the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Year-long Buoy-Based Observations of the Air–Sea Transition Zone off the U.S. West Coast
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy
Gabriel García Medina
Brian Gaudet
William I. Gustafson Jr.
Evgueni I. Kassianov
Jinliang Liu
Rob K. Newsom
Lindsay M. Sheridan
Alicia M. Mahon
Abstract. Two buoys equipped with Doppler lidars owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) were deployed off the coast ofCalifornia in fall of 2020 by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The buoys collected data for an entire annual cycle at twooffshore locations proposed for offshore wind development by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. One of the buoys was deployed approximately 50 km off the coast near Morro Bay in central California in 1100 m of water. The second buoywas deployed approximately 40 km off Humboldt County in northern California in 625 m of water. The buoys provided thefirst-ever continuous measurements of the air–sea transition zone off the coast of California. The atmospheric andoceanographic characteristics of the area and estimates of annual energy production at both the Morro Bay and HumboldtWind Energy Areas show that both locations have a high wind energy yield and are prime locations for future floating offshore wind turbines. This article provides a description and comprehensive analysis of the data collected by the buoys is conducted and a final post-processed dataset is uploaded to a data archive maintained by DOE. Additional analysis was conducted to show the value of the data collected by the DOE buoys. All post-processed data from this study are currently available on the Wind Data Hub website, https://a2e.energy.gov/data#. Near-surface, wave, current, and cloud datasets for Humboldt andMorro Bay are provided at 10.21947/1783807 and 10.21947/1959715, respectively. Lidar datasets for Humboldt and Morro Bay are provided at 10.21947/1783809 and 10.21947/1959721, respectively.
- Preprint
(6112 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-115', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jul 2023
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 14 Sep 2023
We thank the reviewer for carefully reading the article and providing constructive feedback. We believe the quality of the article has improved by addressing the reviewer’s comments. Please find attached our responses to your comments on the article. Thank you.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 14 Sep 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-115', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Aug 2023
This manuscript provides a very thorough technical description of the data collected by the DOE buoy lidars off the California coast. It will serve as an important reference for anyone using both past and future data sets collected by these instruments. It also provides some basic analysis of the observations, including an evaluation of M-O similarity theory, which is interesting. Other than some minor comments below, the paper is ready for publication.
Line 23. What does “statistically averaged data” mean? Is “statistically” necessary?
Lines 41-42: The use of “1-year” and “annual” in this sentence seem redundant.
Line 48: Do the publicly available NYSERDA data pre-date the DOE buoy lidar data?
Lines 223-226. Given all of the problems with the Windcube IMU described here, I don’t see the point of even showing any of the wind data derived using that IMU. Unless perhaps the authors are implying that data from all Windcube lidars would have these same problems. But if this is a one-off bad instrument, it doesn’t make sense to me to show the data (e.g. figures 14, 15, 16). At a minimum, the authors should state their reason for showing the data if it is from a broken instrument.
Lines 351-354: “During the Morro Bay deployment, the maximum and average Hmax/Hs were 2.5 and 1.6, respectively, when including questionable data, and were 2.2 and 1.6 when considering good data only. Based on theory, the expected values are 1.7 and 1.6 when including questionable data, and 1.7 and 1.6 when considering only good data. This indicates that the data follows the expected theory.” I’m not sure I follow this. The difference between 1.7 and 2.2 seems substantial (a 30% difference), so how does this indicate that the data follows expected theory. How far off would it need to be to be considered not to follow theory?
Figure 9b. The y-axis label says COD, should it be COT?
Line 662. “Obukhov length”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-115-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 14 Sep 2023
We thank the reviewer for carefully reading the article and providing constructive feedback. We believe the quality of the article has improved by addressing the reviewer’s comments. Please find attached our responses to your comments on the article. Thank you.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, 14 Sep 2023
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy et al.
Data sets
Humboldt Buoy Surface Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Lindsay Sheridan https://doi.org/10.21947/1783807
Morro Bay Buoy Surface Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Lindsay Sheridan https://doi.org/10.21947/1959715
Humboldt Buoy Lidar Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Lindsay Sheridan https://doi.org/10.21947/1783809
Morro Bay Buoy Lidar Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Lindsay Sheridan https://doi.org/10.21947/1959721
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
394 | 129 | 17 | 540 | 11 | 9 |
- HTML: 394
- PDF: 129
- XML: 17
- Total: 540
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1