2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.10.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a CMIP5 derived dynamical global wind wave climate model ensemble

Abstract: Much effort has gone into evaluating the skill of General Circulation Models (GCMs) for 'standard' climate variables such as surface (air and/or sea) temperature, or precipitation. Whether climate model skill to simulate standard variables translates to the performance of dynamical GCM forced wind-wave simulations is yet to be established. We assess an ensemble of historical dynamical wave climate simulations whereby surface winds taken from GCMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
83
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(75 reference statements)
3
83
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, almost all the GCMs project a positive change, giving a consistent variation compared with the results at the southern Australia. Similar consistency is expected regarding T p changes, with mean changes close to 0.25 s. Wave direction changes reach values around 4° anticlockwise near latitudes 40°–45°S, obtaining a similar change spatial variation as in Hemer and Trenham [].…”
Section: Regional Climate Projectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, almost all the GCMs project a positive change, giving a consistent variation compared with the results at the southern Australia. Similar consistency is expected regarding T p changes, with mean changes close to 0.25 s. Wave direction changes reach values around 4° anticlockwise near latitudes 40°–45°S, obtaining a similar change spatial variation as in Hemer and Trenham [].…”
Section: Regional Climate Projectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They find an agreed projected decrease in annual mean significant wave height (SWH) over 25.8% of the global ocean area (including the North Atlantic) which is greater during Boreal winter (January–March) than austral winter. Hemer and Trenham () show that high performance of GCMs for standard climate variables does not imply high performance for GCM‐forced wave simulations. Camus et al (), using weather typing and statistical downscaling, informed by a historical data set of wave data, showed how this method could be used to provide high‐resolution coastal impact assessment, including additional variables such as wave period and direction as well as SWH.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From all these hazards, marine storms cause most of the damage to non-seismic coasts. This situation may eventually be aggravated as a consequence of Climate-Change, which affects the intensity and frequency of extreme wave-conditions (Wang et al, 2015;Hemer and Trenham, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%