Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 62, Issue 9, pp 1335–1351 | Cite as

Storm observations by remote sensing and influences of gustiness on ocean waves and on generation of rogue waves

  • Andrey L. Pleskachevsky
  • Susanne Lehner
  • Wolfgang Rosenthal


The impact of the gustiness on surface waves under storm conditions is investigated with focus on the appearance of wave groups with extreme high amplitude and wavelength in the North Sea. During many storms characterized by extremely high individual waves measured near the German coast, especially in cold air outbreaks, the moving atmospheric open cells are observed by optical and radar satellites. According to measurements, the footprint of the cell produces a local increase in the wind field at sea surface, moving as a consistent system with a propagation speed near to swell wave-traveling speed. The optical and microwave satellite data are used to connect mesoscale atmospheric turbulences and the extreme waves measured. The parameters of open cells observed are used for numerical spectral wave modeling. The North Sea with horizontal resolution of 2.5 km and with focus on the German Bight was simulated. The wind field “storm in storm,” including moving organized mesoscale eddies with increased wind speed, was generated. To take into account the rapid moving gust structure, the input wind field was updated each 5 min. The test cases idealized with one, two, and four open individual cells and, respectively, with groups of open cells, with and without preexisting sea state, as well the real storm conditions, are simulated. The model results confirm that an individual-moving open cell can cause the local significant wave height increase in order of meters within the cell area and especially in a narrow area of 1–2 km at the footprint center of a cell (the cell's diameter is 40–90 km). In a case of a traveling individual open cell with 15 m·s−1 over a sea surface with a preexisting wind sea of and swell, a local significant wave height increase of 3.5 m is produced. A group of cells for a real storm condition produces a local increase of significant wave height of more than 6 m during a short time window of 10–20 min (cell passing). The sea surface simulation from modeled wave spectra points out the appearance of wave groups including extreme individual waves with a period of about 25 s and a wavelength of more than 350 m under the cell's footprint. This corresponds well with measurement of a rogue wave group with length of about 400 m and a period of near 25 s. This has been registered at FiNO-1 research platform in the North Sea during Britta storm on November 1, 2006 at 04:00 UTC. The results can explain the appearance of rogue waves in the German Bight and can be used for ship safety and coastal protection. Presently, the considered mesoscale gustiness cannot be incorporated in present operational wave forecasting systems, since it needs an update of the wind field at spatial and temporal scales, which is still not available for such applications. However, the scenario simulations for cell structures with appropriate travel speed, observed by optical and radar satellites, can be done and applied for warning messages.


Remote sensing Organized wind gusts Open atmospheric cell Rogue waves Wave modeling 


  1. Argyriadis K (2003) Wind conditions for offshore wind turbine design, RECOFF, comparison of Standards and Regulations. 3rd IEA experts meeting on wind conditions for turbine designGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson BW, Wu Zhang J (1996) Mesoscale shallow convection in the atmosphere. Rev Geophys 34:403–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlas D (1994) Footprints of storms on the sea: a view from spaceborne synthetic aperture radar. J Geophys Res 99:7961–7969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babanin A, Makin V (2007) Effects of wind trend and gustiness on the sea drag: Lake George Study. J Geophys Res 113:C02015. doi:10.1029/2007JC004233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakan S, Schwarz E (1992) Cellular convection over the north-eastern Atlantic. Int J Climatol 12:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behrens A, Günther H (2009) Operational wave prediction of extreme storms in Northern Europe. Nat Hazards 49:387–399. doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9298-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brümmer B, Bakan S, Hinzpeter H (1985) Kontur: observations of cloud streets and open cellular structures. Dynam Atmos Oceans 9(1985):281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brusch St (2011) High resolution wind and bathymetry maps from synthetic aperture radar to increase ship safety and ship traffic monitoring from space. Dissertation, Universität HamburgGoogle Scholar
  9. Brusch S, Lehner S, Schulz-Stellenfleth J (2008) Remote sensing of North Atlantic storms: synergetic use of active microwave and optical data. IEEE J Sel Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2008Google Scholar
  10. Bye JAT, Jenkins AD (2006) Drag coefficient reduction at very high wind speeds. J Geophys Res 111:C03024. doi:10.1029/2005JC003114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavaleri L, Burgers G (1992) Wind gustiness and wave growth. KNMI Memorandum OO-92–18(1992):62Google Scholar
  12. Clauss G, Klein M and M Onorato (2011) Formation of extraordinarily high waves in space and time. Proc. of the ASME 2011 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE-2011Google Scholar
  13. Delden van, Aarnout (2011) Atmospheric dynamics and the hydrological cycle. Chapter 4 (Convection). Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Donelan MA, Haus BK, Reul N, Plant WJ, Stiassnie M, Graber HC, Brown OB, Saltzman ES (2004) On the limiting aerodynamic roughness of the ocean in very strong winds. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2004GL019460
  15. Donelan MA, Babanin AV, Young IR, Banner ML (2006) Wave follower measurements of the wind input spectral function. Part 2. Parameterization of the wind input. J Phys Oceanogr 36:1672–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emeis S, Türk M (2009) Wind-driven wave heights in the German Bight. Ocean Dyn 59:463–475. doi:10.1007/s10236-008-0178-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell BF, PT Ioannou (2008) The stochastic parametric mechanism for growth of wind-driven surface water waves. J Phys Oceanogr. doi:10.1175/2007JPO3889.1
  18. Fischer J, Herklotz K, Senet C, Outzen O and R Hahn (2010) Oceanographic observation at FiNO-1 and the offshore wind farm “alpha ventus”. Proc. German Wind Energy Conference DEWK 2010, BremenGoogle Scholar
  19. Günther H, Rosenthal W (1985) The hybrid parametrical (HYPAS) wave model. In: Ocean wave modelling, Swamp group. Plenum Press, New York, pp 211–214Google Scholar
  20. Güther H (1981) A parametric surface wave model and the statistics of the prediction parameters. PhD theses. HamburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Haver S (2004) A possible freak wave event measured at the Draupner jacket January 1 1995. Rogue Waves, BrestGoogle Scholar
  22. Herklotz K (2009) Oceanographic results of 2 years operation of the first offshore wind research platform in the German Bight—FiNO-1. DEWI Magazin Nr. 30, Februar 2007Google Scholar
  23. Janssen P (2003) Nonlinear four-wave interactions and freak waves. J Phys Oceanogr 33:863–884Google Scholar
  24. Lehner S, Schulz-Stellenfleth J, Brusch S, X-M Li (2008) Use of TerraSAR-X data for oceanography. EUSAR 2008, 7th European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, Friedrichshafen, Germany 06/02/2008 – 06/05/2008Google Scholar
  25. Lehner S, Pleskachevsky A, Bruck M (2012) High resolution satellite measurements of coastal wind field and sea state. Int J Remote Sens 33(23):7337–7360Google Scholar
  26. Longuet-Higgins MS (1952) On the statistical distribution of the heights of the sea waves. J Mar Res 11(3):245–266Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson KA, Hjøllo BA, Høylandskjær S, Reistad M, Guddal J, and H Tangen (2003) Research and development in marine forecasting—a look into the future. Proc. Of the 1st International Marine Weather ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  28. Makin VK (2005) A note on drag of the sea surface at hurricane winds. Bound-Layer Meteorol 115:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miles JW (1957) On the generation of surface waves by shear flows. J Fluid Mech 3(2):185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neumann T, Nolopp K (2007) Three years of operation of far offshore measurements at FiNO-1. DEWI Mag 30:42–46Google Scholar
  31. Nieto Borge JC, Lehner S, Niedermeier A, Schulz-Stellenfleth J (2004) Detection of ocean wave groupiness from spaceborne synthetic aperture radar. J Geophys Res 109:C07005. doi:10.1029/2004JC002298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Outzen O, Herklotz K, Heinrich H, Lefebvre C (2008) Extreme waves at FINO1 research platform caused by storm “Tilo” on 9 November 2007. DEWI Mag 33:17–23Google Scholar
  33. Perrie W, Gunther H, Rosenthal W, Toulany B (1989) Modelling wind-generated surface gravity waves using similarity in a coupled discrete wave model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 115:1373–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenthal W and S Lehner (2004) Results of the MAXWAVE project. Proc. OMAE’04, 23-International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneggenburger C, Günther H, Rosenthal W (2002) Spectral wave modeling with non-linear dissipation: validation and applications in a coastal tidal environment. Coast Eng 41:201–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schröter M, Raasch S, Jansen H (2005) Cell broadening revisited: results from high-resolution large-eddy simulations of cold air outbreaks. J Atmos Sci 62:2023–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sikora D, Young G, Fisher C, Stepp M (2011) A synthetic aperture radar-based climatology of open-cell convection over the Northeast Pacific Ocean. J Appl Meteorol Clim. doi: 10.1175/2010JAMC2624.1
  38. Slunyaev A (2006) Nonlinear analysis and simulations of measured freak wave time series. Eur J Mech B Fluid 25:621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stewart R (2008) Introduction to physical oceanography. Available online at: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/home/course_book.htm
  40. Weisse R, Günther H (2007) Wave climate and long-term changes for the Southern North Sea obtained from a high-resolution hindcast 1958–2002. Ocean Dyn 57:161–172. doi:10.1007/s10236-006-0094-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zakharov VE, Dyachenko AI, Prokofiev AO (2006) Freak waves as nonlinear stage of stokes wave modulation instability. Eur J Mech B Fluid 25(2006):677–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrey L. Pleskachevsky
    • 1
  • Susanne Lehner
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Rosenthal
    • 2
  1. 1.German Aerospace Centre (DLR)Remote Sensing Technology InstituteWeßlingGermany
  2. 2.GaussBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations