Articles | Volume 18, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
24 Jul 2025
Model evaluation paper |
| 24 Jul 2025
| 24 Jul 2025
Low-level jets in the North and Baltic seas: mesoscale model sensitivity and climatology using WRF V4.2.1
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Andrea N. Hahmann
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Nicolas G. Alonso-de-Linaje
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Mark Žagar
Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Aarhus, Denmark
Martin Dörenkämper
Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy Systems, Oldenburg, Germany
Related authors
Jana Fischereit, Bjarke T. E. Olsen, Marc Imberger, Henrik Vedel, Kristian H. Møller, Andrea N. Hahmann, and Xiaoli Guo Larsén
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 8115–8147, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8115-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8115-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated how operating wind farms influence the atmosphere in numerical weather prediction using two wind farm parameterizations in the HARMONIE-AROME model, applied by over 10 European weather services. Accurate yield forecasts require including both onshore and offshore turbines. Wind turbines slightly alter near-surface temperature (<1 K on average). We also present an open-access European wind turbine dataset combining multiple data sources.
Stefan Ivanell, Bjarke T. Olsen, Antoine Mathieu, Cristina Mulet-Benzo, Abdul Haseeb Syed, Warit Chanprasert, Mikael Sjöholm, Jakob Mann, and Julia Gottschall
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-286, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-286, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Modern GW-scale offshore wind farms face challenges from atmospheric dynamics. This study examines how boundary layer height (BLH) and large-scale turbulence affect efficiency and loads. Using WRF simulations, lidar data, and CFD modeling for a 100-turbine, 15 MW wind farm at three representative sites, we show that low BLH reduces performance. Turbulence-induced low-frequency fluctuations increase fatigue loads, underscoring the need to include BLH and turbulence in design models.
Sandra Schwegmann, Tanguy Lunel, Lukas Vollmer, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-103, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-103, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the feasibility of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) to represent turbulence intensity (TI) and quantifies its uncertainties for the North Sea. At mesoscales, using subgrid-scale TKE for TI calculation, a mean absolute percentage error of about 30 % can be achieved. Out of the used PBL schemes, MYNN provides the lowest deviation to observed TI at a resolution of 2 km. Gray-zone simulations with a resolution of up to 111 m do rarely improve TI.
Jana Fischereit, Bjarke T. E. Olsen, Marc Imberger, Henrik Vedel, Kristian H. Møller, Andrea N. Hahmann, and Xiaoli Guo Larsén
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 8115–8147, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8115-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8115-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated how operating wind farms influence the atmosphere in numerical weather prediction using two wind farm parameterizations in the HARMONIE-AROME model, applied by over 10 European weather services. Accurate yield forecasts require including both onshore and offshore turbines. Wind turbines slightly alter near-surface temperature (<1 K on average). We also present an open-access European wind turbine dataset combining multiple data sources.
Astrid Lampert, Beatriz Cañadillas, Thomas Rausch, Lea Schmitt, Bughsin' Djath, Johannes Schulz-Stellenfleth, Andreas Platis, Kjell zum Berge, Ines Schäfer, Jens Bange, Lukas Gruchot, Thomas Neumann, Martin Dörenkämper, Bernhard Stoevesandt, Julia Gottschall, Lukas Vollmer, Stefan Emeis, Mares Barekzai, Simon Siedersleben, Martin Kühn, Gerald Steinfeld, Detlev Heinemann, Joachim Peinke, Hendrik Heißelmann, Jörge Schneemann, Gabriele Centurelli, Philipp Waldmann, and Konrad Bärfuss
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 3057–3075, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-3057-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-3057-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Two major aircraft measurement campaigns above the North Sea provide insights into modifications of the wind field and sea surface induced by wind farms. The aircraft performed transects at hub height upstream and downstream of wind farm clusters and identified different effects, e.g. how long it takes for the wind speed to recover after the wind farm, how changes across the coastline interact with wind energy, and if wind farms are well represented in numerical simulations.
Nicolas G. Alonso-de-Linaje, Andrea N. Hahmann, and Alfredo Peña
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-143, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-143, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms create wind shadows that reduce energy for nearby farms. Traditional weather simulations require weeks of computing time, making extensive testing impractical. We developed a fast tool that estimates these wind shadows in seconds using turbine positions and local wind data. It closely matches detailed simulations for current and future North Sea layouts and is applicable in the Baltic Sea, enabling planners to evaluate many options quickly.
Johanna Borowski, Kerstin Avila, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-129, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-129, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces a methodology that integrates climate model ensembles into the measure-correlate-predict framework for site-specific wind resource assessments. Using ERA5 reanalysis data and tall tower measurements from European sites, the approach bias-corrects climate model data to local conditions and reproduces historical wind climates. Results indicate decreases in summer wind speeds (typically 0.1–0.4 m s−¹) and slight winter increases but with greater ensemble spread in this season.
Balthazar Arnoldus Maria Sengers, Lukas Vollmer, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-80, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-80, 2026
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This work compared parameterizations used in mesoscale models to estimate wind energy production against operational data from several offshore sites. Results showed differences of about five percent, with higher resolution reducing generated power due to stronger wakes. One approach best reproduced key aspects of wind farm performance. Overall, results underline known limitations, but confirm these models are useful for estimating wind farm performance.
Oscar García-Santiago, Jake Badger, Andrea N. Hahmann, Patrick J. H. Volker, Søren Ott, M. Paul van der Laan, and Mark Kelly
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2144, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2144, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We improve how weather models represent the turbulence generated by wind turbines within and behind wind farms. Rather than adding this turbulence only at grid squares with turbine locations, the new method transports it through the wake as it moves downwind. Tests against high-resolution simulations of an idealised wind farm showed better agreement in wake turbulence and more accurate reductions in wind speed, providing a more realistic picture of wake effects across the wind farm.
Johanna Borowski, Sandra Schwegmann, Kerstin Avila, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 661–677, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-661-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-661-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing wind resources and mitigating the associated uncertainties are crucial to wind farm profitability. The study quantifies the uncertainty due to inter-annual variability, averaging 6.5 % and ranging from 1 % to 14 %, using long-term, quality-controlled wind measurements from tall met masts in terrain of varying complexity. Further, the results indicate that machine learning models are beneficial in mitigating the impact of inter-annual variability in heterogeneous and complex terrain.
Johannes Paulsen, Gerald Steinfeld, Martin Kühn, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-23, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-23, 2026
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated the potential benefits in wake development and power production of a new turbine concept with a low specific rating and low induction and compared it to a reference design with same rated power. Our results show that the design can strongly increase the AEP and shows especially strong benefits during doldrum events and in strongly cluster wake affected areas. While the inner farm wake wakes are strongly decreased by the new concept, the outer farm wakes are slightly stronger.
Maksims Pogumirskis, Tija Sīle, Lasse Svenningsen, and Andrea N. Hahmann
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-24, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-24, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
We validate seven atmospheric model datasets against wind observations at turbine heights from more than 500 observation campaigns in Europe. We use principal component analysis to show that wind speed and direction have similar spatial and temporal patterns of biases in all seven model datasets. We link these biases to the terrain elevation differences between model and real-world. Two WRF model runs are performed and compared to provide a more robust support to the hypothesis.
Stefan Ivanell, Bjarke T. Olsen, Antoine Mathieu, Cristina Mulet-Benzo, Abdul Haseeb Syed, Warit Chanprasert, Mikael Sjöholm, Jakob Mann, and Julia Gottschall
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-286, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-286, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Modern GW-scale offshore wind farms face challenges from atmospheric dynamics. This study examines how boundary layer height (BLH) and large-scale turbulence affect efficiency and loads. Using WRF simulations, lidar data, and CFD modeling for a 100-turbine, 15 MW wind farm at three representative sites, we show that low BLH reduces performance. Turbulence-induced low-frequency fluctuations increase fatigue loads, underscoring the need to include BLH and turbulence in design models.
Lukas Vollmer, Balthazar Arnoldus Maria Sengers, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1689–1693, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study proposes a modification to a well-established wind farm parameterization used in mesoscale models. The wind speed at the location of the turbine, which is used to calculate power and thrust, is corrected to approximate the free wind speed. Results show that the modified parameterization produces more accurate estimates of the turbine’s power curve.
Oscar García-Santiago, Andrea N. Hahmann, Jake Badger, and Alfredo Peña
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 963–979, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-963-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-963-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares the results of two wind farm parameterizations (WFPs) in the Weather Research and Forecasting model, simulating a two-turbine array under three atmospheric stabilities with large-eddy simulations. We show that the WFPs accurately depict wind speeds either near turbines or in the far-wake areas, but not both. The parameterizations’ performance varies by variable (wind speed or turbulent kinetic energy) and atmospheric stability, with reduced accuracy in stable conditions.
Markus Sommerfeld, Martin Dörenkämper, Jochem De Schutter, and Curran Crawford
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1153–1178, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1153-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1153-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the performance of pumping-mode ground-generation airborne wind energy systems by determining power-optimal flight trajectories based on realistic, k-means clustered, vertical wind velocity profiles. These profiles, derived from mesoscale weather simulations at an offshore and an onshore site in Europe, are incorporated into an optimal control model that maximizes average cycle power by optimizing the kite's trajectory.
Anna von Brandis, Gabriele Centurelli, Jonas Schmidt, Lukas Vollmer, Bughsin' Djath, and Martin Dörenkämper
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 589–606, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-589-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-589-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose that considering large-scale wind direction changes in the computation of wind farm cluster wakes is of high relevance. Consequently, we present a new solution for engineering modeling tools that accounts for the effect of such changes in the propagation of wakes. The new model is evaluated with satellite data in the German Bight area. It has the potential to reduce uncertainty in applications such as site assessment and short-term power forecasting.
Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Marc Imberger, Ásta Hannesdóttir, and Andrea N. Hahmann
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
We study how climate change will impact extreme winds and choice of turbine class. We use data from 18 CMIP6 members from a historic and a future period to access the change in the extreme winds. The analysis shows an overall increase in the extreme winds in the North Sea and the southern Baltic Sea, but a decrease over the Scandinavian Peninsula and most of the Baltic Sea. The analysis is inconclusive to whether higher or lower classes of turbines will be installed in the future.
Andrea N. Hahmann, Oscar García-Santiago, and Alfredo Peña
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2373–2391, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2373-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2373-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the changes in wind energy resources in northern Europe using output from simulations from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) under the high-emission scenario. Our results show that climate change does not particularly alter annual energy production in the North Sea but could affect the seasonal distribution of these resources, significantly reducing energy production during the summer from 2031 to 2050.
Graziela Luzia, Andrea N. Hahmann, and Matti Juhani Koivisto
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2255–2270, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2255-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2255-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a comprehensive validation of time series produced by a mesoscale numerical weather model, a global reanalysis, and a wind atlas against observations by using a set of metrics that we present as requirements for wind energy integration studies. We perform a sensitivity analysis on the numerical weather model in multiple configurations, such as related to model grid spacing and nesting arrangements, to define the model setup that outperforms in various time series aspects.
Markus Sommerfeld, Martin Dörenkämper, Jochem De Schutter, and Curran Crawford
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1847–1868, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1847-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1847-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This research explores the ground-generation airborne wind energy system (AWES) design space and investigates scaling effects by varying design parameters such as aircraft wing size, aerodynamic efficiency and mass. Therefore, representative simulated onshore and offshore wind data are implemented into an AWES trajectory optimization model. We estimate optimal annual energy production and capacity factors as well as a minimal operational lift-to-weight ratio.
Beatriz Cañadillas, Maximilian Beckenbauer, Juan J. Trujillo, Martin Dörenkämper, Richard Foreman, Thomas Neumann, and Astrid Lampert
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1241–1262, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Scanning lidar measurements combined with meteorological sensors and mesoscale simulations reveal the strong directional and stability dependence of the wake strength in the direct vicinity of wind farm clusters.
Cited articles
Aird, J. A., Barthelmie, R. J., Shepherd, T. J., and Pryor, S. C.: WRF-simulated low-level jets over Iowa: characterization and sensitivity studies, Wind Energ. Sci., 6, 1015–1030, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-1015-2021, 2021. a
Baas, P., Bosveld, F. C., Baltink, H. K., and Holtslag, A. A.: A climatology of nocturnal low-level jets at Cabauw, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 48, 1627–1642, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAMC1965.1, 2009. a, b, c
Bougeault, P. and Lacarrere, P.: Parameterization of Orography-Induced Turbulence in a Mesobeta–Scale Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1872– 1890, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1872:POOITI>2.0.CO;2, 1989. a, b
Capon, R. A.: Wind speed-up in the Dover Straits with the Met Office New Dynamics model, Meteorol. Appl., 10, 229–237, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1350482703003037, 2003. a, b, c
Copernicus Land Monitoring Service: CORINE Land Cover, European Environment Agency (EEA), https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover (last access: 15 April 2019), 2019. a
Danielson, J. J. and Gesch, D. B.: Global Multi-Resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010). Report No. OFR 2011-1073, US Geological Survey, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1073/pdf/of2011-1073.pdf (last access: 26 May 2025), 2011. a
Darby, L. S., Allwine, K. J., and Banta, R. M.: Nocturnal Low-Level Jet in a Mountain Basin Complex. Part II: Transport and Diffusion of Tracer under Stable Conditions, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 45, 740–753, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2367.1, 2006. a
Davis, N. N., Badger, J., Hahmann, A. N., Hansen, B. O., Mortensen, N. G., Kelly, M., Larsén, X. G., Olsen, B. T., Floors, R., Lizcano, G., Casso, P., Lacave, O., Bosch, A., Bauwens, I., Knight, O. J., van Loon, A. P., Fox, R., Parvanyan, T., Hansen, S. B. K., Heathfield, D., Onninen, M., and Drummond, R.: The Global Wind Atlas: A High-Resolution Dataset of Climatologies and Associated Web-Based Application, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 104, E1507–E1525, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0075.1, 2023. a
Donlon, C. J., Martin, M., Stark, J. D., Roberts-Jones, J., Fiedler, E., and Wimmer, W.: The Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice analysis (OSTIA), Remote Sens. Environ., 116, 140–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.017, 2012. a
Dörenkämper, M., Olsen, B. T., Witha, B., Hahmann, A. N., Davis, N. N., Barcons, J., Ezber, Y., García-Bustamante, E., González-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Sastre-Marugán, M., Sīle, T., Trei, W., Žagar, M., Badger, J., Gottschall, J., Sanz Rodrigo, J., and Mann, J.: The Making of the New European Wind Atlas – Part 2: Production and evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5079–5102, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5079-2020, 2020 (data available at: https://map.neweuropeanwindatlas.eu/, last access: 26 May 2025). a, b, c, d, e
Draxl, C., Hahmann, A. N., Peña, A., and Giebel, G.: Evaluating winds and vertical wind shear from Weather Research and Forecasting model forecasts using seven planetary boundary layer schemes, Wind Energy, 17, 39–55, 2014. a
Flamary, R., Courty, N., Gramfort, A., Alaya, M. Z., Boisbunon, A., Chambon, S., Chapel, L., Corenflos, A., Fatras, K., Fournier, N., Gautheron, L., Gayraud, N. T., Janati, H., Rakotomamonjy, A., Redko, I., Rolet, A., Schutz, A., Seguy, V., Sutherland, D. J., Tavenard, R., Tong, A., and Vayer, T.: POT: Python Optimal Transport, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22, 1–8, https://jmlr.org/papers/volume22/20-451/20-451.pdf (last access: 5 June 2025), 2021. a, b
Gadde, S. N. and Stevens, R. J. A. M.: Effect of low-level jet height on wind farm performance, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, 13, 013305, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0026232, 2021. a, b, c
Gaertner, E., Rinker, J., Sethuraman, L., Zahle, F., Anderson, B., Barter, G. E., Abbas, N. J., Meng, F., Bortolotti, P., Skrzypinski, W., Scott, G., Feil, R., Bredmose, H., Dykes, K., Shields, M., Allen, C., and Viselli, A.: IEA wind TCP task 37: definition of the IEA 15-megawatt offshore reference wind turbine, Tech. rep., National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 36 pp., https://doi.org/10.2172/1603478, 2020. a
Gottschall, J., Catalano, E., Dörenkämper, M., and Witha, B.: The NEWA Ferry Lidar Experiment: Measuring mesoscalewinds in the Southern Baltic Sea, Remote Sens., 10, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101620, 2018. a
Gutierrez, W., Ruiz-Columbie, A., Tutkun, M., and Castillo, L.: Impacts of the low-level jet's negative wind shear on the wind turbine, Wind Energy Sci., 2, 533–545, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2-533-2017, 2017. a
Gutierrez, W., Ruiz-Columbie, A., Tutkun, M., and Castillo, L.: The structural response of a wind turbine under operating conditions with a low-level jet, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 108, 380–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.058, 2019. a
Hahmann, A. N., Sīle, T., Witha, B., Davis, N. N., Dörenkämper, M., Ezber, Y., García-Bustamante, E., González-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Olsen, B. T., and Söderberg, S.: The making of the New European Wind Atlas – Part 1: Model sensitivity, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5053–5078, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5053-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Haikin, N. and Castelli, S. T.: On the Effect of a Low-level Jet on Atmospheric Pollutant Dispersion: A Case Study Over a Coastal Complex Domain, Employing High-Resolution Modelling, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 182, 471–495, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-021-00661-x, 2022. a
Hallgren, C., Arnqvist, J., Ivanell, S., Körnich, H., Vakkari, V., and Sahlée, E.: Looking for an offshore low-level jet champion among recent reanalyses: A tight race over the baltic sea, Energies, 13, 14, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143670, 2020. a
Hallgren, C., Arnqvist, J., Nilsson, E., Ivanell, S., Shapkalijevski, M., Thomasson, A., Pettersson, H., and Sahlée, E.: Classification and properties of non-idealized coastal wind profiles – an observational study, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1183–1207, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1183-2022, 2022. a, b
Hallgren, C., Aird, J. A., Ivanell, S., Körnich, H., Barthelmie, R. J., Pryor, S. C., and Sahlée, E.: Brief communication: On the definition of the low-level jet, Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1651–1658, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1651-2023, 2023. a, b
Hallgren, C., Aird, J. A., Ivanell, S., Körnich, H., Vakkari, V., Barthelmie, R. J., Pryor, S. C., and Sahlée, E.: Machine learning methods to improve spatial predictions of coastal wind speed profiles and low-level jets using single-level ERA5 data, Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 821–840, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-821-2024, 2024. a
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del Río, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., Gérard-Marchant, P., Sheppard, K., Reddy, T., Weckesser, W., Abbasi, H., Gohlke, C., and Oliphant, T. E.: Array programming with NumPy, Nature, 585, 357–362, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2, 2020. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., Chiara, G. D., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., Rosnay, P. d., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: Complete ERA5 from 1940: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate, copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.143582cf, 2017. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a, b
Holton, J. R.: The diurnal boundary layer wind oscillation above sloping terrain1, Tellus A, 19, 199, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v19i2.9766, 1967. a
Hong, S.-Y., Dudhia, J., and Chen, S.-H.: A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation, Mon. Weather Rev., 132, 103–120, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<0103:ARATIM>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Hong, S.-Y., Noh, Y., and Dudhia, J.: A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes, Mon. Weather Rev., 134, 2318–2341, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1, 2006. a, b
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J.: xarray: N-D labeled arrays and datasets in Python, J. Open Res. Softw., 5, 10-10, https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148, 2017. a
Hunt, J. C. R., Orr, A., Rottman, J. W., and Capon, R.: Coriolis effects in mesoscale flows with sharp changes in surface conditions, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 130, 2703–2731, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.14, 2004. a, b
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a, b
Iacono, M. J., Delamere, J. S., Mlawer, E. J., Shephard, M. W., Clough, S. A., and Collins, W. D.: Radiative forcing by long–lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D13103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944, 2008. a
Janjić, Z. I.: The Step-Mountain Eta Coordinate Model: Further Developments of the Convection, Viscous Sublayer, and Turbulence Closure Schemes, Mon. Weather Rev., 122, 927–945, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122<0927:TSMECM>2.0.CO;2, 1994. a, b
Jimenez, P. A., Dudhia, J., Gonzalez-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Montavez, J. P., and Garcia-Bustamante, E.: A Revised Scheme for the WRF Surface Layer Formulation, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 898–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00056.1, 2012. a, b, c
Jong, E. D., Quon, E., and Zalkind, D.: Idealized Offshore Low-Level Jets for Turbine Structural Impact Considerations Idealized Offshore Low-Level Jets for Turbine Structural Impact Considerations, Wind Energy, https://www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/au.170664363.31958897 (last access: 26 May 2025), 2024. a
Kain, J. S.: The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: An update, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 43, 170–181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Kalverla, P. C., Steeneveld, G.-J., Ronda, R. J., and Holtslag, A. A.: An observational climatology of anomalous wind events at offshore meteomast IJmuiden (North Sea), J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodynam., 165, 86–99, 2017. a
Kantorovich, L. V.: Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production, Manage. Sci., 6, 366–422, 1960. a
Kelso, N. V. and Patterson, T.: Introducing natural earth data – http://www.naturalearthdata.com/, Geogr. Tech. Special Issue 2010, 82–89, https://technicalgeography.org/pdf/sp_i_2010/12_introducing_natural_earth_data__naturaleart.pdf (last access: 26 May 2025), 2010. a
Kleczek, M. A., Steeneveld, G.-J., and Holtslag, A. A.: Evaluation of the weather research and forecasting mesoscale model for GABLS3: impact of boundary-layer schemes, boundary conditions and spin-up, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 152, 213–243, 2014. a
Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., and Seibert, S.: Numba: A llvm-based python jit compiler, in: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6 pp., https://doi.org/10.1145/2833157.2833162, 2015. a
Luiz, E. W. and Fiedler, S.: Global Climatology of Low‐Level‐Jets: Occurrence, Characteristics, and Meteorological Drivers, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, 9, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD040262, 2024. a, b, c
Miller, S., Keim, B., Talbot, R., and Mao, H.: Sea breeze: Structure, forecasting, and impacts, Rev. Geophys., 41, 1011, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000124, 2003. a
Nakanishi, M. and Niino, H.: Development of an improved turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer., J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 87, 895–912, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.87.895, 2009. a, b, c
Nunalee, C. G. and Basu, S.: Mesoscale modeling of coastal low-level jets: implications for offshore wind resource estimation, Wind Energy, 17, 1199–1216, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1628, 2014. a
Olsen, B. T., Hahmann, A. N., and Gonzalez Alonso de Linaje, N. D.: Code and data for “Low-level jets in the North and Baltic Seas: Mesoscale Model Sensitivity and Climatology using WRF V4.2.1”, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14354487, 2025. a
Olsen, B. T. E., Hahmann, A. N., and Alonso-de Linaje, N. G.: Mesoscale Low-Level Jet Climatology for the North and Baltic Seas, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13154214, 2024. a, b
Olson, J. B., Kenyon, J. S., Angevine, W., Brown, J. M., Pagowski, M., and Sušelj, K.: A description of the MYNN-EDMF scheme and the coupling to other components in WRF–ARW, Tech. rep., NOAA, 42 pp., https://doi.org/10.25923/n9wm-be49, 2019. a, b, c, d
Peña, A.: Østerild: A natural laboratory for atmospheric turbulence, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, 11, 063302, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5121486, 2019. a, b
Porté-Agel, F., Bastankhah, M., and Shamsoddin, S.: Wind-Turbine and Wind-Farm Flows: A Review, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 174, 1–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-019-00473-0, 2020. a
Poulos, G. S., Blumen, W., Fritts, D. C., Lundquist, J. K., Sun, J., Burns, S. P., Nappo, C., Banta, R., Newsom, R., Cuxart, J., Terradellas, E., Balsley, B., and Jensen, M.: CASES-99: A Comprehensive Investigation of the Stable Nocturnal Boundary Layer, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 555–582, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0555:CACIOT>2.3.CO;2, 2002. a
Poulter, B., MacBean, N., Hartley, A., Khlystova, I., Arino, O., Betts, R., Bontemps, S., Boettcher, M., Brockmann, C., Defourny, P., Hagemann, S., Herold, M., Kirches, G., Lamarche, C., Lederer, D., Ottlé, C., Peters, M., and Peylin, P.: Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency's Land Cover Climate Change Initiative, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2315–2328, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2315-2015, 2015. a
Redfern, S., Optis, M., Xia, G., and Draxl, C.: Offshore wind energy forecasting sensitivity to sea surface temperature input in the Mid-Atlantic, Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1-2023, 2023. a
Rife, D. L., Pinto, J. O., Monaghan, A. J., Davis, C. A., and Hannan, J. R.: Global Distribution and Characteristics of Diurnally Varying Low-Level Jets, J. Climate, 23, 5041–5064, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3514.1, 2010. a
Rijo, N., Semedo, A., Miranda, P. M., Lima, D., Cardoso, R. M., and Soares, P. M.: Spatial and temporal variability of the Iberian Peninsula coastal low-level jet, Int. J. Climatol., 38, 1605–1622, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5303, 2018. a
Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., and Guibas, L. J.: A metric for distributions with applications to image databases, in: Sixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271), 59–66 pp., IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.1998.710701, 1998. a
Sheridan, L. M., Krishnamurthy, R., Gustafson Jr., W. I., Liu, Y., Gaudet, B. J., Bodini, N., Newsom, R. K., and Pekour, M.: Offshore low-level jet observations and model representation using lidar buoy data off the California coast, Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 741–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, 2024. a, b
Shin, H. H. and Hong, S.-Y.: Intercomparison of planetary boundary-layer parametrizations in the WRF model for a single day from CASES-99, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 139, 261–281, 2011. a
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., and Huang, X.-Y.: A description of the advanced research WRF model version 4, National Center for Atmospheric Research: Boulder, CO, USA, 145, 145, https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97, 2019. a, b
Smedman, A.-S., Bergström, H., and Högström, U.: Spectra, variances and length scales in a marine stable boundary layer dominated by a low level jet, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 76, 211–232, 1995. a
Smedman, A. S., Bergström, H., and Grisogono, B.: Evolution of stable internal boundary layers over a cold sea, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 102, 1091–1099, https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc02782, 1997. a
Stensrud, D. J.: Importance of low-level jets to climate: A review, J. Climate, 9, 1698–1711, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<1698:IOLLJT>2.0.CO;2, 1996. a, b
Tastula, E. M., Galperin, B., Dudhia, J., Lemone, M. A., Sukoriansky, S., and Vihma, T.: Methodical assessment of the differences between the QNSE and MYJ PBL schemes for stable conditions, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 141, 2077–2089, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2503, 2015. a
Tewari, M., Chen, F., Wang, W., Dudhia, J., LeMone, M. A., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Gayno, G., Wegiel, J., and Cuenca, R. H.: Implementation and verification of the unified Noah land surface model in the WRF model, in: 20th conference on weather analysis and forecasting/16th conference on numerical weather prediction, Seattle, 12–16 January 2004, AMS, https://n2t.org/ark:/85065/d7fb523p (last access: 26 May 2025), 2004. a
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., Van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat, I., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J., Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Riberio, A. H., Pedregosa, F., and Mulbregt, P. v.: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods, 17, 261–272, 2020. a, b
Wagner, D., Steinfeld, G., Witha, B., Wurps, H., and Reuder, J.: Low level jets over the southern North Sea, Meteorol. Z., 28, 389–415, https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2019/0948, 2019. a, b
Wagner, R., Cañadillas, B., Clifton, A., Feeney, S., Nygaard, N., Poodt, M., St Martin, C., Tüxen, E., and Wagenaar, J.: Rotor equivalent wind speed for power curve measurement–comparative exercise for IEA Wind Annex 32, in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 524, p. 012108, IOP Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012108, 2014. a
Wijnant, I., van Ulft, B., van Stratum, B., Barkmeijer, J., Onvlee, J., de Valk, C., Knoop, S., Kok, S., Marseille, G., Baltink, H. K., and Stepek, A.: The dutch offshore wind atlas (dowa): Description of the dataset, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, De Bilt, https://cdn.knmi.nl/knmi/pdf/bibliotheek/knmipubTR/TR380.pdf (last access: 26 May 2025), 2019. a
Zhang, X., Bao, J.-W., Chen, B., and Grell, E. D.: A Three-Dimensional Scale-Adaptive Turbulent Kinetic Energy Scheme in the WRF-ARW Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 146, 2023–2045, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0356.1, 2018. a, b
Short summary
Low-level jets (LLJs) are strong winds in the lower atmosphere that are important for wind energy as turbines get taller. This study compares a weather model (WRF) with real data across five North and Baltic Sea sites. Adjusting the model improved accuracy over the widely used ERA5. In key offshore regions, LLJs occur 10–15 % of the time and significantly boost wind power, especially in spring and summer, contributing up to 30 % of total capacity in some areas.
Low-level jets (LLJs) are strong winds in the lower atmosphere that are important for wind...
