Abstract
Wind-generated surface gravity waves forms an integral part in modulating the air-sea exchange processes. Information of wave parameters is also very essential in planning marine- and coastal-related activities. It is now well recognized that wind-wave activity shows changing trends over the global ocean basins. Numerous studies have addressed the projected changes in significant wave height for the Indian Ocean (IO) region, and there is a need to conduct thorough performance evaluation of global climate models (GCMs) over this region for futuristic planning. With this motivation, the present study examined the performance of historical dynamical wave climate simulations generated under the Coordinated Ocean Wave Climate Projections (COWCLIP) experiment. The simulations utilized near-surface wind speed datasets from 8 CMIP5 (Fifth phase of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) GCMs to force a spectral wave model. The skill level of individual GCM forced wave simulations and multi-model mean (MMM) in reproducing the significant wave height (SWH) over four different sub-domains in the IO was evaluated with reference to the ECMWF Reanalysis 5th Generation (ERA5) datasets. Several performance metrics such as the Taylor Skill, M-Score, Model Climate Performance Index (MCPI), and Model Variability Index (MVI) are employed to establish the skill level of model simulations. The study deciphers that model performance is highly reliant on the region and its characteristics. Representation of the historical wave climate over the Arabian Sea (AS) and the Bay of Bengal (BoB) regions is remarkable in the COWCLIP datasets. However, there are discrepancies noticed in SWH distribution over the South Indian Ocean (SIO) attributed to model limitations in adequately reproducing swell wave fields over that region. The MMM constructed using the best-performing models (MRI-CGCM3, ACCESS1.0, INMCM4, HadGEM2-ES, and BCC-CSM1.1) is found consistent at all the sub-domains. The study signifies that the performance evaluation of GCM forced wave simulations is crucial before employing them for practical applications. Best-performing models listed from this study can be used to establish futuristic scenarios of SWH in a changing climate for the IO region.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aboobacker VM, Rashmi R, Vethamony P, Menon HB (2011a) On the dominance of pre-existing swells over wind seas along the west coast of India. Cont Shelf Res 31(16):1701–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2011.07.010
Aboobacker VM, Vethamony P, Rashmi R (2011b) “Shamal” swells in the Arabian Sea and their influence along the west coast of India. Geophys Res Lett 38(3):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045736
Aboobacker VM, Shanas PR, Al-Ansari EMAS, Sanil Kumar V, Vethamony P (2021) The maxima in northerly wind speeds and wave heights over the Arabian Sea, the Arabian/Persian Gulf and the Red Sea derived from 40 years of ERA5 data. Clim Dyn 56:1037–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05518-6
Alves JHGM (2006) Numerical modeling of ocean swell contributions to the global wind-wave climate. Ocean Model 11:98–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.11.007
Anoop TR, Shanas PR, Aboobacker VM, Kumar VS, Nair LS, Prasad R, Reji S (2020) On the generation and propagation of Makran swells in the Arabian Sea. Int J Climatol 40(1):585–593. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6192
Bador M, Boé J, Terray L, Alexander L V (2015) Impact of higher spatial atmospheric resolution on precipitation extremes over land in global climate models. J Geophys Res: Atmos 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032184
Bao Y, Gao Y, Lü S, Wang Q, Zhang S, Xu J, Li R, Li S, Ma D, Meng X, Chen H, Chang Y (2014) Evaluation of CMIP5 earth system models in reproducing leaf area index and vegetation cover over the Tibetan plateau. J Meteorol Res 28(6):1041–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-014-4023-5
Bidlot JR (2012) Present status of wave forecasting at ECMWF. sWorkshop Ocean Waves 1(June 2012):25–27
Bricheno LM, Wolf J (2018) Future wave conditions of Europe, in response to high-end climate change future wave conditions of Europe in response to high-end climate change scenarios. J Geophys Res Oceans 123:8762–8791. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC013866
Bruno MF, Molfetta MG, Totaro V, Mossa M (2020) Performance assessment of ERA5 wave data in a swell dominated region. J Mar Sci Eng 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030214
Casas-Prat M, Wang XL, Swart N (2018) CMIP5-based global wave climate projections including the entire Arctic Ocean. Ocean Model 123:66–85
Chen H, Sun J (2015) Assessing model performance of climate extremes in China: an intercomparison between CMIP5 and CMIP3. Clim Chang 129(1–2):197–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1319-5
Chen CA, Hsu HH, Liang HC (2021) Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the seasonal extreme precipitation in the Western North Pacific and East Asia. Weather Clim Extr 31:100303
Chowdhury P, Behera MR (2019) Evaluation of CMIP5 and CORDEX derived wave climate in Indian Ocean. Clim Dyn 52(7–8):4463–4482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4391-0
Chowdhury P, Behera MR, Reeve DE (2019) Wave climate projections along the Indian coast. Int J Climatol 39(11):4531–4542
Church JA, White NJ, Hunter JR (2006) Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Glob Planet Chang 53(3):155–168
Davini P, Cagnazzo C (2014) On the misinterpretation of the North Atlantic Oscillation in CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn 43(5–6):1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1970-y
De Winter RC, Sterl A, Ruessink BG (2013) Wind extremes in the North Sea Basin under climate change: an ensemble study of 12 CMIP5 GCMs. J Geophys Res-Atmos 118(4):1601–1612
Díaz-Esteban Y, Raga GB, Rodríguez OOD (2020) A weather-pattern-based evaluation of the performance of CMIP5 models over Mexico. Climate 8(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010005
Dobrynin M, Murawsky J, Yang S (2012) Evolution of the global wind wave climate in CMIP5 experiments. Geophys Res Lett 39(17):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052843
Dullaart JCM, Muis S, Bloemendaal N, Aerts JCJH (2020) Advancing global storm surge modelling using the new ERA5 climate reanalysis. Clim Dyn 54(1–2):1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05044-0
Elguindi N, Giorgi F, Turuncoglu U (2014) Assessment of CMIP5 global model simulations over the subset of CORDEX domains used in the Phase I CREMA. Clim Chang 125(1):7–21
Fan X, Miao C, Duan Q, Shen C, Wu Y (2020) The performance of CMIP6 versus CMIP5 in simulating temperature extremes over the global land surface. J Geophys Res-Atmos 125(18):e2020JD033031
Gallagher S, Gleeson E, Tiron R, Mcgrath R, Dias F (2016) Twenty-first century wave climate projections for Ireland and surface winds in the North Atlantic Ocean. Adv Sci Res 5:75–80. https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-13-75-2016
Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res-Atmos 113(D6)
Gleixner S, Demissie T, Diro GT (2020) Did ERA5 improve temperature and precipitation reanalysis over East Africa? Atmosphere 11(9):996
Gu H, Yu Z, Wang J, Wang G, Yang T, Ju Q, Yang C, Xu F, Fan C (2015) Assessing CMIP5 general circulation model simulations of precipitation and temperature over China. Int J Climatol 35(9):2431–2440
Gupta N, Bhaskaran PK, Dash MK (2015) Recent trends in wind-wave climate for the Indian Ocean. Curr Sci 25:2191–2201
Hanson JL, Phillips OM (1999) Wind sea growth and dissipation in the open ocean. J Phys Oceanogr 29(8 PART 1):1633–1648
Hazeleger W, Wang X, Severijns C, Ştefănescu S, Bintanja R, Sterl A, Wyser K, Semmler T, Yang S, Van den Hurk B, Van Noije T (2012) EC-Earth V2. 2: description and validation of a new seamless earth system prediction model. Clim Dyn 39(11):2611–2629
He Y, Wang K, Feng F (2021) Improvement of ERA5 over ERA-Interim in simulating surface incident solar radiation throughout China. J Clim 34(10):3853–3867. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0300.1
Hemer Mark A (2010) Historical trends in Southern Ocean storminess: long-term variability of extreme wave heights at Cape Sorell, Tasmania. Geophys Res Lett 37. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gl044595
Hemer Mark A, Katzfey J, Trenham CE (2013) Global dynamical projections of surface ocean wave climate for a future high greenhouse gas emission scenario. Ocean Model 70:221–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.09.008
Hemer MA, Trenham CE (2016) Evaluation of a CMIP5 derived dynamical global wind wave climate model ensemble. Ocean Model 103:190–203
Hemer MA, Wang XL, Weisse R, Swail VR (2012) Advancing wind-waves climate science: the COWCLIP project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(6):791–796
Hemer MA, Fan Y, Mori N, Semedo A, Wang XL (2013) Projected changes in wave climate from a multi-model ensemble. Nat Clim Chang 3(5):471–476
Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, Hirahara S, Horányi A, Muñoz-Sabater J, Nicolas J, Peubey C, Radu R, Schepers D, Simmons A, Soci C, Abdalla S, Abellan X, Balsamo G, Bechtold P, Biavati G, Bidlot J, Bonavita M, Chiara G, Dahlgren P, Dee D, Diamantakis M, Dragani R, Flemming J, Forbes R, Fuentes M, Geer A, Haimberger L, Healy S, Hogan RJ, Hólm E, Janisková M, Keeley S, Laloyaux P, Lopez P, Lupu C, Radnoti G, Rosnay P, Rozum I, Vamborg F, Villaume S, Thépaut JN (2020) The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 146(730):1999–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803
Hirota N, Takayabu YN (2013) Reproducibility of precipitation distribution over the tropical oceans in CMIP5 multi-climate models compared to CMIP3. Clim Dyn 41(11–12):2909–2920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1839-0
Ito R, Shiogama H, Nakaegawa T, Takayabu I (2020) Uncertainties in climate change projections covered by the ISIMIP and CORDEX model subsets from CMIP5. Geosci Model Dev 13(3):859–872. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-859-2020
Janssen PAEM, Bidlot JR (2009) On the extension of the freak wave warning system and its verification. Issue 588 of ECMWF technical memorandum, pp 44
Kamranzad B, Mori N (2018) Regional wave climate projection based on super-high-resolution MRI-AGCM3.2S, Indian Ocean. J Jpn Soc Civil Eng Ser B2 (Coast Eng) 74:I_1351–I_1355. https://doi.org/10.2208/kaigan.74.i_1351
Kamranzad B, Mori N (2019) Future wind and wave climate projections in the Indian Ocean based on a super - high - resolution MRI - AGCM3. 2S model projection. Clim Dyn 53(3):2391–2410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04861-7
Kamranzad B, Mori N, Shimura T (2017) Spatio-temporal wave climate using nested numerical wave modeling in the northern Indian Ocean. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13908.45448
Katzfey J, Nguyen K, Mcgregor J, Hoffmann P, Ramasamy S, Van Nguyen H, Van Khiem M (2016) High-resolution simulations for Vietnam - methodology and evaluation of current climate. Asia-Pac J Atmos Sci 52(2):91–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-016-0011-2
Krishnan A, Bhaskaran PK (2019a) CMIP5 wind speed comparison between satellite altimeter and reanalysis products for the Bay of Bengal. Environ Monit Assess 191:554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7729-0
Krishnan A, Bhaskaran PK (2019b) Performance of CMIP5 wind speed from global climate models for the Bay of Bengal region. Int J Climatol 40:3398–3416. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6404
Krishnan A, Bhaskaran PK (2020) Skill assessment of global climate model wind speed from CMIP5 and CMIP6 and evaluation of projections for the Bay of Bengal. Clim Dyn 55(9–10):2667–2687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05406-z
Kumar VS, George J, Joseph D (2020) Hourly maximum individual wave height in the Indian shelf seas—its spatial and temporal variations in the recent 40 years. Ocean Dyn 70(10):1283–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-020-01395-z
Kusunoki S, Arakawa O (2015) Are CMIP5 models better than CMIP3 models in simulating precipitation over East Asia? J Clim 28(14):5601–5621. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00585.1
Lee T, Waliser DE, Li JLF, Landerer FW, Gierach MM (2013) Evaluation of CMIP3 and CMIP5 wind stress climatology using satellite measurements and atmospheric reanalysis products. J Clim 26(16):5810–5826. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00591.1
Luo N, Guo Y, Gao Z, Chen K, Chou J (2020) Assessment of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance for extreme temperature in China. Atmos Ocean Sci Lett 13(6):589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2020.1808430
Ma HY, Xie S, Klein SA, Williams KD, Boyle JS, Bony S, Douville H, Fermepin S, Medeiros B, Tyteca S, Watanabe M, Williamson D (2014) On the correspondence between mean forecast errors and climate errors in CMIP5 models. J Clim 27(4):1781–1798. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00474.1
Masato G, Hoskins BJ, Woollings T (2013) Winter and summer northern hemisphere blocking in CMIP5 models. J Clim 26(18):7044–7059
Meucci A, Young I R, Hemer M, Kirezci E, Ranasinghe R (2020) Projected 21st century changes in extreme wind-wave events. July 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz7295
Miao C, Duan Q, Sun Q, Huang Y, Kong D, Yang T, Ye A, Di Z, Gong W (2014) Assessment of CMIP5 climate models and projected temperature changes over Northern Eurasia. Environ Res Lett 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/5/055007
Mielke P Jr (1991) The application of multivariate permutation methods based on distance functions in the earth sciences. Earth Sci Rev 31:55–71 https://journals-scholarsportal-info.proxy.library.carleton.ca/pdf/00128252/v31i0001/55_taompmdfites.xml%0Ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001282529190042E
Mohan S, Bhaskaran PK (2019) Evaluation of CMIP5 climate model projections for surface wind speed over the Indian Ocean region. Clim Dyn 53(9–10):5415–5435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04874-2
Morim J, Hemer M, Cartwright N, Strauss D, Andutta F (2018) On the concordance of 21st century wind-wave climate projections. Glob Planet Chang 167:160–171
Morim J, Hemer M, Wang X L, Cartwright N, Trenham C, Semedo A, …, Erikson L (2019) Robustness and uncertainties in global multivariate wind-wave climate projections. Nat Clim Chang, 9(9), 711–718.
Morim J, Hemer M, Andutta F, Shimura T, Cartwright N (2020) Skill and uncertainty in surface wind fields from general circulation models: intercomparison of bias between AGCM, AOGCM and ESM global simulations. Int J Climatol 40(5):2659–2673
Nayak S, Bhaskaran PK, Venkatesan R, Dasgupta S (2013) Modulation of local wind-waves at Kalpakkam from remote forcing effects of Southern Ocean swells. Ocean Eng 64:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.02.010
Ogata T, Ueda H, Inoue T, Hayasaki M, Yoshida A, Watanabe S, Kira M, Ooshiro M, Kumai A (2014) Projected future changes in the Asian monsoon: a comparison of CMIP3 and CMIP5 model results. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 92(3):207–225. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2014-302
Perez J, Menendez M, Mendez FJ, Losada IJ (2014) Evaluating the performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 global climate models over the north-east Atlantic region. Clim Dyn 43(9-10):2663–2680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.07.004
Radić V, Clarke GK (2011) Evaluation of IPCC models’ performance in simulating late-twentieth-century climatologies and weather patterns over North America. J Clim 24(20):5257–5274
Randall D A, Wood R A, Bony S, Colman R, Fichefet T, Fyfe J, Kattsov V, Pitman A, Shukla J, Srinivasan J, Stouffer R J, (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. In Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (FAR) (pp. 589–662). Cambridge University Press
Remya, P.G., Rabi Ranjan, T., Sirisha, P., Harikumar, R. and Balakrishnan Nair, T.M. (2020) Indian Ocean wave forecasting system for wind waves: development and its validation. J Oper Oceanogr pp.1-16
Rivas MB, Stoffelen A (2019) Characterizing ERA-Interim and ERA5 surface wind biases using ASCAT. Ocean Sci 15(3):831–852. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-831-2019
Sabique L, Annapurnaiah K, Balakrishnan Nair TM, Srinivas K (2012) Contribution of Southern Indian Ocean swells on the wave heights in the Northern Indian Ocean - a modelling study. Ocean Eng 43:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.12.024
Seemanth M, Bhowmick SA, Kumar R, Sharma R (2016) Sensitivity analysis of dissipation parameterizations in a third-generation spectral wave model, WAVEWATCH III for Indian Ocean. Ocean Eng 124:252–273
Semedo A, Dobrynin M, Lemos G, Behrens A, Staneva J, De Vries H, Sterl A, Bidlot JR, Miranda P, Murawski J (2018) CMIP5-derived single-forcing, single-model, and single-scenario wind-wave climate ensemble: configuration and performance evaluation. J Mar Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse6030090
Sreelakshmi S, Bhaskaran PK (2020a) Regional wise characteristic study of significant wave height for the Indian Ocean. Clim Dyn 54(7–8):3405–3423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05186-6
Sreelakshmi S, Bhaskaran PK (2020b, 1998) Spatio-temporal distribution and variability of high threshold wind speed and significant wave height for the Indian Ocean. Pure Appl Geophys Young. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-020-02462-8
Sreelakshmi S, Bhaskaran PK (2020c) Wind-generated wave climate variability in the Indian Ocean using ERA-5 dataset. Ocean Eng 209:107486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107486
Srinivas G, Remya PG, Praveen Kumar B, Modi A, Balakrishnan Nair TM (2020) The impact of Indian Ocean dipole on tropical Indian Ocean surface wave heights in ERA5 and CMIP5 models. Int J Clim 41(3):1619–1632. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6900
Stefanakos C (2019) Intercomparison of wave reanalysis based on ERA5 and WW3 databases. InThe 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
Swain J, Umesh PA (2018) Prediction of uncertainty using the third generation wave model WAVEWATCH III driven by ERA-40 and blended winds in the North Indian Ocean. J Oceanogr Mar Res 5(172):2
Tarek M, Brissette FP, Arsenault R (2020) Evaluation of the ERA5 reanalysis as a potential reference dataset for hydrological modelling over North America. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 24(5):2527–2544. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2527-2020
Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res-Atmos 106(D7):7183–7192
Tolman H L (2009) User manual and system documentation of WAVEWATCH-IIITM version 3.14. Technical Note, 3.14, 220
Trenberth KE, Jones PD, Ambenje P, Bojariu R, Easterling D, Klein Tank A, Parker D, Rahimzadeh F, Renwick JA, Rusticucci M, Soden B (2007) Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. Chapter 3. Climate Change 15:235–336
Vethamony PV, Rashmi R, Samiksha SV, Aboobacker VM (2013) Recent studies on wind seas and swells in the Indian Ocean: a review. Int J Ocean Clim Syst 4(1):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1260/1759-3131.4.1.63
Wang XL, Swart N (2018) CMIP5-based global wave climate projections including the entire Arctic Ocean. Ocean Model 123(January):66–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.12.003
Wang C, Zhang L, Lee SK, Wu L, Mechoso CR (2014) A global perspective on CMIP5 climate model biases. Nat Clim Chang 4(3):201–205. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2118
Wang XL, Feng Y, Swail VR (2015) Climate change signal and uncertainty in CMIP5-based projections of global ocean surface wave heights. J Geophys Res Oceans 121:476–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC010878.Received
Watterson IG (1996) Non-dimensional measures of climate model performance. Int J Climatol 16(4):379–391
Watterson IG (2015) Improved simulation of regional climate by global models with higher resolution: skill scores correlated with grid length. J Clim 28(15):5985–6000. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00702.1
Watterson IG, Bathols J, Heady C (2014) What influences the skill of climate models over the continents? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 95(5):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00136.1
Werner A T (2011) BCSD downscaled transient climate projections for eight select GCMs over British Columbia, Canada. Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, April, 63. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en,btnG=Search,q=intitle:BCSD+Downscaled+Transient+Climate+Projections+for+Eight+Select+GCMs+over+British+Columbia,+Canada#0%5Cn. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en,btnG=Search,q=intitle:BCSD+downscaled+transient+cl
Woolf DK, Challenor PG, Cotton PD (2002) Variability and predictability of the North Atlantic wave climate. J Geophys Res Oceans 107(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jc001124
Xu Z, Chang P, Richter I, Kim W, Tang G (2014) Diagnosing southeast tropical Atlantic SST and ocean circulation biases in the CMIP5 ensemble. Clim Dyn 43(11):3123–3145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2247-9
Young IR (1999) Wind generated ocean waves. Elsevier
Young IR, Ribal A (2019) Multiplatform evaluation of global trends in wind speed and wave height. Science 364(6440):548–552. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav9527
Young IR, Zieger S, Babanin AV (2011) Global trends in wind speed and wave height. Science. 332:451–455. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197219
Zappa G, Shaffrey LC, Hodges KI, Sansom PG, Stephenson DB (2013) A multimodel assessment of future projections of North Atlantic and European extratropical cyclones in the CMIP5 climate models. J Clim 26(16):5846–5862
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, for the financial support. This study was conducted under the Centre of Excellence (CoE) in Climate Change studies established at IIT Kharagpur funded by DST, Government of India. The study forms a part of the ongoing project ‘Wind-Waves and Extreme Water Level Climate Projections for the East Coast of India’. We acknowledge that the study used wave simulations developed under the Coordinated Ocean Wave Climate Project (COWCLIP) of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia. The authors thank Dr. Mark A. Hemer for providing the necessary permissions to use the data and Claire E. Trenham for helping with the details regarding the datasets. We also acknowledge Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) (2017): ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS), accessed on 02-09-2020. https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/home
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Athira Krishnan. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Athira Krishnan, and all of the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All of the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conceptualization: Prasad K. Bhaskaran; methodology: Prasad K. Bhaskaran and Prashant Kumar; formal analysis and investigation: Athira Krishnan, Prasad K. Bhaskaran, and Prashant Kumar; writing—original draft preparation: Athira Krishnan and Prasad K. Bhaskaran; writing—review and editing: Athira Krishnan, Prasad K. Bhaskaran, and Prashant Kumar; supervision: Prasad K. Bhaskaran
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krishnan, A., Bhaskaran, P.K. & Kumar, P. CMIP5 model performance of significant wave heights over the Indian Ocean using COWCLIP datasets. Theor Appl Climatol 145, 377–392 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03642-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03642-9