Evaluations of Global Wind Prediction at Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center: from the Perspective of a Wave Modeler

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188). 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number, PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From -To) SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR / MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)Office of Naval Research 800 North Quincy Street 11. SPONSOR I MONITOR'S REPORT Arlington, VA 22217-5660 NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION IAVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES*Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center, Monterey, CA ABSTRACTThis study describes the validation of winds fields used in a companion study ("Evaluation of global wave prediction at Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center," submitted for review). During this validation, it is found that conventional methods of estimating the distribution of bias across wind speeds can produce widely misleading conclusions. This is demonstrated, and a simple solution (histogram comparisons without geographic interpolation) is presented. SUBJECT TERMS

Validation Test Report for WAVEWATCH III

“…Furthermore, more accurate wind forcing did not lead to more accurate wave predictions. Comparisons of the results from the wind field validations (in Rogers et al 2004) and wave validations in this study suggested that wind bias at both moderate and high wind speeds was much more critical than wind speed RMSE when determining wave prediction skill. The model hindcasts tended to significantly overpredict energy at higher frequencies and to underpredict energy at lower frequencies.…”