Sensitivity of global storm surge modelling to sea surface drag
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate storm surge modeling is essential for predicting coastal flooding and mitigating impacts on vulnerable regions. This study evaluates the influence of different sea surface drag parameterizations on surge predictions using the Global Tide and Surge Model (GTSM) over a 10-year period (2006-2015) and two storm events. Four model experiments were tested, ranging from a fully dynamic formulation, including variable air density, atmospheric stability, and sea-state-dependent drag, to a simplified constant-drag approach. Results show that advanced drag formulations reduced the underestimation of annual maximum surge values from 18% to 12% globally, with the variable Charnock parameter contributing the most. Conversely, using a constant Charnock value and thereby neglecting wave-dependent roughness increases prediction errors, especially in regions with highly variable sea states. Case studies of Storm Xaver (2013) and Hurricane Fiona (2022) show that advanced parameterizations better capture wind stress variations, reducing root mean square error from 0.21 m to 0.16 m for Xaver and improving surge predictions by up to 0.30 m for Fiona. Consistent with earlier studies, a persistent underestimation of extreme surge events remains across all experiments. While wave-dependent roughness improves performance, no single parameter fully explains this bias. However, wave-dependent roughness particularly enhances model performance in high-latitude and storm-prone areas, where sea state and atmospheric conditions vary widely. Our results show that variations in air density and atmospheric stability have minimal impact on surge height. As such, prioritizing the implementation of dynamic, sea-state-dependent drag formulations, particularly variable Charnock, is key to further improving the accuracy of storm surge forecasting systems and future projections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".