Search

The Australian marine research, industry, and stakeholder community has recently undertaken an extensive collaborative process to identify the highest national priorities for wind-waves research. This was undertaken under the auspices of the Forum for Operational Oceanography Surface Waves Working Group. The main steps in the process were first, soliciting possible research questions from the community via an online survey; second, reviewing the questions at a face-to-face workshop; and third, online ranking of the research questions by individuals. This process resulted in 15 identified priorities, covering research activities and the development of infrastructure. The top five priorities are 1) enhanced and updated nearshore and coastal bathymetry; 2) improved understanding of extreme sea states; 3) maintain and enhance the in situ buoy network; 4) improved data access and sharing; and 5) ensemble and probabilistic wave modeling and forecasting. In this paper, each of the 15 priorities is discussed in detail, providing insight into why each priority is important, and the current state of the art, both nationally and internationally, where relevant. While this process has been driven by Australian needs, it is likely that the results will be relevant to other marine-focused nations.

The Australian marine research, industry, and stakeholder community has recently undertaken an extensive collaborative process to identify the highest national priorities for wind-waves research. This was undertaken under the auspices of the Forum for Operational Oceanography Surface Waves Working Group. The main steps in the process were first, soliciting possible research questions from the community via an online survey; second, reviewing the questions at a face-to-face workshop; and third, online ranking of the research questions by individuals. This process resulted in 15 identified priorities, covering research activities and the development of infrastructure. The top five priorities are 1) enhanced and updated nearshore and coastal bathymetry; 2) improved understanding of extreme sea states; 3) maintain and enhance the in situ buoy network; 4) improved data access and sharing; and 5) ensemble and probabilistic wave modeling and forecasting. In this paper, each of the 15 priorities is discussed in detail, providing insight into why each priority is important, and the current state of the art, both nationally and internationally, where relevant. While this process has been driven by Australian needs, it is likely that the results will be relevant to other marine-focused nations.

The Australian marine research, industry, and stakeholder community has recently undertaken an extensive collaborative process to identify the highest national priorities for wind-waves research. This was undertaken under the auspices of the Forum for Operational Oceanography Surface Waves Working Group. The main steps in the process were first, soliciting possible research questions from the community via an online survey; second, reviewing the questions at a face-to-face workshop; and third, online ranking of the research questions by individuals. This process resulted in 15 identified priorities, covering research activities and the development of infrastructure. The top five priorities are 1) enhanced and updated nearshore and coastal bathymetry; 2) improved understanding of extreme sea states; 3) maintain and enhance the in situ buoy network; 4) improved data access and sharing; and 5) ensemble and probabilistic wave modeling and forecasting. In this paper, each of the 15 priorities is discussed in detail, providing insight into why each priority is important, and the current state of the art, both nationally and internationally, where relevant. While this process has been driven by Australian needs, it is likely that the results will be relevant to other marine-focused nations.

Recent developments in the physical parameterizations available in spectral wave models have already been validated, but there is little information on their relative performance especially with focus on the higher order spectral moments and wave partitions. This study concentrates on documenting their strengths and limitations using satellite measurements, buoy spectra, and a comparison between the different models. It is confirmed that all models perform well in terms of significant wave heights; however higher-order moments have larger errors. The partition wave quantities perform well in terms of direction and frequency but the magnitude and directional spread typically have larger discrepancies. The high-frequency tail is examined through the mean square slope using satellites and buoys. From this analysis it is clear that some models behave better than the others, suggesting their parameterizations match the physical processes reasonably well. However none of the models are entirely satisfactory, pointing to poorly constrained parameterizations or missing physical processes. The major space-time differences between the models are related to the swell field stressing the importance of describing its evolution. An example swell field confirms the wave heights can be notably different between model configurations while the directional distributions remain similar. It is clear that all models have difficulty in describing the directional spread. Therefore, knowledge of the source term directional distributions is paramount in improving the wave model physics in the future.

Recent developments in the physical parameterizations available in spectral wave models have already been validated, but there is little information on their relative performance especially with focus on the higher order spectral moments and wave partitions. This study concentrates on documenting their strengths and limitations using satellite measurements, buoy spectra, and a comparison between the different models. It is confirmed that all models perform well in terms of significant wave heights; however higher-order moments have larger errors. The partition wave quantities perform well in terms of direction and frequency but the magnitude and directional spread typically have larger discrepancies. The high-frequency tail is examined through the mean square slope using satellites and buoys. From this analysis it is clear that some models behave better than the others, suggesting their parameterizations match the physical processes reasonably well. However none of the models are entirely satisfactory, pointing to poorly constrained parameterizations or missing physical processes. The major space-time differences between the models are related to the swell field stressing the importance of describing its evolution. An example swell field confirms the wave heights can be notably different between model configurations while the directional distributions remain similar. It is clear that all models have difficulty in describing the directional spread. Therefore, knowledge of the source term directional distributions is paramount in improving the wave model physics in the future.

Recent developments in the physical parameterizations available in spectral wave models have already been validated, but there is little information on their relative performance especially with focus on the higher order spectral moments and wave partitions. This study concentrates on documenting their strengths and limitations using satellite measurements, buoy spectra, and a comparison between the different models. It is confirmed that all models perform well in terms of significant wave heights; however higher-order moments have larger errors. The partition wave quantities perform well in terms of direction and frequency but the magnitude and directional spread typically have larger discrepancies. The high-frequency tail is examined through the mean square slope using satellites and buoys. From this analysis it is clear that some models behave better than the others, suggesting their parameterizations match the physical processes reasonably well. However none of the models are entirely satisfactory, pointing to poorly constrained parameterizations or missing physical processes. The major space-time differences between the models are related to the swell field stressing the importance of describing its evolution. An example swell field confirms the wave heights can be notably different between model configurations while the directional distributions remain similar. It is clear that all models have difficulty in describing the directional spread. Therefore, knowledge of the source term directional distributions is paramount in improving the wave model physics in the future.

Measurements collected during the AUSWEX field campaign, at Lake George (Australia), resulted in new insights into the processes of wind wave interaction and whitecapping dissipation, and consequently new parameterizations of the input and dissipation source terms. The new nonlinear wind input term developed accounts for dependence of the growth on wave steepness, airflow separation, and for negative growth rate under adverse winds. The new dissipation terms feature the inherent breaking term, a cumulative dissipation term and a term due to production of turbulence by waves, which is particularly relevant for decaying seas and for swell. The latter is consistent with the observed decay rate of ocean swell. This paper describes these source terms implemented in WAVEWATCH III ®and evaluates the performance against existing source terms in academic duration-limited tests, against buoy measurements for windsea-dominated conditions, under conditions of extreme wind forcing (Hurricane Katrina), and against altimeter data in global hindcasts. Results show agreement by means of growth curves as well as integral and spectral parameters in the simulations and hindcast.

The third generation model for wind-generated surface gravity waves WAVEWATCH III is modified to represent the effect of ice on waves as a source function. This replaces the existing approach of representing ice via fractional blocking (per grid cell) of wave propagation using ice concentration. We have implemented three alternative formulations of varying complexity. The first dissipative source function is a simplistic model where dissipation rate is specified directly. The second dissipative source function, based on work by A. Liu and others, assumes that dissipation is primarily caused by turbulence at the interface between water and a locally continuous ice layer. The third dissipative source function, based on work by H. Shen and others, treats the ice as a locally continuous visco-elastic layer (i.e. a two-layer model). In all cases, the ice characteristics may be specified as non-homogeneous and nonstationary fields. In the latter two source functions, the dissipation rate is non-uniform in frequency space, which is a highly intuitive and documented feature of wave-ice interaction: shorter waves are damped rapidly within the Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ), while the longest waves can penetrate several kilometers (at least) into the ice pack. These source functions are applied in preliminary hindcasts for August 2012 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas., Prepared in collaboration with Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia. For presentation at the IAHR International Symposium on Ice (22nd), Singapore, 11-15 August 2014. The original document contains color images.