the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Characterization and Bias-Correction of Low-Level Jets at FINO1 Using LiDAR Observations and Reanalysis Data
Abstract. Low-level jets (LLJs) are wind maxima typically observed within a few hundred meters of the surface. They are often associated with high vertical wind shear, which significantly impacts the performance and loading of modern wind turbines. In this study, we characterize LLJs over the North Sea using one year of LiDAR observations from FINO1 (2015–2016) and compare them with reanalysis (ERA5) and hindcast (NORA3) data. We introduce a log-jet fitting method to represent each observed or modeled wind profile with five parameters, enabling a direct comparison between LiDAR and model data. Results show that strong LLJs are generally underestimated by reanalysis and hindcast products. A bias-correction procedure based on quantile mapping is then applied to a 50-year ERA5 dataset to improve the long-term representation of LLJs. K-means clustering further reveals distinct directional and stability-dependent LLJ patterns. The findings highlight the need for detailed modeling of near-surface wind structures and motivate future numerical simulations to clarify the underlying mechanisms that govern LLJ development and variability.
- Preprint
(11118 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-91', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hai Bui, 12 May 2026
We sincerely thank the referee for their highly positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing the value of our log-jet decomposition method. We completely agree with the referee that implementing a goodness-of-fit criterion is a crucial quality-control step. To address this excellent suggestion, we have introduced the coefficient of determination (R^2) to evaluate the fit, and we now discard any profile with an R^2 < 0.90 before applying the 20% fall-off criterion. Furthermore, to provide more clarity on how the fits are achieved, we expanded the methodology to explicitly state the optimization algorithm used (Differential Evolution) and the physical parameter bounds applied. We have updated Section 2.2 and the rest of the papers whose results are affected by the method improvements.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-91-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hai Bui, 12 May 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2025-91', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Apr 2026
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Bui, 12 May 2026
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and suggestions, and the manuscript has been substantially improved as a result. Please find attached a PDF file containing our detailed point-by-point response, along with the revised manuscript with all changes highlighted. We appreciate your time and expertise, and we hope the revised version now meets the journal’s standards.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hai Bui, 12 May 2026
Data sets
Supplementary Data and Code for "Characterization and Bias-Correction of Low-Level Jets at FINO1 Using LiDAR Observations and Reanalysis Data" Hai Bui https://zenodo.org/records/15470418
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 761 | 290 | 48 | 1,099 | 62 | 88 |
- HTML: 761
- PDF: 290
- XML: 48
- Total: 1,099
- BibTeX: 62
- EndNote: 88
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript describes a novel method of characterizing low-level jets in lidar data and models, and then applies the method to a substantial dataset. The method is well designed and described, and has the several advantages described. Use of this method uncovers important differences between the observations and the models, which should be useful for model applications and improvement. The presentation is clear, complete, and concise. The only suggestion I have is that some more information about the goodness of fit might be helpful. In other words, how well do the log-jet profiles fit the data, and should criteria be applied to reject some data for insufficiently good fits, beyond the 20% falloff criterion?