the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and performance of a high-resolution surface wave and storm surge forecast model (COASTLINES-LO): Application to a large lake
Laura L. Swatridge
Ryan P. Mulligan
Leon Boegman
Shiliang Shan
Abstract. An automated real-time forecast model of surface hydrodynamics in Lake Ontario (Coastlines-LO) was developed to predict storm surge and surface waves. The system uses a dynamically coupled Delft3D – SWAN model with a structured grid to generate 48 h predictions for the lake that are updated every 6 h. The lake surface is forced with meteorological data from the High Resolution Deterministic Prediction System (HRDPS). The forecast model has been running since May 2021, capturing a wide variety of storm conditions. Good agreement between observations and modelled results is achieved, with root mean squared errors (RMSE) for water levels and waves under 0.02 m and 0.26 m, respectively. During storm events, the magnitude and timing of storm surges are accurately predicted at 9 monitoring stations (RMSE < 0.05 m), with model accuracy either improving or remaining consistent with decreasing forecast length. Forecast significant wave heights agree with observed data (1–12 % relative error for peak wave heights) at 4 wave buoys in the lake. Coastlines-LO forecasts for storm surge prediction for two consecutive storm events were compared to those from the Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System (GLCFS) to further evaluate model performance. Both systems achieved comparable results with average RMSEs of 0.02 m. Coastlines-LO is an open-source wrapper code driven by open-data and has a relatively low computational demand, compared to GLCFS, making this approach suitable for forecasting marine conditions in other coastal regions.
- Preprint
(3454 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(717 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Laura L. Swatridge et al.
Status: open (until 07 Jan 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-151', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Dec 2023
reply
It is a pretty nice work, and I only have some minor comments for authors to clarify them:
For the wave-current coupling, have the authors used the radiation stress method? I would like authors to have a look at the comparison between radiation stress method and vortex force method, and maybe authors need list this one as one of limitation or uncertainty:
Kumar, N., Voulgaris, G., Warner, J.C., 2011. Implementation and modification of a three dimensional radiation stress formulation for the surf zone and rip-current applications. Coast. Eng. 58, 1097–1117.
Xia, M., Mao, M., Niu, Q. (2020). “Implementation and comparison of the recent three-dimensional radiation stress theory and vortex force formulism in an unstructured-grid coastal model,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences, 189, 1-16.
What kinds of wind stress formula did authors used? Please have a look at Niu and Xia, 2016 in their studies at Lake Erie.
Line 77-82, Niu et al, 2015 compared the various resolution grid mesh and wind forcings to the Lake Erie circulation.
Line 373-374, Kang and Xia, 2020 discussed how to improve the surge simulation under various wind forcing in an application to Maryland Coastal Bays under hurricane Sandy, just in case if helpful
Line 430-432, Peng, Xie and Pietrafesa, 2004; Xia, Xie, Pietrafesa, Peng et al, 2008 already mentioned the importance of 3-D V.S 2-D in their North Carolina surge application.
Line 439-441: Lake Erie model by Niu and Xia, 2015; 2016 did consider the high resolution to simulate the wave and surge, while use FVCOM.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-151-RC1
Laura L. Swatridge et al.
Laura L. Swatridge et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
147 | 25 | 4 | 176 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 147
- PDF: 25
- XML: 4
- Total: 176
- Supplement: 7
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1