Evaluating the Accuracy of ERA5 Wave Reanalysis in the Water Around China

• Published in: Journal of Ocean University of China 2021-02, Vol.20 (1), p.1-9
• Main Authors: Shi, Hongyuan, Cao, Xuefeng, Li, Qingjie, Li, Delei, Sun, Jiacheng, You, Zaijin, Sun, Qingying
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Body height; Buoys; Coefficients; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Cyclones; Deep water; Earth and Environmental Science; Earth Sciences; Hurricanes; Locations (working); Meteorology; Navigation; Ocean engineering; Oceanography; Offshore engineering; Quality assessment; Sediment transport; Shallow water; Significant wave height; Temporal resolution; Tropical climate; Tropical cyclones; Wave data; Wave height; Wave parameters; Wave period; Weather forecasting
• ISSN: 1672-5182; 1993-5021; 1672-5174
• DOI: 10.1007/s11802-021-4496-7

Wave parameters, such as wave height and wave period, are important for human activities, such as navigation, ocean engineering and sediment transport, etc. In this study, wave data from six buoys around Chinese waters, are used to assess the quality of wave height and wave period in the ERA5 reanalysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Annual hourly data with temporal resolution are used. The difference between the significant wave height (SWH) of ERA 5 and that of the buoy varies from −0.35 m to 0.30 m for the three shallow locations; for the three deep locations, the variation ranges from −0.09 m to 0.09 m. The ERA5 SWH data show positive biases, indicating an overall overestimation for all locations, except for E2 and S1 where underestimation is observed. During the tropical cyclone period, a large (about 32%) underestimation of the maximum SWH in the ERA5 data is observed. Hence, the ERA5 SWH data cannot be used for design applications without site-specific validation. The difference between the annual wave period from ERA5 and the mean wave period from the buoys varies from −1.31s to 0.4s. Inter-comparisons suggest that the ERA5 dataset is consistent with the annual mean SWH. However, for the average period, the performance is not good, and half of the correlation coefficients in the four points are less 50%. Overall, the deep water area simulation effect is better than that in the shallow water.