4.7 Article

Validation and intercomparisons of wave measurements and models during the EuroROSE experiments

期刊

COASTAL ENGINEERING
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 1-28

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3839(02)00157-6

关键词

wave measurement; WAM wave model; HF radar; X-band radar; waverider; EuroROSE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the EuroROSE (European Radar Ocean Sensing) project was to combine area covering ground-based remote-sensed wave and current data with high-resolution numerical forecast models to provide nowcasts and forecasts for coastal marine operators. Two experiments to test and to demonstrate the system took place: one on the coast of Norway, north of Bergen in March 2000 and the second on the north coast of Spain at Gijon in October-November 2000. Qualitative and quantitative intercomparisons of the wave measurements and wave model products from these experiments are presented. These include measurements using the Wellen Radar (WERA) high-frequency (HF) radar, the WaMoS (Wave Monitoring System) X-band radar, a directional Waverider and output from the WAM wave model. Comparisons are made of the full directional spectra and of various derived parameters. This is the first-ever intercomparison between HF and X-band radar wave measurements and between either of these and WAM. It has provided a data set covering a much wider range of storm and swell conditions than had been available previously for radar wave-measurement validation purposes and has clarified a number of limitations of the radars as well as providing a lot of very useful radar wave data for future model-validation applications. The intercomparison has led to improvements in the data quality control procedures of both WaMoS and WERA. The two radar sytems measured significant wave height with mean biases of 3% and 6%, respectively, and mean direction differences of less than 2degrees in both cases. Limitations in the WAM model implementation are also discussed. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据