the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Deep-learning prediction of high-frequency sea-level oscillations in the Adriatic Sea
Abstract. The eastern Adriatic coast is a known hotspot of strong meteorologically induced high-frequency sea-level oscillations, occurring at periods shorter than 1 hour and reaching wave heights of several metres. When highest, these oscillations are termed meteotsunamis. In this study, we test deep-learning methods for predicting maximum daily amplitudes of high-frequency (T < 1 hour) sea-level oscillations at two Adriatic locations, Bakar and Ploče, using convolutional neural networks driven by past sea-level observations and atmospheric predictors from the ERA5 and CERRA reanalyses. We evaluate two deep-learning architectures designed to test different approaches to representing sea-level and atmospheric forcing. The first architecture, HFNet, is based on the HIDRA family of models, a general low-frequency sea-level forecasting framework that has been extensively evaluated in the Adriatic and shown to provide a credible baseline for sea-level prediction. The second architecture, HFNetJE, extends this approach through joint encoding of atmospheric predictors and a more extensive processing of past sea-level information, with the aim of improving the representation of processes associated with high-frequency sea-level oscillations. Analysis of more than 20 years of data shows that high-frequency sea-level extremes are larger in Bakar (> 60 cm) than in Ploče (< 35 cm), occur ~6 times per year, and are most common during the warm season. Both architectures reproduce the observed variability, with higher skill for typical than for extreme events. HFNetJE performs best overall and under typical amplitude conditions, whereas HFNet more effectively captures extreme events, although these remain systematically underestimated in both architectures. Model performance is higher at Ploče, likely because of its smaller sea-level range and simpler response to atmospheric forcing. Models forced with ERA5 consistently outperform those using the higher-resolution CERRA in predicting extremes, suggesting limited added value from increased spatial resolution. Ablation experiments indicate that several predictors are redundant for average forecasting performance, whereas extreme-event prediction generally benefits from the full predictor set. Overall, the results demonstrate the potential of deep learning for prediction of high-frequency sea-level oscillations in the Adriatic, but also highlight persistent limitations in forecasting rare high-amplitude events.
- Preprint
(3141 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1700 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3411', Antonios Parasyris, 13 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3411/egusphere-2026-3411-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3411-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3411', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jul 2026
Referee’s comments on the MS by Iva Međugorac et al:
Deep-learning prediction of high-frequency sea-level oscillations in the Adriatic Sea
General evaluation
The MS considers an important and novel topic: how to predict the occurrence of high-frequency (HF) sea-level oscillations of high amplitudes, based on the available forcing data of operational observations and routine meteorological and oceanographic predictions. While sea level data have been observed in recent decades with HF 1-minute intervals, the forcing factors have been acquired on a low-frequency (LF) hourly temporal resolution. This means that possible forcing mechanisms for HF sea level oscillations (such as atmospheric convective systems, gravity waves, fronts, or Proudman resonance, etc.), as nicely presented in the introduction and discussion, are not covered by available data. However, previous studies have established some statistical link between synoptic forcing and HF oscillations.
To overcome the driver-response resolution gap, the MS tests deep-learning methods for predicting maximum daily amplitudes of high-frequency (T < 1 hour) sea-level oscillations at selected geographical sites in the Adriatic Sea. The convolutional neural networks were driven by past HF sea-level observations and LF atmospheric predictors from the two available reanalyses. One of the models tested in the HF range, HFNet, is based on the known HIDRA family of models that work well for the LF range. The second, more HF-adjusted model, HFNetJE, considers more HF details of past sea level observations and uses joint encoding with atmospheric predictions. Both models reproduce the observed daily HF maximum amplitudes, whereas HFNetJE performs better under typical amplitude conditions, but HFNet with better temporal resolution of atmospheric data is more effective at capturing extreme events.
The results of the study are interesting and indicate a way to achieve more justified and accurate HF sea level predictions. Before publishing, I recommend considering some comments given below.
General comments
1) Within the selected 8 model options (two models, two wind fields, two locations), the skill estimation is of crucial importance. Often, skill is estimated by comparing the observed and predicted time series at the same times. Such an approach is not possible in the present study, because of missing HF forcing data. Instead, the prediction is oriented toward obtaining the “maximum absolute value of the HFO signal within each daily interval”, named daily amplitude. The general background for such extreme-value skill metrics should be provided to help readers.
2) The performance metrics of model predictions are not very clear. RMSE, MAE, relative error, and bias are used in the common context, although they are not spelled out. Accuracy is explained only in the table heading (line 326) and is not easily understood. The metrics could be introduced in a separate section (for example, in methods), using formulae.
3) It would also be helpful to know whether the complex models outperform the low-level “persistence forecast”: the next forecasted values within the lead time are equal to the last observed values. Such a comparison could be rather interesting since the prediction of sub-hourly SL variations does not include any sub-hourly driving factors.
4) The manifold numerical values presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not easy to follow. It may be more informative to reduce the number of metrics (for example, MAE values align well with RMSE) and combine the ERA5 and CERRA tables for two locations into composite tables. Regarding graphics, perhaps a Taylor diagram could be useful for presenting many results in a compact manner.
5) There are sub-hourly and/or spatially high-resolution atmospheric data that could be found and used in the update of the present study or in the subsequent forthcoming studies. Such additional data could include wind gusts, air pressure fluctuations, precipitation patterns from weather radars, current and wave patterns from coastal radars, and possibly more. The data extension possibilities are briefly mentioned in lines 563-566; I would prefer a bit more elaboration, also in the introduction.
Technical comments
- In line 14, sub-hourly SL oscillations are “reaching wave heights of several meters”, but in line 24, HF extremes amount to 60 cm in one location and 35 cm in another location. These statements could be rewritten for clarity, as a fast reading of the abstract suggests.
- Figures 6-8, with many similar panels, are not easy to follow. Perhaps Figs 6 and 7, which differ only in geographical location, can be combined.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3411-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | 33 | 9 | 96 | 15 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 54
- PDF: 33
- XML: 9
- Total: 96
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1