Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 8 – uploaded by Marc Prevosto

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 7. Results related to the GEV analysis performed on annual maxima of significant wave heights. Planar distribution of: (a) scale and (b) shape parameters, respectively.

Figure 7 Results related to the GEV analysis performed on annual maxima of significant wave heights. Planar distribution of: (a) scale and (b) shape parameters, respectively.

Related Figures (21)

Fig. 1. The HOMERE database: (a) map of grid points; (b) map of bathymetry; (c) maximum significant wave heights.
Fig. 1. The HOMERE database: (a) map of grid points; (b) map of bathymetry; (c) maximum significant wave heights.
Fig. 2. Extremal Index of de-clustered time series of significant wave heights maxima.
Fig. 2. Extremal Index of de-clustered time series of significant wave heights maxima.
Fig. 3. Snapshot of some storms extracted. Red dots indicate the impacted sites (exceedances of the 0.995 quantile of time series of significant wave heights).
Fig. 3. Snapshot of some storms extracted. Red dots indicate the impacted sites (exceedances of the 0.995 quantile of time series of significant wave heights).
Fig. 5. Results related to the GEV analysis performed on monthly maxima of significant wave heights, omnidirectional seas. Planar distribution of: (a) scale, (b) location and (c) shape parameters, respectively. The 200-y return levels of significant wave heights are reported (d).
Fig. 5. Results related to the GEV analysis performed on monthly maxima of significant wave heights, omnidirectional seas. Planar distribution of: (a) scale, (b) location and (c) shape parameters, respectively. The 200-y return levels of significant wave heights are reported (d).
Fig. 6. Results related to the GEV analysis performed on monthly maxima of significant wave heights, dominant seas. Planar distribution of: (a) scale, (b) location and (c) shape parameters, respectively. The 200-y return levels of significant wave heights are reported in (d).
Fig. 6. Results related to the GEV analysis performed on monthly maxima of significant wave heights, dominant seas. Planar distribution of: (a) scale, (b) location and (c) shape parameters, respectively. The 200-y return levels of significant wave heights are reported in (d).
Fig. 8. Return levels of significant wave heights for different return periods, Dots point out empirical maxima. (b) Position of the Aquitaine point.
Fig. 8. Return levels of significant wave heights for different return periods, Dots point out empirical maxima. (b) Position of the Aquitaine point.
Fig. 9. First four modes of Empirical Orthogonal Function decomposition performed on significant wave heights.
Fig. 9. First four modes of Empirical Orthogonal Function decomposition performed on significant wave heights.
Fig. 10. Map of (a) sites extracted homogeneously from the original wave hindcast dataset, (b) proposed division of regions, temporal declustering, and (c) proposed division of regions, spatiotemporal declustering. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
Fig. 10. Map of (a) sites extracted homogeneously from the original wave hindcast dataset, (b) proposed division of regions, temporal declustering, and (c) proposed division of regions, spatiotemporal declustering. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
Fig. 11. Evolution of the standardized dendrogram heights for (1) homogeneous points and (2) unstructured mesh tests. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
Fig. 11. Evolution of the standardized dendrogram heights for (1) homogeneous points and (2) unstructured mesh tests. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of (a) statistical threshold and (b) spatial assessment of 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, temporal declustering; (c) statistical threshold and (d) spatial assessment of 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, spatiotemporal declustering.
Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of (a) statistical threshold and (b) spatial assessment of 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, temporal declustering; (c) statistical threshold and (d) spatial assessment of 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, spatiotemporal declustering.
Fig. 13. First four modes of Empirical Orthogonal Function decomposition performed on wave age.
Fig. 13. First four modes of Empirical Orthogonal Function decomposition performed on wave age.
Fig. 14. Map of: (a) sites extracted on a reduced unstructured mesh from the original wave hindcast dataset, (b) proposed division of regions, spatiotempora declustering. Spatial assessment of (c) 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, spatiotemporal declustering, with (d) zoom on the northern Bay of Biscay.
Fig. 14. Map of: (a) sites extracted on a reduced unstructured mesh from the original wave hindcast dataset, (b) proposed division of regions, spatiotempora declustering. Spatial assessment of (c) 200-y return levels of significant wave heights, spatiotemporal declustering, with (d) zoom on the northern Bay of Biscay.
Fig. 15. Spatial assessment of (a) regional shape parameter and (b) results provided by Weiss et al. (2014a).
Fig. 15. Spatial assessment of (a) regional shape parameter and (b) results provided by Weiss et al. (2014a).
Name and geographical coordinates of points (see Fig. 14(b), together with summary of values of AIC indices, estimates of return levels of significant wave heights (200-y return period), together with their 95% confidence levels, and number of non-stationary parameters.
Name and geographical coordinates of points (see Fig. 14(b), together with summary of values of AIC indices, estimates of return levels of significant wave heights (200-y return period), together with their 95% confidence levels, and number of non-stationary parameters.
Fig. 16. Local return levels of significant wave heights for different return periods. Dots point out empirical maxima.
Fig. 16. Local return levels of significant wave heights for different return periods. Dots point out empirical maxima.
Fig. 17. Proposed division of regions, k-means clustering of GEV parameters.
Fig. 17. Proposed division of regions, k-means clustering of GEV parameters.
Related topics:
GeologyOceanographyClimatology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved