the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Contemporary measurements of the background open ocean tsunami spectrum using the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) stations
Abstract. A reference power law of ω2, where ω is angular frequency, has been traditionally used to characterize the background open ocean tsunami spectrum (BOOTS) slope from a period of 10 mins to 120 mins. However, this characterization is based on data from temporary deployments of bottom pressure sensors that lasted from several weeks to 11 months and only in scattered areas of the Pacific, leaving its effects on aleatory and epistemic uncertainties of tsunami source models unconstrained. Here we measure the BOOTS slope using 1–15 years of bottom pressure recorder data sampled at 15 s from the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) stations. We utilize probabilistic power spectral density plots to create background noise models for 34 DART stations across the Pacific basin. We find that often a simple log-linear decay does not correctly characterize the observed background spectrum. We find deviations from the expected –2 behavior with instances of it being larger or greater, with a strong seasonality signal. In addition, we plot the median power for each DART station at the periods of 120 s, 250 s, and 800 s. Lastly, a significant part of the energy in the BOOTS is from infragravity waves, we calculate their heights and their mean values for December, January, and February and June, July, and August. We found that meteorologically induced infragravity wave events are the largest factors in seasonal variations of the BOOTS slope and intercept, especially in the east Pacific. We show the typical meteorological systems that drive these events, and we connected tropical systems from off the coast of Mexico to infragravity wave events in the east and central Pacific. Finally, we found that infragravity wave events may impact small to moderate tsunamis.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(11156 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Alexander Rabinovich, 15 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1614/egusphere-2024-1614-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Carlos Corela, 19 Jul 2024
Review of “Contemporary measurements of the background open ocean tsunami spectrum using the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) stations”
This manuscript attempts to establish a link between infragravity and tsunami waves. The authors' discussions of complex issues lead to questions and comments challenging the main results of the paper. Infragravity (IG) waves are long surface gravity waves with typical periods of 30 s to 5 min. The IG wave field contains both free waves, with dispersion properties given by linear wave theory, and bound waves resulting from the local sub-harmonic interaction of sea wind and swells. The heights of IG waves strongly vary with the local water depth, ranging from an average of 0.5 to 2 cm in 4000m depth to several meters during extreme events near the shoreline, where they play an important role in coastal flooding. Extensive observations, particularly on the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelves, show a strong correlation between infragravity and swell energy levels, suggesting that free infragravity waves generally radiate from nearby beaches. Observed infragravity energy levels on the beach, shelf, and in the open ocean are consistent with robust refractive trapping of free wave energy, which decays inversely with depth in shallow water. A small fraction of IG energy can escape the open ocean and reach remote shorelines. On very specific occasions, IG could interfere constructively with the tsunami signal, amplifying the outcomes.
The principal comment related to the submitted manuscript:
Please rewrite the manuscript to improve clarity and correct language issues, ensuring concise and assertive sentences to avoid ambiguity.
Minor comments
- In the introduction, you should refer to the power law of w-2 and discuss the parameters slope and intercept to enlighten the reader. Like you do in pdf (ssantellanes.github.io)
- You have to give the reader the tools for understanding the manuscript's meaning and motivation.
- Be concise about the overlap period of Infragravity and tsunami waves, the focus of the manuscript, and what could be the impact of Infragravity waves in which part of the tsunami records.
- A brief description of data acquisition (DART stations), how the data is collected, and the importance of depth and wavelength. However, I have OBSs at a depth of 5km that record infragravity waves with a period of two minutes.
- Figure 2 The emblematic DART station 21320?
- Line 96 tsu?
- Line 100 CSZ is the first introduction, and the meaning is only line 171.
- Line 116, when we make a sentence and write several references, the sentence should be there. In this case, this is not true (Just Aucan and Arduin, 2013)
- Be consistent. If you want to use periods, use them in all manuscript (line 112)
- In the results, Figure 3a,b, what is the time and date? Is the same time period for both figures?
- Rewrite the title of 2.1, 2.2., 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 As an example 2.1 DART station and PPSD measurements
- Instead of 4. Infragravity….3.3 to be consistent with point 2. In SSA you write Infragravity height for the Pacific
- Line 240 Just Meteorological impact
- Erase lines 241, 242 and part of 243 until rawat et al., 2014).
- In order to enhance clarity, it is important to rewrite both the titles and descriptions, as mentioned in points 5 and 6.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1614-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Alexander Rabinovich, 21 Jul 2024
In fact, I am agree with the comments of the other reviewer and believe that the authors should consider them very seriously and take them into account.
Once again I would like to formulate two main points of my critics:
(1) If the authors would like to examine the ω-2 decay power law, they should work in the corresponding frequency band of atmospherically generated background waves, where this law works, i.e. from approximately 0.007-0.008 cpm to 0.1-0.15 cpm (periods from 120-140 min to 7-10 min), but at the frequency band of infragravity (IG) waves (>0.1-0.15) where this law does not work and such an estimation is senseless!
(2) If the authors are interested in IG-waves and would like to estimate their parameters in the open ocean, they should take into account that these waves are NOT LONG (at least not long enough) and are strongly attenuated in the bottom measurements. Consequently, the "spectral hump" at periods of a few min has a totally artificial character.
Alexander Rabinovich
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1614-RC3
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Alexander Rabinovich, 15 Jul 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1614/egusphere-2024-1614-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Carlos Corela, 19 Jul 2024
Review of “Contemporary measurements of the background open ocean tsunami spectrum using the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) stations”
This manuscript attempts to establish a link between infragravity and tsunami waves. The authors' discussions of complex issues lead to questions and comments challenging the main results of the paper. Infragravity (IG) waves are long surface gravity waves with typical periods of 30 s to 5 min. The IG wave field contains both free waves, with dispersion properties given by linear wave theory, and bound waves resulting from the local sub-harmonic interaction of sea wind and swells. The heights of IG waves strongly vary with the local water depth, ranging from an average of 0.5 to 2 cm in 4000m depth to several meters during extreme events near the shoreline, where they play an important role in coastal flooding. Extensive observations, particularly on the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelves, show a strong correlation between infragravity and swell energy levels, suggesting that free infragravity waves generally radiate from nearby beaches. Observed infragravity energy levels on the beach, shelf, and in the open ocean are consistent with robust refractive trapping of free wave energy, which decays inversely with depth in shallow water. A small fraction of IG energy can escape the open ocean and reach remote shorelines. On very specific occasions, IG could interfere constructively with the tsunami signal, amplifying the outcomes.
The principal comment related to the submitted manuscript:
Please rewrite the manuscript to improve clarity and correct language issues, ensuring concise and assertive sentences to avoid ambiguity.
Minor comments
- In the introduction, you should refer to the power law of w-2 and discuss the parameters slope and intercept to enlighten the reader. Like you do in pdf (ssantellanes.github.io)
- You have to give the reader the tools for understanding the manuscript's meaning and motivation.
- Be concise about the overlap period of Infragravity and tsunami waves, the focus of the manuscript, and what could be the impact of Infragravity waves in which part of the tsunami records.
- A brief description of data acquisition (DART stations), how the data is collected, and the importance of depth and wavelength. However, I have OBSs at a depth of 5km that record infragravity waves with a period of two minutes.
- Figure 2 The emblematic DART station 21320?
- Line 96 tsu?
- Line 100 CSZ is the first introduction, and the meaning is only line 171.
- Line 116, when we make a sentence and write several references, the sentence should be there. In this case, this is not true (Just Aucan and Arduin, 2013)
- Be consistent. If you want to use periods, use them in all manuscript (line 112)
- In the results, Figure 3a,b, what is the time and date? Is the same time period for both figures?
- Rewrite the title of 2.1, 2.2., 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 As an example 2.1 DART station and PPSD measurements
- Instead of 4. Infragravity….3.3 to be consistent with point 2. In SSA you write Infragravity height for the Pacific
- Line 240 Just Meteorological impact
- Erase lines 241, 242 and part of 243 until rawat et al., 2014).
- In order to enhance clarity, it is important to rewrite both the titles and descriptions, as mentioned in points 5 and 6.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1614-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1614', Alexander Rabinovich, 21 Jul 2024
In fact, I am agree with the comments of the other reviewer and believe that the authors should consider them very seriously and take them into account.
Once again I would like to formulate two main points of my critics:
(1) If the authors would like to examine the ω-2 decay power law, they should work in the corresponding frequency band of atmospherically generated background waves, where this law works, i.e. from approximately 0.007-0.008 cpm to 0.1-0.15 cpm (periods from 120-140 min to 7-10 min), but at the frequency band of infragravity (IG) waves (>0.1-0.15) where this law does not work and such an estimation is senseless!
(2) If the authors are interested in IG-waves and would like to estimate their parameters in the open ocean, they should take into account that these waves are NOT LONG (at least not long enough) and are strongly attenuated in the bottom measurements. Consequently, the "spectral hump" at periods of a few min has a totally artificial character.
Alexander Rabinovich
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1614-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
203 | 58 | 34 | 295 | 16 | 18 |
- HTML: 203
- PDF: 58
- XML: 34
- Total: 295
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1