Evaluation of the simulation capability of the Wavewatch Ⅲ model for Pacific Ocean wave

BI Fan; SONG Jinbao; WU Kejian; XU Yao

doi:10.1007/s13131-015-0737-1

基于Wavewatch Ⅲ模式的太平洋海浪模拟评估

doi: 10.1007/s13131-015-0737-1

1.
中国科学院海洋研究所, 海洋环流与波动重点实验室, 青岛 266071;浙江大学, 海洋学院, 杭州 310058
2.
中国海洋大学, 海洋环境学院, 青岛 266100
3.
浙江大学, 海洋学院, 杭州 310058;中国海洋大学, 物理海洋教育部重点实验室, 青岛 266003
4.
中国科学院海洋研究所, 海洋环流与波动重点实验室, 青岛 266071

计量
- 文章访问数: 1884
- HTML全文浏览量: 95
- PDF下载量: 1361
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2014-10-31
- 修回日期: 2015-03-23

Evaluation of the simulation capability of the Wavewatch Ⅲ model for Pacific Ocean wave

1.
Key Laboratory of Ocean Circulation and Waves, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;College of Physical and Environmental Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
2.
Ocean College, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3.
College of Physical and Environmental Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China;Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography (Ocean University of China), Ministry of Education, Qingdao 266003, China
4.
Key Laboratory of Ocean Circulation and Waves, Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China

摘要

摘要: 相对准确和可靠的波浪要素后报对波侯的统计及其他依赖波参数的研究十分重要。本文基于海浪模式Wavewatch Ⅲ(v3.14和v4.18)中五种不同类型的能量输入和耗散源函数方案设置,进行太平洋波浪模拟,并与高度计波高、星载合成孔径雷达反演的涌浪及浮标观测的波要素及波谱进行结果对比。除传统的整体波要素的对比外,还利用谱分离方法进行波浪系统和谱分量的模拟评估。文中使用的模式评估算法(PS)可以有效减少对比量的数目,有利于对模式模拟能力进行整体评价。同时为去除仅依赖均方误差的评估方法可能带来的偏差,引入另一组算法(HH)来进行检验,确保评估结果的可靠性。对比各组源函数设置发现,广泛使用的TC方案在整体模拟效果方面较有效,但对波浪耗散物理过程的描述有所欠缺;ST4方案也保持了对整体波参数的较好模拟,同时对多个波浪系统并存的情况模拟较好;最新发布的ST6方案在模拟涌浪系统的变化方面稍有优势。而模式3.14版本中的ACC350和BJA方案在各种波况下模拟都更离散。鉴于此,选择前三种更优的方案,进行波浪动量通量(从波浪水体输运角度)的进一步模拟对比。结果表明,利用ST4方案计算的输运量与NDBC浮标所得最为接近,TC和ST6方案在混合浪情况下分别高估和低估了输运量。这在海-气-浪相互作用或上层海洋相关研究中需要注意。以上的评估结果使得在后续的太平洋波况、中国近海涌浪类型分析等研究中首选ST4方案进行波浪后报。
- WavewatchⅢ /
- 评估 /
- 太平洋 /
- 输入耗散源函数 /
- 波浪通量 /
- Stokes输运
Abstract: Wave climate analysis and other applications for the Pacific Ocean require a reliable wave hindcast. Five source and sink term packages in the Wavewatch Ⅲ model (v3.14 and v4.18) are compared and assessed in this study through comprehensive observations, including altimeter significant wave height, advanced synthetic aperture radar swell, and buoy wave parameters and spectrum. In addition to the evaluation of typically used integral parameters, the spectra partitioning method contributes to the detailed wave system and wave maturity validation. The modified performance evaluation method (PS) effectively reduces attribute numbers and facilitates the overall assessment. To avoid possible misleading results in the root mean square error-based validations, another indicator called HH (indicating the two authors) is also calculated to guarantee the consistency of the results. The widely used Tolman and Chalikov (TC) package is still generally efficient in determining the integral properties of wave spectra but is physically deficient in explaining the dissipation processes. The ST4 package performs well in overall wave parameters and significantly improves the accuracy of wave systems in the open ocean. Meanwhile, the newly published ST6 package is slightly better in determining swell energy variations. The two packages (ACC350 and BJA) obtained from Wavewatch Ⅲ v3.14 exhibit large scatters at different sea states. The three most ideal packages are further examined in terms of reproducing waveinduced momentum flux from the perspective of transport. Stokes transport analysis indicates that ST4 is the closest to the NDBC-buoy-spectrum-based transport values, and TC and ST6 tend to overestimate and underestimate the transport magnitude, respectively, in swell mixed areas. This difference must be considered, particularly in air-wave-current coupling research and upper ocean analysis. The assessment results provide guidance for the selection of ST4 for use in a background Pacific Ocean hindcast for high wave climate research and China Sea swell type analysis.
- Wavewatch Ⅲ /
- evaluation /
- Pacific Ocean /
- source and sink term packages /
- wave-induced flux /
- Stokes transport

HTML全文

参考文献(53)

Abdalla S, Bidlot J R. 2002. Wind gustiness and air density effects and other key changes to wave model in CY25R1. Rep, Research Department, ECMWF, Reading, UK

Ardhuin F, Chapron B, Collard F. 2009. Observation of swell dissipation across oceans. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(6): doi: 10.1029/2008GL037030

Ardhuin F, Jenkins A D. 2006. On the interaction of surface waves and upper ocean turbulence. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 36(3): 551-557

Ardhuin F, Rogers E, Babanin A V, et al. 2010. Semiempirical dissipation source functions for ocean waves. Part I: Definition, calibration, and validation. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 40(9): 1917-1941

Babanin A. 2011. Breaking and Dissipation of Ocean Surface Waves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 480

Babanin A V. 2012. Swell attenuation due to wave-induced turbulence. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Artic Engineering (OMAE2012), 439-443

Babanin A V, Haus B K. 2009. On the existence of water turbulence induced by nonbreaking surface waves. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 39(10): 2675-2679

Babanin A V, Tsagareli K N, Young I R, et al. 2009. Numerical investigation of spectral evolution of wind waves. Part II: Dissipation term and evolution tests. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 40(4): 667-683

Bi Fan. 2013. On the wave-induced effect to circulation transport and the characteristics of swell propagation and dissipation (in Chinese)[dissertation]. Qingdao: Ocean University of China, 119

Bi Fan, Wu Kejian. 2014. Wave effect on the ocean circulations through mass transport and wave-induced pumping. Journal of Ocean University of China, 13(2): 175-182

Bi Fan, Wu Kejian, Zhang Yuming. 2012. The effect of Stokes drift on Ekman transport in the open sea. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 31(6): 12-18

Bidlot J R, Abdalla S, Janssen P. 2005. A revised formulation for ocean wave dissipation in CY25R1. in Tech Rep Memorandum R60. 9/JB/0516. Research Department, ECMWF, Reading, UK

Chalikov D. 1995. The parameterization of the wave boundary layer.Journal of Physical Oceanography, 25(6): 1333-1349

Chalikov D V, Belevich M Y. 1993. One-dimensional theory of the wave boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 63(1-2): 65-96

Dodet G, Bertin X, Taborda R. 2010. Wave climate variability in the North-East Atlantic Ocean over the last six decades. Ocean Modelling, 31(3-4): 120-131

Fan Y, Lin S-J, Held I M, et al. 2012. Global ocean surface wave simulation using a coupled atmosphere-wave model. Journal of Climate, 25(18): 6233-6252

Grachev A A, Fairall C W. 2001. Upward momentum transfer in the marine boundary layer. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 31(7): 1698-1711

Hanley K E, Belcher S E. 2008. Wave-driven wind jets in the marine atmospheric boundary layer. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65(8): 2646-2660

Hanley K E, Belcher S E, Sullivan P P. 2010. A global climatology of wind-wave interaction. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 40(6): 1263-1282

Hanna S, Heinold D W. 1985. Development and Application of A Simple Method for Evaluating Air Quality Models. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute

Hanson J L, Jensen R E. 2004. Wave system diagnostics for numerical wave models. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting. Oahu, Hawaii

Hanson J L, Phillips O M. 2001. Automated analysis of ocean surface directional wave spectra. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 18(2): 277-293

Hanson J L, Tracy B A, Tolman H L, et al. 2009. Pacific hindcast performance of three numerical wave models. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 26(8): 1614-1633

Janssen P A E M. 1982. Quasilinear approximation for the spectrum of wind-generated water waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 117: 493-506

Jenkins A D. 1986. A theory for steady and variable wind-and waveinduced currents. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 16(8): 1370-1377

Jenkins A D. 1987. Wind and wave induced currents in a rotating sea with depth-varying eddy viscosity. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 17(7): 938-951

Jiang L F, Zhang Z X, Qi Y Q. 2010. Simulations of SWAN and WAVEWATCH Ⅲ in northern south China sea. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth (2010) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Beijing, China: ISOPE, 213-220

Kalantzi G D, Gommenginger C, Srokosz M. 2009. Assessing the performance of the dissipation parameterizations in WAVEWATCH Ⅲ using collocated altimetry data. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 39(11): 2800-2819

Kenyon K E. 1969. Stokes drift for random gravity waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 74(28): 6991-6994

Lee Harris D. 1966. The wave-driven wind. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 23(6): 688-693

McWilliams J C, Restrepo J M. 1999. The wave-driven ocean circulation. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 29(10): 2523-2540

Mentaschi L, Besio G, Cassola F, et al. 2013. Problems in RMSE-based wave model validations. Ocean Modelling, 72: 53-58

Miles J W. 1957. On the generation of surface waves by shear flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 3(2): 185-204

Ortiz-Royero J C, Mercado-Irizarry A. 2008. An intercomparison of SWAN and WAVEWATCH Ⅲ models with data from NDBCNOAA buoys at oceanic scales. Coastal Engineering Journal, 50(1): 47-73

Padilla-Hernández R, Perrie W, Toulany B, et al. 2004. Intercomparison of modern operational wave models. In: Proceedings of the Eigth International Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting. North Shore, Oahu, Hawaii

Perignon Y, Ardhuin F, Cathelain M, et al. 2014. Swell dissipation by induced atmospheric shear stress. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 119(10): 6622-6630

Rascle N, Ardhuin F. 2013. A global wave parameter database for geophysical applications. Part 2: Model validation with improved source term parameterization. Ocean Modelling, 70: 174-188

Rascle N, Ardhuin F, Queffeulou P, et al. 2008. A global wave parameter database for geophysical applications. Part 1: Wave-current- turbulence interaction parameters for the open ocean based on traditional parameterizations. Ocean Modelling, 25(3-4): 154-171

Ren Qifeng, Zhang Jie, Meng Junmin, et al. 2011. Comparison and analysis of Envisat ASAR ocean wave spectra with buoy data in the northern Pacific Ocean. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 29(1): 10-17

Rogers W E, Babanin A V, Wang D W. 2012. Observation-consistent input and whitecapping dissipation in a model for wind-generated surface waves: Description and simple calculations. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 29(9): 1329-1346

Saha S, Moorthi S, Pan Hualu, et al. 2010. The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(8): 1015-1057

Song Jinbao. 2009. The effects of random surface waves on the steady Ekman current solutions. Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 56(5): 659-671

Tamura H, Miyazawa Y, Oey L-Y. 2012. The Stokes drift and wave induced- mass flux in the North Pacific. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 117(C8): C08021

Tang C L, Perrie W, Jenkins A D, et al. 2007. Observation and modeling of surface currents on the Grand Banks: A study of the wave effects on surface currents. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112(C10): C10025

Teixeira M A C, Belcher S E. 2002. On the distortion of turbulence by a progressive surface wave. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 458: 229-267

Tsagareli K N, Babanin A V, Walker D J, et al. 2009. Numerical investigation of spectral evolution of wind waves. Part I: Wind-input source function. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 40(4): 656-666

Webb A, Fox-Kemper B. 2011. Wave spectral moments and Stokes drift estimation. Ocean Modelling, 40(3-4): 273-288

Young I R, Babanin A V, Zieger S. 2013. The decay rate of ocean swell observed by altimeter. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 43(11): 2322-333

Zhang Peng, Chen Xiaoling, Lu Jianzhong, et al. 2011. Research on wave simulation of Bohai Sea based on the CCMP remotely sensed sea winds. Marine Science Bulletin (in Chinese), 30(3): 266-271

Zhang Hongsheng, Gu Junbo, Wang Hailong, et al. 2013a. Simulating wind wave field near the Pearl River Estuary with SWAN nested in WAVEWATCH. Journal of Tropical Oceanography, 32(1): 8-17

Zhang Yuming, Wu Kejian, Zhang Xiaoshuang, et al. 2013b. Improving the estimate of wind energy input into the Ekman layer within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 32(3): 19-27

Zheng Chongwei, Pan Jing, Li Jiaxun. 2013. Assessing the China Sea wind energy and wave energy resources from 1988 to 2009. Ocean Engineering, 65: 39-48

Zieger S, Babanin A V, Rogers E, et al. 2011. Observation-based dissipation and input terms for a WAVEWATCH Ⅲ: implementation and simple simulations. In: Proceedings of the 12th Int Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting and 3rd Coastal Hazards Symposium. Kohala Coast, Hawaii

施引文献

资源附件(0)

访问统计

点击查看大图

计量

文章访问数: 1884
HTML全文浏览量: 95
PDF下载量: 1361
被引次数: 0

基于Wavewatch Ⅲ模式的太平洋海浪模拟评估

doi: 10.1007/s13131-015-0737-1

计量

出版历程

Evaluation of the simulation capability of the Wavewatch Ⅲ model for Pacific Ocean wave

计量

出版历程

目录