 14(8): 1271–1285. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1984)014<1271:OTEOAF>2.0.CO;2
    Lavrenov I V. 2003. Wind-Waves in Oceans: Dynamics and Numerical Simulations. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
    Liu W Timothy, Tang Wenqing. 1996. Equivalent Neutral Wind. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Mears C A, Smith D K, Wentz F. 2001. Comparison of Special Sensor Microwave Imager and buoy-measured wind speeds from 1987 to 1997. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106: 11719–11729. doi: 10.1029/1999JC000097
    Monin A S, Obhukov A. 1954. Osnovnye zakonomernosti turbulentnogo peremeshivanija v prizemnon sloe atmosfery (Basic laws of turbulent mixing in the atmosphere near the ground). Trudy Geofizicheskogo Instituta, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 24: 163–187
    Morim J, Erikson L H, Hemer M, et al. 2022. A global ensemble of ocean wave climate statistics from contemporary wave reanalysis and hindcasts. Scientific Data, 9: 358. doi: 10.1038/s41597-022-01459-3
    Peixoto J P, Oort A H. 1992. Physics of Climate. New York: American Institute of Physics
    Qiao Wenli, Song Jinbao, He Hailun, et al. 2019. Application of different wind field models and wave boundary layer model to typhoon waves numerical simulation in WAVEWATCH III model. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, 71(1): 1657552. doi: 10.1080/16000870.2019.1657552
    Rapizo H, Liu Qingxiang, Babanin A V. 2022. Performance of the observation-based source terms in a high-resolution wave hindcast for the North Sea. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering: Volume 2: Structures, Safety, and Reliability. Hamburg, Germany: ASME
    Ruti P M, Marullo S, D’Ortenzio F, et al. 2008. Comparison of analyzed and measured wind speeds in the perspective of oceanic simulations over the Mediterranean basin: Analyses, QuikSCAT and buoy data. Journal of Marine Systems, 70(1–2): 33–48
    Saha S, Moorthi S, Wu Xingren, et al. 2014. The NCEP Climate Forecast System version 2. Journal of Climate, 27(6): 2185–2208. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
    Snyder R L, Dobson F W, Elliott J A, et al. 1981. Array measurements of atmospheric pressure fluctuations above surface gravity waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 102: 1–59. doi: 10.1017/S0022112081002528
    Stopa J E. 2018. Wind forcing calibration and wave hindcast comparison using multiple reanalysis and merged satellite wind datasets. Ocean Modelling, 127: 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.04.008
    Taylor K E. 2005. Taylor diagram primer. https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/staff/taylor/CV/Taylor_diagram_primer.pdf[2005-01-23/2023-05-28]
    Van Vledder G P, Akpınar A. 2015. Wave model predictions in the Black Sea: Sensitivity to wind fields. Applied Ocean Research, 53: 161–178. doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2015.08.006
    Wang Guo-sen, Wang Xidong, Wang Hui, et al. 2020. Evaluation on monthly sea surface wind speed of four reanalysis data sets over the China seas after 1988. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 39(1): 83–90. doi: 10.1007/s13131-019-1525-0
    Weintrit A. 2009. Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation (1st ed. ). London: CRC Press
    Wu Wenfang, Li Pieliang, Zhai Fanggou, et al. 2020. Evaluation of different wind resources in simulating wave height for the Bohai, Yellow, and East China Seas (BYES) with SWAN model. Continental Shelf Research, 207: 104217. doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2020.104217
    Xie Shangping, Chang Chueh-hsin, Xie Qiang, et al. 2007. Intraseasonal variability in the summer South China Sea: Wind jet, cold filament, and recirculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 112(C10): C10008. doi: 10.1029/2007JC004238
  • 加载中
图(14) / 表(6)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  397
  • HTML全文浏览量:  174
  • PDF下载量:  26
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2023-04-08
  • 录用日期:  2023-06-21
  • 网络出版日期:  2023-08-01
  • 刊出日期:  2023-10-01

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回