Presentation by Fabrice Ardhuin (Ifremer) at the XBeach X (10th Year Anniversary) Conference, during Delft Software Days - Edition 2017. Wednesday, 1 November 2017, Delft.
4. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 4
1.1 Motivations : CTSDs
How did this rock land here ??
5. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 5
1.1 Motivations : CTSDs
How did this rock land here ??
We did not have Panoramix to tell us …
The old scenario (without IG waves) :
(Fichaut and Suanez, Marine Geology 2010)
6. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 6
1.1 Motivations : CTSDs
Example of time series (including large IG waves!)
Sheremet et al. (GRL 2014)
Dodet et al. (2017)
7. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 7
Wave modelling (including IGs)
Using WAVEWATCH III
2
www.umr-lops.fr
Infragravity Wave and Modelling conference
8. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 8
2.1. Wave height is necessary …
rr
%
%
difference
Models pretty good at large scales for Hs: WW3 forced by ECMWF
- issues with forcing : winds, currents, ice
Data at ftp://ftp.ifremer.fr/ifremer/ww3/HINDCAST/
9. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 9
2.1. Wave height is necessary
– … but not enough
But spectral shapes can be pretty bad ...
10. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 10
2.1. Wave height is necessary
– … but not enough
But spectral shapes can be pretty bad ...
Error for Hs10 (T > 10 s)
At EURO, off Rotterdam → navigation …
11. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 11
2.1. Wave height is necessary
– … but not enough
Directional spread determines run-up levels
Guza & Feddersen (GRL 2012)
12. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 12
2.1. Wave height is necessary
– … but not enough
Directional spread determines run-up levels
it can be well modeled →
but sensitive to many things…
… here shoreline reflection.
(Ardhuin and Roland, JGR, 2012)
Guza & Feddersen (GRL 2012)
Spread
Hs
13. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 13
2.2. Wind seas and swell
General statistics
on wave parameters
Different parameterizations
ST2: Tolman & Chalikov (1996)
ST3: Janssen et al. (1994),
modified by Bidlot et al. (2012)
ST4: Ardhuin et al. (2010),
Modified by Rascle & Ardhuin (2013)
ST6 : Rogers et al. (2012) modified
by Zieger et al. (2015)
(Stopa et al.
Ocean Modelling 2016)
14. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 14
2.3. Free IG waves
Using an empirical relation from Hs & Tm0,-2
to free IG spectrum …. (Ardhuin et al. Ocean Modelling 2014)
Spread & other parameters not yet included …
Parameterization in WW3
15. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 15
2.3. Free IG waves
Validation with independent data … (Ardhuin & al. 2014, Rawat et al. GRL 2015)
46005
46404
17. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 17
3. Measuring wave spectra from space
Synthetic Aperture Radars (such as Sentinel 1A &1B) work with all weather …
… but they only measure swells correctly
This is due to the SAR processing : short waves blur the radar « image »
18. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 18
4. Measuring wave spectra from space :
The SWIM revolution
An alternative to SAR is a rotating radar.
- used in airborne systems since the 1980s
- measures wavenumber spectrum along line of sight
→ rotation gives 2D spectrum
The China France Ocean SATellite (CFOSAT),
due for launch in August 2018 will carry SWIM : Ku-band rotating radar
160 km
19. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 19
4. Measuring wave spectra from space :
From SWIM to SKIM
Future evolution : SKIM
- 300 km wide swath (revisit time 3 days at mid-latitudes)
- all waves longer than 20 m
- under evaluation by ESA for possible launch in 2025 : currents & waves
Fraction of resolved wave energy
20. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 20
- Wave models usually good for Hs, maybe not spectra
→ database of spectra at ftp://ftp.ifremer.fr/ifremer/ww3/HINDCAST
→ new data available via Copernicus (CMEMS) :
- models
- buoy data (no spectra yet … but soon)
- satellite data (altimeters & SARs)
- Ongoing work for identifying errors sources : forcing, parameterizations …
- full spectra satellite data coming → spectral bias corrections ?
→ assimilation (OK for swells)
- long-term wave climate time series ? → ESA CCI+ « Sea State »
- Training on wave spectra measurement & modelling : March & June 2018
Ardhuin et al. (2017) : Measuring currents, ice drift, and waves from space: the Sea Surface
KInematics Multiscale monitoring (SKIM) concept. doi : 10.5194/os-2017-65
http://tinyurl.com/SKIMonRG
1.5 km
Summary
21. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 21
1. Wave height is necessary …
Models pretty good at large scales for Hs: WW3 forced by ECMWF
- issues with forcing : winds, currents, ice especially at small scales...
22. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 22
5. Directional wave measurements
from high seas to the top of the dunes
- wave frequency distribution : errors > 50 % for energy at f < 0.1 Hz
Bias at French buoys (courtesy Y. Perignon)
→ CFOSAT will help
… in some regions. Not marginal seas.
Error for Hs10 (T > 10 s)
At EURO, off Rotterdam → navigation …
23. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 23
2. Wind seas and swell
In the open ocean
Spectrum shape in frequency : many sources of errors : - wave growth
(weak @ short fetch with ST4 – TEST471)
- swell dissipation uncertainties :
(Stopa et al. GRL 2016)
24. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 24
2.3. Free IG waves
Example of model results (WAVEWATCH III including free IG, see Rawat et al. GRL 2014)
25. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 25
2. Wind seas and swell
… in coastal / shallow water
Specific issues :
- numerics (limiters, splitting errors …) : see Roland & Ardhuin (Ocean Dynamics 2014)
- bottom friction :
→ roughness
with ripple predictor
26. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 26
3. Measuring wave spectra from space
Visible imagery (e.g. Sentinel 2) :
Kudryavtsev et al. JGR 2017
27. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 27
2.1. Wave height is necessary
– … but not enough
Directional spread determines run-up levels
But it can also be really bad...
(this case has strong currents ….)
Guza & Feddersen (GRL 2012)
Spread
Hs
28. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 28
2.3. Free IG waves
… all the way to seismic hum …
(Ardhuin et al. GRL 2015)
29. Infragravity wave & Modeling Conference Ardhuin & Stopa 29
2.3. Free IG waves
… all the way to seismic hum …
(Deen et al., submitted)