Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Assessment of extreme wind and waves in the Colombian Caribbean

Sea for offshore applications
A. Devis-Morales ∗ , R.A. Montoya-Sánchez, G. Bernal, A.F. Osorio
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Departamento de Geociencias y Medio Ambiente, Facultad de Minas, Carrera 80 No. 65-223, Bloque M2,
Medellín, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Interest in Colombia’s offshore industry has increased over the past years. Therefore a detailed character-
Received 3 May 2017 ization of extreme wind and waves, in terms of return periods, numbers of events and its duration during
Received in revised form 31 August 2017 the annual cycle, is needed. Two sets of high-resolution data are used in the statistical extreme value
Accepted 29 September 2017
analysis (EVA). The significant wave height data (0.125◦ , 6 h) are from the European Centre for Medium-
Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA-Interim reanalysis available for the past 35 years (1979–2014).
Keywords:
Surface winds (0.25◦ , 6 h) from the Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform Ocean Surface Wind Vector Analy-
Extreme value analysis
ses (CCMP) of NASA/GSFC/NOAA (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
ERA-interim
CCMP
Administration) are available for the past 24 years (1987–2011). Three well-known methods are applied
Offshore industry to the data: the Block Maxima (BM), the Peak-Over-Threshold (POT) and the Method of Independent
Colombia basin Storm (MIS). Several probabilistic models (Gumbel, Generalized Extreme Value, Weibull and Pareto) are
Caribbean Sea evaluated for the BM and different threshold values for the POT and MIS. The results show that waves
can reach up to 3.8 m and winds can be as strong as 31 m/s when considering the 50–100-year return
periods. However, the wave model could underestimate values by up to one meter; hence, there is a
probability of higher values in the region. Seasonally, most extreme events occur during the dry season
(December–March) and during the Mid-Summer-Drought (MDS) or Veranillo months (June–July). Local
conditions, including the reinforcement of the Caribbean Low Level Jet (CLLJ) and the occurrence of cold
atmospheric fronts, are important drivers of extreme metoceanic variability. The total number of extreme
wind events varied spatially and temporally from 15 to 65 and the mean duration from 15 to 25 h. A total
number of extreme wave events ranging from <10 to 80 were computed during the annual cycle in the
areas of interest, with a mean duration of less than 40 h.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ricanes, droughts and heavy rainfall. In addition, this region is

Extreme events can be defined as rare, intense and severe given
that they occur with relatively low frequency, have large magnitude
deviations from the normal conditions and could result in large
socio-economic losses [1,2]. However, since “rare” definitions vary
in a subjective way, in climate studies an extreme event would
normally be as rare or rarer that the 10th or 90th percentile [3].
The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and coastal states
bordering the Caribbean Sea, by virtue of their geographical char-
acteristics, resource constraints and limited adaptive capacity, are
vulnerable to extreme climate events, such as tropical storms, hur-
∗ Corresponding author at: Carrera 80 No. 65.223, Bloque M2, Medellín, Colombia.
E-mail addresses: admoceanologa@gmail.com (A. Devis-Morales),
raul.a.montoya.s@gmail.com (R.A. Montoya-Sánchez), gbernal@unal.edu.co
(G. Bernal), afosorioar@unal.edu.co (A.F. Osorio).
also vulnerable to the effects of climate change and other natural
hazards, such as tsunamis (which potential sources are earth-
quakes, underwater landslides and volcanic activity). Just recently
(07/19/2017) a submarine landslide caused a tsunami wave that
had negative impacts on the coast of Colombia. All these events
lead to the deterioration of coastal conditions, which have large
negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
More than 165 extreme climate events have occurred from 1999
to 2008 in the Caribbean region and have caused more than 136
billion US Dollars in economic losses. SIDS are already experienc-
ing the adverse effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, air
and sea surface temperature increases and more extreme meteo-
rological events [4]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [5] there is a very high probability of the occurrence
of an increase in the frequency and intensity of windstorm-related

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2017.09.012
0141-1187/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
events, such as hurricanes and tropical storms in this region due to
the general increase of average wind speeds.
Economic activities in the Caribbean primarily involve direct
exploitation of natural resources. Tourism is the major and most
rapidly growing industry across the region, yet mining and min-
eral extraction industries are also important engines of economic
growth and development. All of these sectors are very likely to be
disrupted by extreme meteorological events, of which hurricanes
are the most common [4].
Oil/gas offshore activities in the Colombian basin have ramped
up over the past years and several viable sites are currently in
the exploration phase. Offshore Colombia operations started more
than 40 years ago with the discovery of the Chuchupa Field off the
northern coast of La Guajira. This is the main source of gas in the
country and it is the only offshore facility currently in production.
Since then, most oil and gas related activities took place onshore
and only over the past five years have several offshore areas been
explored in the Colombian Caribbean basin, resulting in two dis-
coveries (announced in 2014). The major one, the Orca-1 well, is
located in deep waters (around 675 m) and 40 km (25 miles) off
the coast of La Guajira in the eastern portion of the Tayrona block.
Other drilling contracts are reported on the Fuerte Norte (Calasú-1
well) and Fuerte Sur (Kronos-1 well) blocks, where the presence
of hydrocarbons is proven (see in Fig. 1 for the location of these
exploration blocks and wells).
As many offshore structures (e.g. oil rigs) are subject to severe
conditions where failure, such as overturning, arises mainly from
a critical combination of extreme sea surface waves and winds,
an understanding of mean maritime climate and extreme events
is of great importance for the planning, construction, operation
and overall development of this economic sector [6]. Monitoring
of weather, meteorological-oceanographic (metocean) and motion
response parameters is important for the safe implementation of
many offshore activities. Crane and mechanical handling opera-
tions; supply voyages, loading and back-loading; helicopter flights;
over-side and diver maintenance operations; emergency rescue
and recovery; Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO)
shuttle loading operations; support from large semi-submersibles
and jack-up drilling rigs, to name a few, are limited by equipment
performance that deteriorates in poor weather conditions.
Many factors impact operations and contribute to production
variability but extreme weather is the only factor that has the
potential to impact a significant number of offshore structures
simultaneously [7]. During 2004 and 2005, four severe hurricanes
Fig. 1. Location of areas defined for the EVA off the coast of Colombia. P1, P2 and
P3 are indicating the positions where the Orca-1, Calasú-1 and Kronos-1 explo-
ration wells are located within the Tayrona, Fuerte Norte and Fuerte Sur hydrocarbon
exploration blocks, respectively (squares). The location of metoceanic buoys is also
presented (buoy ID numbers and stars). These were used in the verification of CCMP
winds and ERA-Interim waves.
11
(Ivan, Dennis, Katrina and Rita) occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
These hurricanes created winds and waves that were close to or
exceeded the calculated 100-year return period conditions; thus,
causing considerable damage and disruption of U.S. energy sup-
plies. As a result, new estimates of extreme metocean conditions
are needed for many offshore engineering applications [8,9]. In
view of this and considering that Caribbean development plans aim
to increase offshore industry, determination of the most exposed
areas to extreme climate events is crucial. In this way negative
effects and impacts could be mitigated and a high level of adap-
tation could be achieved.
In the Caribbean Sea, tropical storms, hurricanes and cold fronts
are major physical phenomena that could cause significant threats
to life and to coastal and offshore structures. Trade winds in the
Caribbean Sea are a dominant feature during the annual cycle.
Although these winds frequently reach 5–7.7 m/s, summer gales
occur less than 5% of the time and are most often associated with
tropical storms or hurricanes. This regime is often penetrated by
strong outbreaks of cold air from the North known as “northers”.
These cold fronts penetrate as far south as the Caribbean coast of
Colombia, reinforcing the trade winds enough to cause gales [10].
More than 60 storms have passed over the Colombian basin over
the last 110 years, of which seven events had significant nega-
tive impacts as their trajectories were less than 150 km from the
coast [11] and caused strong winds and high waves. These extreme
events have increased in number since 1995 due to a multi-decadal
cycle in the sea surface temperature pattern of the North Atlantic
[12]. Cold fronts approaching from the North are also related to the
occurrence of large waves and strong winds, which have damaged
coastal infrastructure [13].
Given that extreme weather conditions associated with tropical
storms and cold fronts have occurred in the past in the Caribbean,
causing large damages to physical, economic, biological and social
systems and considering that these are likely to occur again in
the future, a detailed analysis of weather and climate is urgently
needed. Amongst all metocean variables of interest (wind, wave,
current and surge), surface winds and significant wave heights (Hs ,
corresponding to the average of the highest one-third of the waves)
are the most studied since they are a major source of environmental
forces on offshore platforms and have large impacts on the offshore
industry, especially in regions where tropical storms and hurri-
canes are a major concern. In fact, the 100-year significant wave
heights are the main criteria used for the design of offshore oil and
gas facilities [14]. Ocean currents and surges are also important
parameters to be considered in other oceanic regions, such as the
North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico, were values could reach 2 m/s and
0.6 m, respectively. This is not the case in the Colombian Caribbean
basin, where maximum surface currents and surges are of the order
of 1 m/s [15] and 0.2–0.4 m [16], respectively.
In view of the recent hydrocarbon discoveries and the large
international and national interest in the Colombia offshore oil/gas
industry, and considering the high probability of the occurrence of
extreme weather events, it is fundamental to examine the extreme
climate conditions that could impact the development of this indus-
try. However, a detailed extreme value analysis (EVA) of winds
and waves focusing on their seasonal variation in the Colombian
Caribbean Sea has not been done.
Several authors [13,17] described extreme waves associated
with cold fronts and cyclonic activity in the region but did not
perform an EVA. The latest study of extreme oceanic events [18]
analysed the damage generated by extreme wind and waves on
coastal ecosystems. These authors related the extreme wind events
to the seasonality of the CLLJ, while waves were related to the
winds and to the occurrence of storms. They applied a peaks-over-
threshold method (POT). Nevertheless, it was also shown that the
resulting return periods vary widely when applying different EVA
12 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
methods [14,19]; hence, it is necessary to extend and complement
their analysis.
This study aims to characterise the seasonal behaviour of
extreme winds and wave heights in the Colombian Caribbean
region by using a high-resolution satellite wind product (Cross-
Calibrated Multi-Platform, CCMP) and a much improved wave
reanalysis (ERA-Interim), which were validated against in situ mea-
surements from metoceanic buoys available in the area. Typical
offshore design requirements are expressed in terms of the return
period of wind and significant wave heights, where “The return
period of a stated value of a metocean variable is the average period
of time between exceedances of that value [20].
Traditionally the estimation of the return value involves the
analysis of the cumulative frequency distribution, the annual max-
ima (Block Maxima, BM) or the POT from a substantial data set.
Given the impact of methodological differences in the EVA of winds
and waves, we applied three well-known methods and several
threshold values. The resulting estimates of return periods (10–100
years) from the different approximations were compared and the
annual variation of the number of events and their average dura-
tions were quantified for three stations located within the areas
of interest, which correspond to Colombia’s offshore exploration
blocks where wells have been operative and have found large nat-
ural gas resources.
2. Description of the study area
The Caribbean Sea is subject to extreme winds with values above
120 km/h (>33 m/s) during the June to November hurricane season
and to cold fronts coming from higher latitudes, which typically
occur during December to March. Both extreme weather events
are related to large negative socioeconomic and environmental
impacts [11,13,17,18].
The frontal cold systems in the Colombian Caribbean are of
great importance because they damage coastal infrastructure and
significantly affecting the ocean-atmospheric conditions of areas
that they cover. These induce changes in the pressure gradients, a
decrease of temperature and the increase of wind intensity, cloud
cover and wave height [13]. On average, six cold fronts occur annu-
ally in the area, with the greatest numbers of events happening in
January and February (64% of cold fronts).
On the other hand, the hurricane season peak is from mid-
August to late October and deadly hurricanes can occur anytime in
these months. Local oceanographic features affect the severity of
the storms so there are large spatial differences in the extreme cli-
mate conditions. Most storms occur or maintain their position and
trajectory in the northern parts of the Caribbean basin coincident
with the warm ocean temperatures, which act as an energy source
for passing hurricanes. In contrast, coastal upwelling processes off
the coast of northern South America are related to cold surface
waters, which inhibit nearshore formation and closing up of most
of these storms. In spite of this, severe weather conditions related
to tropical storms have occurred in the Colombian and Venezuelan
offshore basins in the past.
These extreme weather conditions are categorised according
to the wind intensity. During a single event several intensities
can occur. According to the North Atlantic hurricane database
(HURDAT, NOAA), the Caribbean Sea (60◦ –90◦ W, 8◦ –22◦ N) has
experience more than 1190 events of different magnitudes in the
past 164 years (from 1851 to 2015); thus evidencing that offshore
structures and coastal systems are subject to extreme environmen-
tal conditions.
A direct effect of the extreme winds from cold fronts and tropi-
cal storms is the increase in wave heights that propagate over the
region. For operational purposes, extreme waves can be defined as
those with heights 2.2–2.4-times higher than Hs [21]. A High Wind
Warning is issued when sustained winds of 64 km/h or higher for
one hour or more are imminent or when wind gusts of 93 km/h
or higher occur for one hour or more. An extreme wind warning
for offshore operations is issued for surface winds of 185 km/h or
greater, or when sustained hurricane winds are expected to occur
(http://www.weather.gov/lwx/WarningsDefined). However, engi-
neering research is concerned with the design standards and risk
assessment of the “100-year storm”, which is the worst condition of
currents, waves and winds ever expected to occur in any arbitrarily
chosen 100-year period [7,22].
Since extreme values differ broadly from one oceanic region
to other, a site-specific evaluation of extreme climate should be
performed before any offshore activity is planned. Given that the
Colombian basin has been affected in the past by cold fronts and
tropical storms, a detailed analysis of extreme wind and waves is
urgently required, including its spatial and temporal variability.
The statistical characterisation of theses parameters was done via
analysis of high-resolution atmospheric and oceanic products. A
description of the data and methods used in this study is presented
in the following section.
3. Methodology
In the planning and designing of offshore structures it is nec-
essary to gather information of the marine weather and climate,
including extreme events. Estimates of extreme climate statistics
used in engineering designs require a long-term database from
which the return periods of 50 years, 100 years, or more, can
be extrapolated [20,23]. The data is usually obtained from direct
measurements, which are assumed to represent dominant marine
conditions in the area of interest. However, in most coastal locations
in situ data is lacking, insufficient or its temporal/spatial resolution
is limited and so other available sources are also considered. Meto-
ceanic databases that can be used in offshore applications can be
from three main sources: in situ measurements, remote observa-
tions and model estimations.
Direct records from buoys and fixed stations are generally more
accurate but are not sufficiently long (time series of only sev-
eral years), there are usually gaps in the information and they are
poorly spatially distributed off the coast. Satellite observations are
very accurate and can provide large spatial and temporal cover-
age (10–20 years). However, there are limitations in certain areas
depending on the number of available swaths taken by the opera-
tive satellites [24,25].
Reanalyses are essentially very short-term weather forecasts.
Data are sufficiently long (decades) and are evenly distributed in
time and space and have proved very useful in climate applications
[26] thereby making them a potentially useful source of informa-
tion for monitoring long-term changes in extremes in data-sparse
regions [27].
These historical re-forecasts (also known as hindcasts) integrate
the model forward in time just like with a forecast. The combina-
tion of state-of-the-art models and data assimilation methods have
proven successful in determining the wind and wave climate over
the past 40–50 years. However, global reanalysis data have a limi-
tation for detailed analyses of local scale because they are designed
and executed with relatively low resolution.
On occasions these products have some well-known biases (ten-
dency to under/over-estimate extreme values), which are generally
a product of the reanalysis model [28,29] and are usually not
directly constrained by observations. Reanalyses are also affected
by inhomogeneities from changes over time in the global observing
system. Nevertheless, reanalyses are generally shown to be reliable
when compared to good station data, suggesting that they have
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
the potential for extending the monitoring of extremes to regions
where station data are sparse or unreliable [27].
Considering the insufficient in situ data available to study
extreme wind and wave events off the coast of Colombia, reanalysis
and remote sensing products are evaluated and used for the EVA.
The location of the area used for the characterisation of extreme
events is presented in Fig. 1. Three specific areas of interest are
studied in detail. P1, P2 and P3 are the positions where exploration
wells have been operative and are of great interest to the offshore
industry. In the northern Tayrona block, the area where the Orca-1
well is located (71◦ 35”49.218”W, 12◦ 46”57.418”N) is evaluated in
detail. In the Fuerte Norte and Fuerte Sur exploration blocks, the
data available at the positions of the Calasú-1 (10◦ 27” 11.8”N, 76◦
15” 25.4” W) and Kronos-1 (09◦ 09” 53.9” N, 76◦ 49” 55.9” W) wells
were used for the EVA.
3.1. CCMP wind data
The CCMP Ocean Surface Wind Vector Analyses [30] was
selected since it is a gap-free ocean surface wind database of high
quality and high spatial and temporal resolution (0.25◦ Lat/Lon and
6 h), which is adequate to study large-scale air–sea interactions
(http://www.remss.com/measurements/ccmp). Cold fronts, trop-
ical storms and hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea are clearly shown
in this product. The feasibility of using satellite data to estimate
extreme wind climate was first demonstrated in the early 1990s by
several authors [31–34].
The CCMP information is a combination of cross-calibrated
satellite microwave winds obtained from Remote Sensing Systems
(RSS) using a Variational Analysis Method (VAM) to produce high-
resolution gridded analyses [30]. RSS intercalibrates radiometers
on the brightness temperature level to within 0.5 ◦ C and applies a
highly refined sea-surface emissivity model and radiative transfer
function to derive surface winds. This results in high consistency
between wind speed retrievals from microwave radiometers. RSS
has also developed a geophysical model function for deriving wind
speeds and directions from microwave scatterometers. Both data
sources are validated against ocean-moored buoys, which confirm
the measurements are in agreement (to within 0.8 m/s), despite the
difference in wind measurement and retrieval methodologies.
The VAM of data assimilation was utilised by Atlas et al. [30,35]
to find the most dynamically suitable way to combine satellite
observations and in situ measurements into gap-free wind fields.
The VAM combines RSS instrument data with moored buoy mea-
surements and a starting or background estimate (first-guess) of
the wind field, which is generated by the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), to produce a gridded
surface wind analysis that minimises an objective function mea-
suring the misfit of the analysis to the background, the data and
certain a priori smoothness constraints and a dynamical constraint
[36].
The VAM is extended to assimilate all satellite surface winds and
to preserve small-scale features in the satellite data so that useful
1/4◦ resolution analyses can be created. The CCMP analysis is the
final result of a multistage procedure that allows for adaptive qual-
ity control (QC). This method improves the quality of the gridded
analysis, but not its temporal resolution.
The Level-3 ocean vector wind analysis product is avail-
able from January 1988 to July 2015. Satellite measure-
ments are from AQUA/AMSR-E, TRMM/TMI, QUIKSCAT/SEAWINDS,
ADEOS-II/SEAWINDS, DMSP-F08/SSM/I, DMSP-F10/SSM/I, DMSP-
F13/SSM/I, DMSP-F11/SSM/I, DMSP-F14/SSM/I, DMSP-F15/SSM/I,
Coriolis/WindSat and DMSP-F17/SSMIS. The conventional (ships
and buoys) data used in this analyses is obtained from the Sci-
entific Division of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), the Pacific Marine and Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)
13
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Project (TAO) data and, when avail-
able, buoys from the Pilot Research Moored Array in the Atlantic
(PIRATA), RAMA, NDBC and Meds. Wind measurements from buoys
located in Central Caribbean are expected to be assimilated by this
system, but no wind data from buoys is available within the area of
interest (Colombia basin).
Through many years of improvements to the RSS validation
and cross-calibration and to the VAM data assimilation technique,
CCMP is able to achieve consistently high-quality wind speeds at
spatial resolutions appropriate to the satellite data sources [37]. The
grid resolution significantly surpasses that of any operational anal-
ysis or reanalysis dataset that exists for surface winds. CCMP data
was obtained from the NOAA’s National Centers for the FTP of the
Environmental Information (NCEI), formerly the National Climatic
Data Center (NCDC) (ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/seawinds/SI/
uv/6hrly/netcdf/).
The CCMP methodology finds a solution that best fits all the
observations using the model-based background wind as a first-
guess. The original CCMP used ECMWF 1◦ winds. The new CCMP
V2.0 uses the 0.25◦ , 6-hourly Era-Interim as background. Since
CCMP uses the Era-Interim reanalysis as background, EVA results
from wind and waves in this study are comparable.
A measure of the uncertainties associated with the CCMP V2.0
Wind vector analysis has been established by comparing it with
each satellite data source individually. At the hourly and 0.25◦
scale, the CCMP is practically unbiased versus each satellite datasets
for winds lower than 15 m/s. At higher wind speeds, CCMP V2.0
data are lower than satellite observations by about 3–4%. At those
wind speeds, the ERA-Interim used as background field is known
to underestimate winds compared to satellites [38].
Since the VAM assimilation method integrates both the satel-
lite and background field, at high winds regions the wind analysis
will often result in a wind field lower than the satellite-only esti-
mates. The standard deviation between CCMP and satellite winds
is on average of the order of 0.5–0.7 m/s, and higher for higher
winds (1.5 m/s for 25 m/s wind speeds), so caution is advised for
data in high winds regions where a site specific validation is rec-
ommended.
The Colombian Basin is not considered a high winds region.
The validation of the CCMP analysis (see Section 3.3) shows that
even though there is an evident bias in the highest wind values,
since the RMSE and SI are low, and the correlation coefficient is
high, extreme conditions could be evaluated in the target area
with this dataset. Caution should be taken in the final discus-
sion of the results and for offshore applications, given that if the
data used is under/overestimating the observed values, this will
imply that estimated extreme wave heights and winds are also
under/overestimated.
3.2. ERA-INTERIM wave data
The significant wave height (Hs) parameter used in this study
is a combination of sea wind and swell conditions obtained
from the ERA-Interim (ERA-I) latest global atmospheric reanaly-
sis model, produced by the ECMWF and available from January
1979 to December 2014. ERA-Interim data can be downloaded from
the ECMWF Public Datasets web interface (http://apps.ecmwf.int/
datasets/data/interim-full-daily). For a detailed documentation of
the ERA-Interim Archive see Ref. [39].
The temporal resolution of this dataset is 6 h (00, 06, 12, 18)
and the spatial resolution is approximately 79 km (T255 spectral)
on 60 vertical levels from the surface up to 0.1 hPa. However, ERA-
Interim data from the ECMWF Webpage have been interpolated to
a custom grid and horizontal resolution. A variety of end-products
in uniform Lat/Lon grids are available (0.125◦ , 0.25◦ , 0.5◦ , 0.75◦ , 1◦ ,
1.125◦ , 1.5◦ , 2◦ , 2.5◦ , and 3◦ ) which were derived from the original
14 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
grid resolution by a bilinear interpolation method. We selected the
highest spatial resolution available (0.125 × 0.125) with sufficient
data near the coast.
This reanalysis, which replaces ERA-40, is produced with a
sequential data assimilation scheme (4DVAR analysis system),
advancing forward in time using a 12-hourly analysis cycle. A key
objective was to address several difficult data assimilation prob-
lems encountered in ERA-40, mostly related to the use of satellite
data. Good progress was achieved in this regard, resulting in an
improved representation of the hydrological cycle, a more realis-
tic stratospheric circulation and better temporal consistency on a
range of time-scales [40].
The wave model includes shallow-water physics [41,42] and an
improved version of the WAM wave model, which has a reformu-
lation of the dissipation source term that reduced the root mean
square error in the wave period (compared to the buoy measure-
ments) [43,44]. The wave model assimilates observations of the
wave height from satellite altimetry with data from ERS-1, ERS-2,
ENVISAT and JASON to provide significant wave heights and wind
speeds. To obtain the entire 2D energy spectrum and a high resolu-
tion it uses the information obtained from the Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR). A detailed description of the assimilation method is
given in [45].
This wave model has been used for the assessment of extreme
wave analysis and for other engineering and environmental appli-
cations in several oceanic regions [43,46–51]. None of these studies
evaluated its performance in the Caribbean Sea.
Shanas and Kumar [49], concluded that this reanalysis under-
estimates Hs in several stations in the eastern Arabian Sea. They
suggest that extreme events attained mainly during cyclones are
difficult to be captured by the model. However, their results show
that the model dataset is reliable in both deep and shallow water
locations with a good degree of accuracy.
Kumar and Naseef [43], evaluated the performance of ERA-
Interim around India. The study shows that ERA-I Hs can be used
with confidence for locations which are least influenced by tropical
cyclone (TCs). During the TCs period, a large (∼33%) underesti-
mation of Hs in the ERA-I data is observed. Hence, the authors
concluded that the ERA-I Hs data cannot be used for design appli-
cations without site-specific validation. Nevertheless, considering
that most of the wave modelling results show a difference between
the measured and modeled Hs of up to 0.5–2 m, the authors con-
cluded that this reanalysis can be used as a first-hand information
even for locations influenced by TCs.
Campos and Guedes Soares [52] evaluated ERA wave reanalyses
(ERA-40 and ERA-Interim) in the North Atlantic Ocean. ERA-Interim
presents the best results against measurements but suggests some
underestimation under extreme events at mid-high latitudes.
Samayam et al. [51] latest assessment of reliability of extreme
wave height prediction models in several oceanic locations (Indian
Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and in the U.S. North Pacific) indicates
that ERA-Interim model generally underestimated Hs (compared
with buoy data). The under-prediction of ERA-Interim data sug-
gests that the peak of high-wave events, due to cyclones is difficult
to capture by ECMWF numerical model. It is a familiar phenomenon
and challenge that the smoothing effect implanted in the numer-
ical model will lead to the flattened variability at relatively high
frequencies, resulting in the missing peaks.
An additional potential explanation for the under-prediction is
that the simulated ERA-Interim data contains 6-hourly intervals
of Hs data. It is possible that, because of the lower sampling rate,
the maximum wave heights in a storm occurring between observa-
tions will not be recorded. To overcome this, it is obvious that the
ECMWF numerical modelling system needs further improvement
in correction or calibration of the ERA-Interim data, especially when
this hindcast is used for the extreme wave analysis.
Even though previous studies showed the limitations of this
reanalysis, all of them considered that these data can be used with
caution for the analysis of extreme waves [46–50]. Considering that
the in situ measurements are insufficient in this oceanic region, we
chose this reanalysis model since it provides long and regular con-
tinuous series which are needed in EVA with a high temporal and
spatial resolution.
We agree with [43] that the ERA-Interim data cannot be used for
design applications without site-specific validation but can be used
as a first reference of possible extreme conditions that could occur
in the Colombian Caribbean basin. As in situ wind data nearshore
is unavailable (3 months at most in a few places), the EVA needs to
be done with other data sources. Satellite observations should be
considered and evaluated.
3.3. Data verification
The databases produced by numerical models and satellite
observations have proven to be adequate tools for climate sys-
tem studies [53] and for the analysis of extreme events in
different regions of the globe where measurements are sparse
[23,24,27,34,54–57], since they provide large and continuous
amounts of information, which represent the real dynamic features
of the atmosphere and ocean.
However, these studies acknowledge that the validation results
of these sources vary from one basin to the other; therefore, there
a site-specific validation of each of the parameters being analysed
is needed. The assessment of the performance of these datasets
during high wind/wave conditions, which occur during certain time
periods, is of especial importance for the offshore industry.
CCMP winds were validated previously in several oceanic
regions and results suggest that the quality of this product is excel-
lent and adequate for a large variety of applications [30]. Also,
ERA-Interim wave data were used and evaluated by several authors
[43,50,53,58,59] who concluded that the performance and skill of
this reanalysis is superior to previous reanalysis models (such as
ERA-15 and ERA-40).
While the performance of these two products was analysed in
many oceanic regions, this validation was not performed in the
Caribbean Sea. Available buoy data in this basin is used to eval-
uate the CCMP wind and ERA-Interim wave data. Near offshore
Colombia, direct measurements are sparse and time series are short
and contain gaps.
In this study, three deep-water buoys located in the Central and
East Caribbean (wind and wave measurements) and two coastal
(shallow) stations off Colombia’s basin (waves-only) are used for
the validation of the CCMP and ERA-Interim. This information can
be obtained from the NOAA National Data Buoy Center of the United
States (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/). Table 1 summarises the avail-
able in situ data. The location of the buoys is presented in Fig. 1.
In order to compare different data sources it was necessary to
first homogenise the temporal scales, since buoy data is available at
an hourly resolution and CCMP and ERA-Interim are each at a 6-h
resolution (00, 06, 12 and 18 UTC). To make all the data compatible,
the in situ measurements were first averaged every three hours
(centre in the synoptic time) and then subsampled to the same
temporal resolution as the wind and wave datasets [28].
Several statistical parameters were estimated for data com-
parison [72]. These include: the root mean square error (RMSE =

N  2 N  
1/N t=1
XtOBS − XtMOD ), the bias (1/N t=1
XtOBS − XtMOD ),
 N −1
the bias index (BI = bias 1/N t=1
XtOBS ), SI is the Scattering
 N −1
Index (SI = STD 1/N t=1
XtOBS x100, in%) and the correlation
coefficient (r). In these equations OBS represents the buoy mea-
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26 15

Table 1
Information of the metocean buoys with records of wind and waves near offshore Colombia. The data is from NDBC/NOAA. Hs is the significant wave height; U and V are the
zonal and meridional components of the surface wind.

Buoy ID Average Location Period Average Depth Parameters

42058- Central Western Caribbean 14.923◦ N, 74.918◦ W 2005/01/01 2011/09/18 4161 m Hs , U, V

42059-Central Eastern Caribbean 15.179◦ N, 67.563◦ W 2007/01/01 2013/06/26 4804 m Hs , U, V
42060-Caribbean Valley (Eastern) 16.332◦ N, 63.240◦ W 2009/01/01 2014/04/12 1570 m Hs , U, V
41193-Puerto Bolívar, COL. 12.351◦ N, 72.218◦ W 2008/01/01 2008/04/23 150 m Hs
41194, Barranquilla, COL. 11.161◦ N, 74.681◦ W 2008/01/01 2008/04/23 150 m Hs

Table 2
Basic statistics used to compare in situ (buoys) and CCMP/ERA-Interim datasets. The minimum (MIN), maximum (MAX), mean and standard deviation (STD) values of both
data sources are shown. WS is the wind speed and Hs is the significant wave height. The location of each buoy used in this analysis is shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.

In situ WS WS (CCMP)

Buoy ID Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max

42058 0.067 8.690 2.393 15.535 0.530 9.082 2.397 20.165

42059 0.165 7.318 1.833 21.541 0.380 8.275 2.019 31.881
42060 0.304 6.704 2.123 15.211 0.253 7.564 2.177 16.734

In situ HS HS (ERA-Interim)

Buoy ID Min Mean Std Max Min Mean Std Max

41193 0.67 1.32 0.42 2.81 0.44 1.02 0.33 2.04

41194 0.92 2.28 0.56 4.32 0.66 1.45 0.42 3.30
42058 0.10 1.86 0.68 4.84 0.48 1.69 0.55 3.76
42059 0.03 1.59 0.50 8.86 0.63 1.50 0.38 3.82
42060 0.37 1.35 0.42 4.22 0.56 1.38 0.35 3.24

surements, MOD is the CCMP and ERA-Interim data, STD is the
standard deviation of differences between datasets and measure-
ments, and N is the number of data points. Results from the
comparison of in situ versus satellite/model products are presented
in Tables 2 and 3.
These parameters give us an indication of how well the datasets
(CCMP and ERA-I) represent direct measurements from buoys,
and if these sources of information are skilful enough to provide
extrapolation of reliable sea state extremes for design. Hindcast
skill threshold values used for validation Hs during severe storms
has been presented in several studies [60,61]. Bias >0.5 m, mean
absolute error >1.0 m and SI of 10–15% have been reported. For
continuous hindcasts an acceptable skill level is represented by Hs
bias of less than 0.5 m, r > 0.8 and SI in the range of 18–25% [61].
These criteria will be used in this work to define data that is good
in estimating extremes.
In the evaluation of the wind speed from CCMP we are consider-
ing local conditions and the distribution of the in situ data available.
Here we consider than a bias of less than 1 m/s, a correlation coef-
ficient above 0.8 and a SI <20% are indicative of an acceptable skill
level. More recent validation studies have added hindcast measured
parameter distributional comparisons as a skill measure, usually in
terms of quantile–quantile scatter plots [61].
The wind speed measured by the buoys showed that mean val-
ues ranged from 6 to 8 m/s in the deep-water stations (Table 2).
Averaged CCMP winds were above these magnitudes by less than a
meter. In the maximum values, differences of 10 m/s were noted
during certain time periods in the central station. Nevertheless,
high correlation coefficients (r < 0.8) showed that both datasets are
in good agreement in the three offshore locations. Nearshore wind
records are not available for comparison.
The deep-water buoy located in the Central Caribbean (42059)
recorded the maximum wind speeds (∼21 m/s) while in the east-
ern and western stations winds were below 16 m/s. Similar values
were obtained by CCMP compared to the buoy in the eastern sta-
tion (42060). In the western station a 5 m/s difference was noted.
Larger overestimations from CCMP were found in the buoy 42059.
Negative bias indicates that the satellite data overestimates the
winds at these offshore stations. However, this bias is not large
(<1 m/s) and is determined mainly by a few extreme events that
triggered the differences between datasets. The high correlation
coefficient (r > 0.8) and low RMSE (<1.55) and SI (<20%) indicate
that this product is in good agreement with available records.
Maximum wind speeds from CCMP are somewhat overes-
timated at these stations. Possible explanations of the large
differences encountered could be errors in the buoy measurement
or interpolation errors from the satellite observations associated
with an undersampling problem [59]. We analysed in detail the
temporal variation of the bias in each of the buoy stations. It was

Table 3
Comparative statistics analyses between buoy measurements and CCMP/ERA-Interim datasets for wind speed (WS) and significant wave heights (Hs ). N is the number of
observations, RMSE is the root mean square error, r is the correlation coefficient, BI is the Bias Index and SI is the Scattering Index (%).

Var. Buoy ID N BIAS RMSE R BI SI

WS 42058 9204 −0.366 1.211 0.88 −0.042 13.238

42059 8672 −0.956 1.511 0.82 −0.131 15.993
42060 6821 −0.871 1.542 0.82 −0.130 19.012

HS 41193 329 0.308 0.374 0.87 0.233 16.104

41194 454 0.831 0.896 0.80 0.363 14.671
42058 8347 0.161 0.285 0.95 0.086 12.670
42059 9444 0.094 0.241 0.90 0.059 13.932
42060 7710 −0.032 0.221 0.85 −0.024 16.178
16 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
Fig. 2. Comparison of wave data from coastal stations offshore Colombia. Time
series of significant wave height (Hs) measured by the buoys are presented as grey
curves and ERA-Interim reanalysis shown as black curves. Stations are located near
the Colombian coast (Puerto Bolívar and Barranquilla). Location of each buoy is
presented in Fig. 1. In situ data source is from NDBC/NOAA. Time step is 6 h.
noted that in a few occasions the higher winds measured by the
buoy were 10 m/s larger in the CCMP data.
Fig. 3 (left panel) presents the quantile–quantile (QQ) plots
obtained from comparing the buoy and the CCMP data. This shows
that those large differences between datasets (in situ vs. satellite)
occurred only in some occasions. When winds are below 15 m/s
the performance of the satellite product is considered satisfactory
given that, compared to the buoys, the differences are small. For
higher wind speeds there is a tendency to overestimate the satellite
observations. Two extreme events (WS > 20 m/s) occurring within
the area during the period of observations were overestimated by
CCMP in 10 m/s. This is clearly an error in the data that should be
considered. Nevertheless, the overall performance of CCMP wind
proved to be in good agreement with the direct observations. Even
though the satellite product did not accurately represent some
peak values, it is evident that this database shows most patterns
observed in the target area.
Waves measured by the buoys are also well represented by the
ERA-Interim model, both at deep- and shallow-water stations. The
dispersion diagrams (figures not shown) of deep-water buoys show
the good agreement of the in situ and reanalysis data, with r > 0.85
for all three stations. Near the coast of Colombia the data from the
two stations also agree well with ERA-Interim (r > 0.8).
The significant wave height measured by the Central Caribbean
buoys showed a mean value of 1.86 m, 1.59 m and 1.35 m,
respectively, while in the coastal stations offshore Colombia
(41193-Puerto Bolívar and 41194-Barranquilla) values were
around 1.32 m and 2.28 m. The reanalysis model estimated similar
values with differences ranging from 3 to 80 cm (Table 2).
In general, the ERA-Interim underestimates Hs at all stations,
with standard deviations also lower than the records available.
Maximum wave heights of 4.22 and 4.84 m registered at buoys
42058 and 42060, respectively, were, on average, 1 m lower in the
model. The model did not predict the extreme high waves (up to
8.8 m) at buoy 42059. However, there is a significant correlation
coefficient, which evidences the good performance of the reanal-
ysis model. Positive bias (<0.2) at most stations indicates that the
model tends to underestimate wave heights slightly. The low SI
(<16%) and the RMSE (<0.28 m) values indicate that the model is
reliable in deep waters (Table 3).
The visual inspection of buoy records near the coast and the cor-
responding time series from the reanalysis is presented in Fig. 2. The
buoy located in Barranquilla displayed the highest heights, with
values up to 4 m. In Puerto Bolivar (La Guajira, northern coast of
Colombia) maximum waves were below 3 m. Differences between
the observed and estimated values were below 1 m and the correla-
tion coefficients were high (r = 0.801 and 0.87, respectively) with a
low RMSE (0.896 and 0.374, respectively). This evidences the good
performance of the reanalysis model in shallow waters. However,
caution should be taken into account when performing the EVA,
given the apparent underestimation of the peak values.
Fig. 3 (right panel) shows the quantile–quantile (QQ) plots
obtained from comparing the buoy and the ERA-I wave model. Even
though the model underestimates wave height at these stations,
it is clear that it adequately represents this parameter during the
wave-calm periods (Hs < 2.5 m). On average the deep-water sta-
tions underestimate wave heights (<1 m) by less than 5%, while
at the coastal stations this value is less than 30%. Similar results
were obtained by Stopa and Cheung [59] who discussed that ERA-
Interim typically underestimates the standard deviation of the buoy
measurements by 30% and consistently underestimates the wave
heights by around 6% (near the equator), due to the lower variability
of the input winds. Localised spatial inhomogeneities might exist
due to the assimilated wave data.
The diagnostic analysis of CCMP and ERA-Interim at the eval-
uated stations in the Caribbean Sea led to the conclusion that
these datasets are reliable, hence they can be used for several
oceanographic and coastal engineering studies. Caution should be
made when performing EVA of wind and waves given that the
over (under) estimation of the winds (waves) can lead to the over
(under) prediction of the extremes. The return period obtained
in this analysis can be used as a first-hand source of information
regarding possible extreme conditions that are likely to happen in
the area of interest.
The statistics presented here indicate that the uncertainties
of the databases used in this study are comparable to those in
present design code for offshore installations [62]. However, the
observed differences, with respect to the records, should be consid-
ered carefully and a detailed site-specific validation with new and
sufficiently long in situ data should be done prior to the designing
of offshore facilities. Even though models are useful and adequate
sources of information, in situ data is still the best source for coastal
stations; hence, long-term monitoring systems should be main-
tained by the offshore oil/gas industry during the entire exploration
and production process.
3.4. Statistical analysis methods of extreme winds and waves
It is crucial for the offshore industry to have a detailed character-
isation of possible extreme climate events that could have negative
impacts on structures and operations. Extreme value theory (EVT) is
based on the application of probabilistic models of data; in this case
metoceanic parameters, which could be generated by reanalysis
models, numerical simulations or measured in situ or remotely [63].
The main purpose of EVT is the analysis of the extremes observed
in the data in order to predict them in the future [64].
The understanding of the extreme behaviour of climate is made
by means of models that infer the distribution of the tails [6,65].
Review of the statistical models of EVA can be found elsewhere
[24,28,63,65–68,among others].
In this study a subset of large values from the wind and wave
data within the areas of interest in the Colombian Caribbean were
obtained by several methods. First (and simplest), the BM was used
to select the largest value in each year, then two threshold-based
methods were applied: POT and the Method of Independent Storms
(MIS).
One of the main applications of EVT is the estimation of the
once per m-year return value: the value that is exceeded on aver-
age once every m years [67]. In offshore operations the 50–100-year
return periods are required. With the data available, the 10–100-
year return periods from the three EVA methods were obtained and
compared. Then, the total number of extreme events and their aver-
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
Fig. 3. Quantile-quantile comparison of wind speeds (W) and significant wave heights (Hs) measured in situ (buoy) and estimated from the satellites (CCMP) and the hindcast
model (ERA-I).
age duration were estimated and seasonal and spatial variations
described.
Since ERA-Interim and CCMP data are long time series (35 and 24
years, respectively) and estimations reflect the temporal variability
of wind and waves in the area of interest, these databases were
used in the estimation of extreme events. However, cautions were
taken into account since there are differences in these sources of
information when compared with in situ measurements.
Even though longer time series are desirable, the length of the
data used in this study is considered sufficient for the purposes
of this paper. Cook [69] suggests that at least 20 years of data are
required for reliable EVA results. Panchang et al. [54] showed that
extreme value estimations from 5 years of data or 14 years of data
are nearly identical and other authors apply the rule of thumb that
extrapolations to three- or four-times the data length are appropri-
ate [8]. From these datasets we determined the return periods up
to 100-years.
In the BM method several probabilistic models were evaluated
(Gumbel, Generalized Extreme Value (GEV), Weibull and Pareto)
for each data grid point. Given that conclusions can be sensitive to
the accuracy of the fitted model, it was necessary to check that the
models fit well [63]. This evaluation was done by means of quan-
tile plots. Then, the correlation coefficient of each of the models was
determined and the one with the maximum value was selected in
each grid point. Fig. 4 clearly shows that the results varied broadly
from one location to the other; hence it is important to always
evaluate different probabilistic models when performing EVA in
a specific site.
In this study, for the BM, we chose the model with the high-
est correlation coefficient at each grid point of the data instead
of applying a single probabilistic distribution model for the entire
area of interest. This is not the standard method in the evalua-
tion of extreme events, since most studies usually apply a single
model for the studied region. Even though differences between
the Gumbel, GEV, Weibull and Pareto distribution models are not
large, we observed spatial differences that should be considered.
Similar comparisons of models was performed by other authors
[19,70] who argued that this methodology is useful for the identifi-
cation of extreme distributions in regions where the climatological
information are scarce and no detailed EVA has been performed
before.
Given that the sample sizes of annual maxima data are usually
small, model estimates, especially the return values, could have
large uncertainties. This motivated the application of more sophis-
ticated methods that enable the modelling of more data than just
17
the BM. These are the POT and MIS, which are threshold-based
methods.
When applying the POT method to model ocean environment
data, numerous factors which affect the accuracy of the results,
such as the number of data available, the criteria used to identify
extremes, the choice of threshold and serial dependency effects
[71]. However, the accuracy of performing POT method is especially
sensitive to the selected values of threshold and time span.
Even though the threshold methods are very efficient in deter-
mining whether an observation is extreme (values greater than
some high cut-off point) there are some problems in this method.
POT methods appear to induce systematic bias in estimators for
Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD) parameters and return lev-
els. The presence of serial dependence (extremes tend to occur in
clusters) is an importance issue to be considered. The nature of this
bias is that for strong serial dependence return levels can be seri-
ously underestimated, while for weak dependence they appear to
be slightly overestimated [72].
Once the threshold value has been specified, estimating the
shape and scale parameters would be the next step of develop-
ing the model. Based on the size of the data, different parameters
estimator methods can be applied. The maximum likelihood (ML)
estimator was chosen in this work given that is one of the most
popular methods to estimate the shape and scale parameters for
the exceedances data [73].
The choice of the threshold is often a compromise between
having large enough values to represent events in the tail of the dis-
tribution, yet also having a sufficient number of exceedance events
to obtain reliable fits. Too low a threshold is likely to violate the
asymptotic basis of the model, leading to bias; too high a thresh-
old will generate fewer excesses with which to estimate the model,
leading to high variance [67]. This could cause two types of error:
including non-extreme events, resulting in a tendency to underesti-
mate the return values, or excluding extreme events, increasing the
error associated with the return period estimates [74]. Therefore, a
suitable selection of threshold value makes a balance between bias
and variance.
Given that the selection of a threshold can be problematic
[25,75], we evaluated several values (percentiles 95, 97, 99).
Then, the Generalised Pareto probability distribution was used to
describe the behaviour of the events above the specified thresh-
olds. This theoretical tail distribution model allows one to smoothly
interpolate and extrapolate return probabilities for events with
amplitudes above the threshold [65]. It is worth noting that in this
study the threshold values selected are invariant in time. For the
18 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of the maximum correlation obtained for each of the probabilistic models used in the BM for the wind (left) and waves (right) data, estimated in
each grid point in the Caribbean Sea. Each model is represented by a different colour.
wind speed we selected the 99th percentile given in each stud-
ied station. For the waves we chose the 97th percentile given that
for the northern station the 99th percentile did not fit well the
observations.
The seasonal variability in the behaviour of extremes can be
incorporated by allowing the threshold and the distribution of
excesses over this threshold, to vary through the year. However, the
justification for such a model is not immediate and in some regions
in which large events cluster together will be broadly homoge-
neous throughout the year. Carter and Challenor [76] examined
the magnitude of the error in estimates of return values that result
from assuming an identical distribution throughout the year by
analysing monthly maxima of wave height and wind speed data.
It appears that the assumption leads to an underestimation of
return values. However, estimates from monthly and yearly analy-
ses appear to be rather small compared with the confidence limits
of the 50-year return value (especially in the case of waves where
so few data are available).
Walshaw [77] argues that the shape of the upper tail in the
distribution of extremes could well be homogeneous throughout
the year (i.e. the distribution of extremes varies seasonally only
in terms of location and scale). Ref. [74] also analysed the extreme
behaviour of the significant wave heights and wind speeds at North
Cormorant (Shell UK Exploration and Production platform in the
northern North Sea) by comparing a seasonal point process model
and non-seasonal variant models. Their results suggest that the
simpler variant of the model using the exponential distribution was
adequate in this location or time period and the incorporation of a
seasonal model was not justified.
The other threshold-based method applied to the metocean
(wind and waves) data is the MIS, first introduced for the EVA of
winds by Cook [69,78]. The Cook method increases the number of
extremes available for analysis, whilst ensuring their independence
by separating the parent time series (the original set of observa-
tions) of wind speeds into independent storms and then selecting
the highest value from each storm [66]. This method consists of
a number of stages. Continuous records are searched to establish
the times at which they fall below an arbitrary threshold. These
downward crossings define the start of the “lulls” in the record and
by definition between each pair of lulls there is an independent
storm. By searching the original records between each pair of lulls,
the maximum wind speed occurring in each independent storm is
established [79]. Then, a GEV analysis type I (Gumbel distribution)
is applied.
This method also requires the definition of an arbitrary thresh-
old to determine the lulls. Generally, this value is defined from the
average value of all the data; however, this results in the detection
of too many extreme events. A higher threshold resulted in too few
extreme events available for the analysis. In this study the thresh-
old values used for the MIS were the same ones selected for the POT,
in order to be able to compare these two threshold-based methods.
Ref. [66] reviewed the methods to calculate extreme wind
speeds and emphasised the pros and cons of the most common
EVA methods. These authors concluded that the annual maxima
has the enormous advantage that few decisions are required by the
user during implementation; however, if the selected distribution
type is incorrect, then the resulting errors could lead to an overes-
timation of return-period extremes, which, from the safety point
of view of offshore operations, is desirable, although the associated
costs of designing these structures could be unnecessary high.
Techniques such as the MIS and POT have the attraction that, for
a given time series, more points are selected for analysis, with the
benefit that the standard errors should be lower than for an annual
maxima analysis performed on the same data set. However, more
user decisions are required in order to implement these methods
successfully, for example, the choice of threshold and minimum
separation distance. These decisions can have a large impact on the
final parameter estimates.
Therefore, unless the user is prepared to proceed with care and
attention to detail, the decision to use these methods can be a
dangerous one. This is the main reason why EVA should never
be performed automatically without the intervention of a data
analyst experienced with EVA analyses, because failure to spot
unusual features in the data could have serious consequences [80].
All these arguments led us to conclude that we needed to test
several EVA methods and threshold values to adequately examine
extreme wind and wave events in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of
Colombia. This methodological approach has not before been per-
formed in this oceanic region; hence the results from the different
approximations are an important output of this investigation.
4. Results and discussion
CCMP satellite data and ERA-Interim reanalysis model data were
previously validated and differences with respect to in situ data
(buoys) were noted. Both datasets showed good performance in
the representation of these parameters in both shallow- and deep-
water stations, and the bias contributed to mainly by the higher
wind speeds/waves. After the validation of the data, the seasonal
variability of the maximum values of wind and waves over the
entire Caribbean Sea was estimated.
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26 19

With these datasets, the 10–100-year return periods obtained be chosen on a probabilistic basis. In offshore applications, the 50-
from the different methods (BM, POT and MIS) and threshold val- to 100-year return periods are usually calculated.
ues (q95, q97, q99) were compared and the number of extreme The return-periods of wind speed and significant wave heights
events and their durations were quantified for three sites where were estimated using three distinct EVA methods (BM, POT and
exploration wells (Orca-1, Calasú-1 and Kronos-1) located off the MIS). In the case of BM we applied several probabilistic models
coast of Colombia have recently proven large hydrocarbon reserves. (Gumbel GEV, Weibull and Pareto) and selected at each station the
The temporal variability was considered focusing on the amount one that fitted the data best. The correlation coefficient obtained
of events per month and its average duration. These analyses are between the data and the fit from the different approximation is
shown and discussed in the following section. very similar, so in this particular case we needed a visual inspection
of the comparison. The QQ-plots used for the wind analysis allow us
to select the Gumbel distribution for BM, the GPD for the POT and
4.1. Maximum winds and waves in the Caribbean Sea
the Gumbel and GPD for the MIS. For the waves the GEV was used
for the BM method, the GPD for the POT method and the Gumbel
For each grid point of the validated data, the highest wind and
for the MIS (Fig. 7).
wave values were identified per month for the entire period of
These plots allow us to conclude that these distribution models
observations. These maps allow us to visualise the areas where the
are adequate for the estimation of extreme events in these three
most extreme events have occurred in the Caribbean Sea in the past.
stations and for these datasets. However, when interpreting the
From Fig. 5 is evident that maximum winds generally ranged from
results from the EVA, we have to consider the bias detected in the
10 to 20 m/s during the year, with the exception of the July–October
data.
period when values above 30 m/s occurred. The spatial pattern of
When plotting the return periods of wind and waves in each
extreme winds observed in this region coincided well with the
station (Fig. 7, right panels) it was observed that values increased
trajectory of most tropical storms, which are common climatic
rapidly the first 20–30 years, after which the change in the return
features during the second semester of the year. Near Colombia’s
values was greatly reduced, showing the asymptotic shape of these
coast, winds were usually below 15 m/s. This is consistent with val-
models. Considering the length of the CCMP data (24 years) an
ues reported by Ref. [10]. Relatively high winds (around 20 m/s)
extrapolation of extreme winds up to 72 year-return period can
observed during the first trimester at certain coastal stations off
generally be accepted. The length of the ERA-Interim wave data
Colombia are related to the occurrence of cold fronts.
(35 years) is long enough to predict the 100-year wave.
Maximum wave heights (Hs > 5 m) during the second semester
The three EVA methods (MB, POT and MIS) estimated the most
also evidence hurricane pathways in the Caribbean Sea (Fig. 6).
extreme wind conditions that are likely occur in each of the explo-
It was also observed that Hs is relatively high in certain areas
ration sites offshore Colombia. With the CCMP data it was observed
(Hs > 4 m) during the dry-season (December–February) when the
that the extreme wind speeds varied, on average, from 12.5 to
trade winds strengthen, coincident with the southernmost position
30 m/s, with the maximum values obtained with the BM method
of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) in this area [81]. High
and the smaller magnitudes with the MIS.
values were also noted during the June–July months, when the Mid-
Using the BM method, the highest wind magnitudes were esti-
Summer Drought (MSD, or Veranillo) occurs [82–84]. This climatic
mated (for the 100-years return period) in the Kronos-1 station
phenomenon is known for producing a regional minimum in pre-
(located in Fuerte Sur block) with maximum values around 31 m/s,
cipitation and a peak in the intensity of the CLLJ, which has been
while in the central (Calasú-1) and northern (Orca-1) stations the
related to the intensification and intrusion of the North Atlantic
maximum values were ∼28 m/s and 22 m/s, respectively. Results
Subtropical High into the Caribbean Sea [82] and to local air-sea
from the POT and MIS are similar predicting wind speeds around
interaction processes [85,86].
20–25 m/s (Fig. 7).
Nearshore Hs values are generally low (<2.5 m) during the sec-
However, given that CCMP data overestimates highest values in
ond semester, except over the northern coast of La Guajira where
the buoy stations used for validation (bias of 0.3–0.95 m/s); it is pos-
values can be relatively high (>3 m). From December to April coastal
sible that lower winds occur in a 100-year period. Unfortunately,
waves are higher (>3 m) due to the intensification of the CLLJ in the
there are no in situ measurements of winds available from buoys
area. These plots are clearly illustrating that, in spite of tropical
in the coastal area; hence the actual mean difference between the
storms being a major climatic feature in the Caribbean Sea caus-
observations and the CCMP data could not be obtained for the sites
ing extreme metoceanic conditions, the coastal areas are relatively
where the exploration wells offshore Colombia are located.
safe from their impact and hence the magnitude of the extreme
For the extreme waves that are likely to occur in a 100-year
events will vary broadly in the entire area. This helps us to conclude
return period it was found that the BM method also predicted
that averaging over the entire area to obtain a single time series is
the highest values in the three stations, with differences <0.5 m
neither adequate nor correct and a site-specific EVA is needed.
over the other two EVA methods. The MIS obtained the second
Even though these plots clearly show the location and timing
highest values, followed by the POT method with 97th percentile
of the maximum wind and wave values, this information is not
which predicted the lowest wave heights at these stations. Extreme
sufficient for offshore applications. This industry relies on statis-
waves of up to 3.8 m were predicted for P1 and values as high as
tical tools, such as a detailed analysis of past extreme events for
2.3 m (2.6 m) were estimated for P2 (P3). If we consider that the
future predictions. This is achieved by estimating return periods
bias between observations and the ERA-Interim reanalysis model
of extreme winds and waves and by quantifying them in terms
was less than 1 m at the coastal stations (Table 3), we can predict
of number of events and duration. Furthermore, the seasonal and
extreme wave heights around 5 m in the northern area and around
spatial variations of these variables are studied for each of the
3.3 m (3.6 m) in the central (southern) areas of interest.
exploration blocks located off the Colombian coast. These results
It is important to highlight that the estimates of the extreme
are shown in the following section.
return values may have a limited validity. As [36] discussed, the cli-
mate system for present-day conditions may exhibit low-frequency
4.2. Return periods from the different approximations variability and these datasets may not be entirely representative
for the full spectrum of the present-day climate. Nevertheless, the
Given that metoceanic parameters vary with time, extreme val-
ues to be used in designing and operating offshore structures can
20 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26

Fig. 5. Maximum wind speed values (m/s) given each month for each grid point in the Caribbean Sea. Data are from the July 1987 to December 2011 CCMP satellite product.

Fig. 6. Maximum significant wave height values (HS ) given each month for each grid point in the Caribbean Sea. Data are from the January 1979 to December 2014 ERA-Interim
reanalysis.
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26 21

Fig. 7. Left: Quantile-quantile plots comparing the wind speeds (WS) and significant wave heights (Hs) estimated from the satellites (CCMP) and the hindcast (ERA-I) and
the ones predicted by the different probabilistic models applied to the data (BM, POT and MIS). Right: Return period of winds (m/s) and waves (m) given in each exploration
well off the Colombian coast from the different EVA methods selected. P1 represents the Orca-1 well (within the northern Tayrona block); P2 is the Calasú-1 (Fuerte Norte
block) location and P3 is indicating the third station analysed (Kronos-1) which is located in the Fuerte Sur exploration block. The threshold values for the POT and MIS are
shown in the bottom-right corner of each qq-plot.
22 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
data proved to be a useful tool in the analysis of the distribution of
events that depend on several kinds of extreme.
4.3. Number and duration of extreme wind and waves in offshore
Colombia
In the design of maritime works, the persistence or duration of
the exceedance over a given threshold and the effects of season-
ality are of considerable interest, as they provide a more adequate
description of the storm history from a statistical point of view.
Both factors (seasonality and duration) can contribute to a more
accurate estimation of the reliability of maritime structures (also
during the phase of construction), as well as to a better definition
of port operability (modelling the time-dependent duration of the
technical breakdowns within a year). Moreover, this kind of sta-
tistical model can be useful when a probabilistic design of a given
maritime work requires time-varying forcing (e.g. wave climate,
storm surge, astronomical tide) [87].
From the MIS, as well as the return periods, the number of events
and their duration at each station within the offshore exploration
blocks can be evaluated and their temporal variation analysed
(within the annual cycle).
The number of extreme wind events detected by the MIS was
higher (>60) in the central station (P2) during the dry season, but
the rest of the months few events (<20) were identified. In the
northern station (P1) the highest number of events (>50) occurred
during June–July. This evidences the direct effect of the intensifica-
tion of the CLLJ during the Veranillo (MSD) months [88].
Since most of extreme events occurred during the first trimester
of the year, it is likely that these are associated to cold fronts
and the intensification of the CLLJ, which directly influence the
wind/wave patterns, including the extremes, in this region [18].
During the June–July Veranillo months, when easterly trade winds
intensify again in the central and western Caribbean basin [82] a
large number of extreme wind/wave events off the northern coast
of Colombia also occur (mainly in the northern Tayrona block).
The mean duration of the extreme winds varied from 15 to 25 h,
with higher values usually during the first three months of the year
(Fig. 8). This could be related to the occurrence of cold fronts, which
reinforce the trade winds enough to cause gales. The standard devi-
ation of these mean durations (not shown) indicates that events
lasting more than 40 h can occur.
The MIS quantified more than 30 extreme wave events in the
northern area (P1) during the dry season (December to March)
and around 50 events during the mid-summer months (June–July
period). During the rest of the annual cycle no more than 15
extreme events occurred per month during the entire 1987–2011
period. In the central station (P2) more than 60 extreme winds
were quantified during the first months of the year and less than
10 events per months have occurred from April to November. In
December around 40 extreme events have been detected. In the
central (P2) and southern (P3) stations a similar number of events
were detected during the dry season (around >60) but not so many
during June–July (<10), evidencing a more direct effect of the CLLJ
strengthening in the northern area.
Ref. [89] analysed monthly mean Hs from radar altimetry data
and reported higher values during January and February when the
easterly trade winds are more intense, followed by values in June
and July due to the MSD. However, their results are based on a
shorter database (September 1992–April 2009) with lower reso-
lution (0.5◦ × 0.5◦ ), hence results even though are similar are not
comparable.
The mean duration of these extreme wave events varied from
12 to 20 h, noting that in the north these extreme conditions gen-
erally last longer than those in the south. During January to March,
when the number of events is high, the duration is also the longest
(around 20–30 h on average). The wet season is characterised by
short-lived extreme events (usually less than 12 h) (Fig. 8). The
standard deviation of this mean duration (not shown) indicates that
during the first trimester events can last up to 50–60 h while during
the hurricane season the duration of these extreme wind events is
greatly reduced (<30 h).
Some of these extreme conditions are related to the occurrence
of cold fronts during the boreal winter season. [13] reported that, on
average, around six fronts occur per year, with a higher number (up
to 20) during certain years. In Cuba, González et al. [90] reported an
average of 20 cold fronts and associated extreme winds and waves
during the dry season.
However, in the northern station most extreme wave events
identified are not related to the frontal systems but to the occur-
rence of intense CLLJ activity, which in turn is modulated by a
localised amplification of the large-scale circulation of the North
Atlantic subtropical high given in part, by the increased heating
over northern South America during June–July [91]. This is consis-
tent with results from Appendini et al. [92] who reported that the
highest mean Hs found off the coasts of Colombia and Venezuela
corresponds to the waves generated by the CLLJ. The work pre-
sented by Osorio et al. [17] suggests a dipole between the north-east
(hurricane and CLLJ influence) and south-west (cold fronts influ-
ence) in extreme wave events offshore Colombia. We evidenced a
similar pattern in the three stations analysed.
It is noted from this analysis that the most extreme wind/waves
events off the Colombian coast did not occur during the hurricane
season (mid-August to November) as is expected in the Caribbean
Sea. This implies that local conditions (coastal upwelling) and asso-
ciated “cold pool” are indeed inhibiting the formation and the
closing up of most of these tropical storms [93]. The databases used
in this study are capable of reproducing tropical storms and hurri-
cane events but somehow over/underestimate the peak wind/wave
values. This does not affect the resulting number of events and aver-
age duration, since the MIS is capable of detecting independent
extreme events that occur above certain threshold value, no mat-
ter if the data over/underestimate the highest values within each
event.
It is also important to consider that the MIS predicted similar
wind magnitudes and wave heights for the different return peri-
ods compared to the POT method, but lower extreme values when
considering the BM method. The number of events could vary if a
different threshold value is used. However, this method is the only
one that gives information on the duration of individual extreme
events; hence it is a resourceful tool in offshore applications.
5. Conclusions
Given its importance for engineering design and operation in
coastal and offshore industries, in this paper we examined extreme
winds and waves in the offshore Colombian Caribbean Sea using
a novel approach that compares and combines different methods
of EVA analysis. Knowledge of the extreme winds and waves with
return periods of 50–100 years is a major input for offshore applica-
tions. To assess the extreme events we used satellite observations
and reanalysis models.
CCMP winds and ERA-Interim significant wave heights were
validated against moored buoys obtained from NDBC/NOAA. Statis-
tical diagnostics of both winds and waves show that these sources
of information have a good performance in both deep and shal-
low waters; hence they can be used for the EVA. Nevertheless, the
overestimation of the satellite winds and underestimation of the
reanalysis data at certain times and at some stations should be
considered in the evaluation of the resulting return periods.
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26 23

Fig. 8. Total number of extreme wind(top) and wave (bottom) events given per month during the analysed time period and its average duration. P1 represents the Orca-1;
P2 is for Calasú-1 and P3 is for Kronos-1 exploration wells operative nearshore Colombia.

EVA results from these sources of information are considered
reliable and were used in the estimation of highest wind and wave
conditions. The high temporal resolution of the datasets (6 h) and
relatively long record (>20 years), adequately represented the evo-
lution of tropical storms and cold fronts showing good agreement
with in situ observations. However, the peak of a few extreme
events was not well resolved by the satellite/model, evidencing that
a higher (1 h–3 h) time resolution is needed in this area.
The BM method showed the highest return periods at the sta-
tions analysed, with extreme winds and waves of up to 31 m/s and
3.8 m, respectively. However, this classical approximation could
have large uncertainties, given that the size sample is small (only
one data per year) and could possibly ignore other extreme events
during the studied period. Still, this method remains one of the
most widely used in EVA given its simplicity and that few decisions
are required during the calculations.
The POT was the second method used in the EVA. Several
threshold values were compared (95th, 97th and 99th percentiles).
Return period differences between these thresholds of around
5 m/s (winds) and 30 cm (wave heights) should also be considered
in the offshore industry. Low threshold values could result in large
bias in the estimations because the model does not fit well; how-
ever, too high values could lead to high variance due to the few
data used in the analysis. For winds the 99 percentile is usually
used, but for waves an intermediate value (q97) is recommended
as the minimum threshold value in this region.
Similar return periods were obtained with the MIS (as compared
to POT) at these stations. This method has the benefit over the BM
24 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
that it increases the number of extremes available for the analy-
sis and over the POT that it ensures the independency between
extreme events without the need for further decisions, such as
the length of the minimum separation distance between extremes.
However, as with the POT, this method requires the definition of a
threshold value, which is not a simple task.
The resulting wind and wave values varied with the different
EVA methods and thresholds applied. These differences should be
considered by the offshore industry in the planning of activities
and the design of their facilities. All the methods provide valu-
able information that should be taken into account; hence, this
paper suggests that predictions of extreme metoceanic conditions
improve if an ensemble forecasting-like approach is used in a way
that multiple EVA methods are performed to obtain a representa-
tive sample of the possible future extremes in marine climate.
For maximum wind speeds, values varied from 20 to 31 m/s in
the three stations analysed, with a total number of 15–65 events
and a mean duration from 15 to 25 h. For extreme waves likely to
occur in a 100-year period, values varied spatially from 2 to 3.8 m,
with a total number varying during the year from less than 10
events to around 80 events during the annual cycle with a mean
duration of less than 40 h.
The temporal characterisation of the extreme events in this
region is as important as the values itself, given that most off-
shore activities depend on this type of information. In this paper
we evaluated, for each station within the exploration blocks off the
Colombian coast, the number of extreme events and their dura-
tions within the year. Most extreme events did not occur during the
hurricane season but during the dry season (December to March)
and during the Veranillo months (June–July). This implies that local
conditions, including the reinforcement of the CLLJ and the occur-
rence of cold atmospheric fronts, are important drivers of extreme
metoceanic variability.
Considering that restrictive winds (above 30 m/s) are likely to
occur at some stations, a detailed analysis and direct monitoring
should be performed by the offshore industry if there are future
plans of exploitation/production. Even though these results were
only obtained using the BM method, this critical information should
be taken into account. In a similar manner, restrictive waves (of
around 5 m) that could affect offshore operations are likely to occur
in the northern area, as predicted by the BM method. In situ mea-
surements available in Barranquilla reported wave heights above
4 m during a short time period, which is clear evidence of the pos-
sibility of occurrence of these extreme conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments. A. Devis-Morales and R.A. Montoya-Sánchez are
sponsored by Ecopetrol by means of the Scientific Project “Strategic
Program for the development of robotic technology oriented to the
oil and gas exploration offshore Colombian Basins”, G. Bernal and
A. F. Osorio are financed by the National University of Colombia in
Medellin.
References
[1] M. Beniston, D.B. Stephenson, O.B. Christensen, C.A.T. Ferro, C. Frei, S. Goyette,
K. Halsnaes, T. Holt, K. Jylhä, B. Koffi, J. Palutikof, R. Schöll, T. Semmler, K.
Woth, Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional
climate model projections, Clim. Change 81 (S1) (2007) 71–95, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-006-9226-z.
[2] A. Surjalal Sharma, A. Bunde, V.P. Dimri, D.N. Baker, Extreme Events and
Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective. American Geophysical Union
as Part of the Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 196, John Wiley and Sons,
2013, 380 pp.
[3] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin,
D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.
Tignor, P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 1–19, A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[4] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
Subregional Headquarters for the Caribbean, Analysis of Extreme Events in
the Caribbean 1990–2008. LC/CAR/L.254 (5 March 2010). United Nations
Report, 2010 (117 pp.).
[5] IPCC, in: T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, P.M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013, 1535 pp.
[6] S.G. Coles, J.A. Tawn, Statistical methods for multivariate extremes: an
application to structural design, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 43 (1) (1994)
1–48.
[7] M.J. Kaiser, The impact of extreme weather on offshore production in the Gulf
of Mexico, Appl. Math. Modell. 32 (2008) 1996–2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.apm.2007.06.031.
[8] C. Jeong, V.G. Panchang, Measurement-based estimates of extreme wave
conditions for the Gulf of Mexico, in: Oceans 2008 Conference, Quebec,
MTS/IEEE, 978-1-4244-2620-1/08, 2008.
[9] C. Jeong, A. Valsaraj, H. Velazquez, Global wave persistence study for offshore
operation and planning, in: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2015, May
31-June 5, 2015, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 2013.
[10] ProStar Publications, North Atlantic, Baltic Sea, North Sea and Mediterranean
Sea. Pub. 140, 5th edition, Sailing directions. National Geospatial Intelligence
Agency. Lighthouse Press, Annapolis, MD, 2007, ISBN 1-57785-877-8,
9781577 858775.
[11] J.C. Ortiz-Royero, Exposure of the Colombian Caribbean coast, including San
Andrés Island, to tropical storms and hurricanes, 1900–2010, Nat. Hazards 61
(2012) 815–827, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0069-1.
[12] S.B. Goldenberg, C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nuñez, W.M. Gray, The recent
increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and implications, Science 293
(2001) 474–479.
[13] J.C. Ortiz-Royero, L. Otero, J.C. Restrepo, J. Ruiz, M. Cadena, Cold fronts in the
Colombian Caribbean Sea and their relationship to extreme wave events, Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (2013) 2797–2804, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/
nhess-13-2797-2013.
[14] V. Panchang, C.K. Jeong, Z. Demirbilek, Analyses of extreme wave heights in
the gulf of Mexico for offshore engineering applications, J. Offshore Mech.
Arct. Eng. 135 (3) (2013) 031104, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4023205.
[15] P.L. Richardson, Caribbean current and eddies as observed by surface drifters,
Deep Sea Res. Part II 52 (3–4) (2005) 429–463.
[16] A.N. Lerma, Y.F. Thomas, P. Durand, R.R. Torres, C.A. Andrade, Sea-level
Variability from 1950 to 2000 and Hazards Linked to Storm Surge Episodes in
Bocagrande and Castillogrande Penínsulas, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia,
2008 (In Spanish). Boletín Científico CIOH No. 26, 72-85. ISSN 0120-0542.
[17] A.F. Osorio, R.D. Montoya, J.C. Ortiz, D. Peláez, Construction of synthetic ocean
wave series along the Colombian Caribbean coast: a wave climate analysis,
Appl. Ocean Res. 56 (2016) 119–131.
[18] G. Bernal, A.F. Osorio, L. Urrego, D. Peláez, E. Molina, S. Zea, R.D. Montoya, N.
Villegas, Occurrence of energetic extreme oceanic events in the Colombian
Caribbean coasts and some approaches to assess their impact on ecosystems,
J. Mar. Syst. 164 (2016) 85–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.08.
007.
[19] Y. An, M.D. Pandey, Technical note. A comparison of methods of extreme wind
speed estimation, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (7) (2005) 535–545, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2005.05.003.
[20] Department of Energy, Metocean Parameters – Wave Parameters, Supporting
Document to Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Certification – Environmental Considerations, OTH 89 300, HMSO, London,
1989.
[21] C.B. Smith, Extreme Waves. 9 Freaks, Rogues, and Giants National Research
Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006, http://dx.doi.
org/10.17226/11635.
[22] L.E. Chouinard, C. Liu, C.K. Cooper, Model for severity of hurricanes in Gulf of
Mexico, ASCE J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng. 123 (3) (1997) 120–129,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1997)123:3(120).
[23] V.G. Panchang, B.R. Pearce, K.K. Puri, Hindcast estimates of extreme wave
conditions in the Gulf of Maine, Appl. Ocean Res. 12 (1) (1990) 43–49.
[24] C.K. Cooper, G.Z. Forristall, The use of satellite altimeter data to estimate the
extreme wave climate, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 14 (1997) 254–266.
[25] N. Raillard, P. Ailliot, J. Yao, Modeling extreme values of processes observed at
irregular time steps: application to significant wave height, Ann. Appl. Stat. 8
(1) (2014) 622–647, http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/13-aoas711.
[26] S. Uppala, A. Simmons, D. Dee, P. Kållberg, J.-N. Thépaut, Atmospheric
reanalyses and climate variations, in: S. Brönnimann, et al. (Eds.), Climate
Variability and Extremes During the Past 100 Years, Springer, 2008, pp.
103–116.
[27] X. Zhang, L. Alexander, G.C. Hegerl, P. Jones, A.K. Tank, T.C. Peterson, B. Trewin,
F.W. Zwiers, Indices for monitoring changes in extremes based on daily
temperature and precipitation data, WIRES Clim. Change 2 (2011) 851–870,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.147.
 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
[28] S. Caires, A. Sterl, 100-year return value estimates for ocean wind speed and
significant wave height from the ERA-40 data, J. Clim. 18 (2005) 1032–1048,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/jcli-3312.1.
[29] J. Sillmann, V.V. Kharin, X. Zhang, F.W. Zwiers, D. Bronaugh, Climate extremes
indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: part 1. Model evaluation in the
present climate, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118 (2013) 1716–1733, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/jgrd.50203.
[30] R. Atlas, R.N. Hoffman, J. Ardizzone, S.M. Leidner, J.C. Jusem, D.K. Smith, D.
Gombos, A cross-calibrated, multiplatform ocean surface wind velocity
product for meteorological and oceanographic applications, Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc. 92 (2011) 157–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2946.1.
[31] J. Tournadre, R. Ezraty, Local climatology of wind and sea state by means of
satellite radar wave measurements, J. Geophys. Res. 95 (18) (1990) 255–318,
268.
[32] P. Charriez, M. Olagnon, J. Tournadre, Confidence intervals associated with
satellite measurements of wave and wind environment, in: Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Calgary, Canada, 7–11 June, (New York: The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers), 1992, pp. 313–320.
[33] D.J.T. Carter, Estimating Extreme Wave Heights in the NE Atlantic from
GEOSAT Data, Offshore Technical Report OTH 93396, Health and Safety
Executive, London, UK, 1993.
[34] G. Chen, S.-W. Bi, R. Ezraty, Global structure of extreme wind and wave
climate derived from TOPEX altimeter data, Int. J. Remote Sens. 25 (5) (2004)
1005–1018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160310001598980.
[35] R. Atlas, R.N. Hoffman, S.C. Bloom, J.C. Jusem, J. Ardizzone, A multiyear global
surface wind velocity dataset using SSM/I wind observations, Bull. Am.
Meteor. Soc. 77 (5) (1996) 869–882, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0477(1996)077<0869:AMGSWV>2.0.CO;2.
[36] R.N. Hoffman, M. Leidner, J.M. Henderson, R. Atlas, J.V. Ardizzone, S.C. Bloom,
A two-dimensional variational analysis method for NSCAT ambiguity
removal: methodology, sensitivity, and tuning, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 20
(2003) 585–605.
[37] F.J. Wentz, J. Scott, R. Hoffman, M. Leidner, R. Atlas, J. Ardizzone, Remote
Sensing Systems Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform (CCMP) 6-hourly Ocean
Vector Wind Analysis Product on 0.25 Deg Grid, Version 2.0, Remote Sensing
Systems, Santa Rosa, CA, 2015, Available online at
www.remss.com/measurements/ccmp.
[38] L. Ricciardulli, National Center for Atmospheric Research Staff (Eds.), The
Climate Data Guide: CCMP: Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform Wind Vector
Analysis, National Center for Atmospheric Research Staff, 2017, Last modified
27 Feb 2017. Retrieved from https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/
ccmp-cross-calibrated-multi-platform-wind-vector-analysis.
[39] P. Berrisford, D. Dee, P. Poli, R. Brugge, K. Fielding, M. Fuentes, P. Kallberg, S.
Kobayashi, S. Uppala, A. Simmons, in: The ERA-Interim Archive Version 2.0.
ERA Report Series No. 1, Technical Report, ECMWF, Shinfield Park, Reading,
USA, 2011, 23 pp.
[40] D.P. Dee, S.M. Uppala, A.J. Simmons, P. Berrisford, P. Poli, S. Kobayashi, U.
Andrae, M.A. Balmaseda, G. Balsamo, P. Bauer, P. Bechtold, A.C.M. Beljaars, L.
van de Berg, J. Bidlot, N. Bormann, C. Delsol, R. Dragani, M. Fuentes, A.J. Geer,
L. Haimberger, S.B. Healy, H. Hersbach, E.V. Hólm, L. Isaksen, P. Kållberg, M.
Köhler, M. Matricardi, A.P. McNally, B.M. Monge-Sanz, J.-J. Morcrette, B.-K.
Park, C. Peubey, P. de Rosnay, C. Tavolato, J.-N. Thépaut, F. Vitart, The
ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137 (2011) 553–597, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/qj.828.
[41] P.A.E.M. Janssen, J.R. Bidlot, S. Abdalla, H. Hersbach, Progress in Ocean Wave
Forecasting at ECMWF. Tech. Memo. 478, ECMWF, Reading, UK, 2005.
[42] P.A.E.M. Janssen, Progress in ocean wave forecasting, J. Comput. Phys. 227
(2008) 572–3594.
[43] V.S. Kumar, T.M. Naseef, Performance of ERA-interim wave data in the
nearshore waters around India, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 32 (2015)
1257–1269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00153.1.
[44] J.-R. Bidlot, P.A.E.M. Janseen, S. Abdalla, A Revised Formulation of Ocean Wave
Dissipation and Its Model Impact, 2007, ECMWF Tech. Memo. 509, 27 pp.
[45] S. Hasselmann, P. Lionello, K. Hasselmann, An optimal interpolation
assimilation scheme for wave data, J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 15823–15836,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/96JC03453.
[46] H.W. Van Den Brink, G.P. Können, J.D. Opsteegh, G.J. Van Oldenborgh, G.
Burgers, Estimating return periods of extreme events from ECMWF seasonal
forecast ensembles, Int. J. Climatol. 25 (2005) 1345–1354, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/joc.1155.
[47] A. Agarwal, V. Venugopal, G.P. Harrison, The assessment of extreme wave
analysis methods applied to potential marine energy sites using numerical
model data, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 27 (2013) 244–257, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.049.
[48] J. Portilla, J. Sosa, L. Cavaleri, Wave energy resources: wave climate and
exploitation, Renewable Energy 57 (2013) 594–605, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2013.02.032.
[49] P.R. Shanas, V.S. Kumar, Temporal variations in the wind and wave climate at
a location in the eastern Arabian Sea based on ERA-interim reanalysis data,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (2014) 1371–1381, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/
nhess-14-1371-2014.
[50] P.R. Shanas, V.S. Kumar, Comparison of ERA-Interim waves with buoy data in
the eastern Arabian Sea during high waves, Indian J. Mar. Sci. 43 (2015), 4 pp.
25
[51] S. Samayam, V. Laface, S. Sannasi Annamalaisamy, F. Arena, S. Vallam, P.
Vladislav Gavrilovich, Assessment of reliability of extreme wave height
prediction models, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (2017) 409–421, http://dx.
doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-409-2017.
[52] R.M. Campos, C. Guedes Soares, Comparison of HIPOCAS and ERA wind and
wave reanalyses in the North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean Eng. 112 (2016) 320–334,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.028.
[53] M. Decker, M.A. Brunke, Z. Wang, K. Sakaguchi, X. Zeng, M.G. Bosilovich,
Evaluation of the reanalysis products from GSFC, NCEP, and ECMWF using
flux tower observations, J Climate 25 (6) (2012) 1916–1944, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00004.1.
[54] V. Panchang, L. Zhao, Z. Demirbilek, Estimation of extreme wave heights using
GEOSAT measurements, Ocean Eng. 26 (1999) 205–225.
[55] M.G. Sotillo, R. Aznar, F. Valero, Mediterranean offshore extreme wind
analysis from the 44-year HIPOCAS database: different approaches towards
the estimation of return periods and levels of extreme values, Adv. Geosci. 7
(2006) 275–278, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-7-275-2006.
[56] C. Izaguirre, F.J. Méndez, M. Menéndez, A. Luceño, I.J. Losada, Extreme wave
climate variability in southern Europe using satellite data, J. Geophys. Res.
115 (2010) C04009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005802.
[57] D.J. Cannon, D.J. Brayshaw, J. Methven, P.J. Coker, D. Lenaghan, Using
reanalysis data to quantify extreme wind power generation statistics: a
33 year case study in Great Britain, Renewable Energy 75 (2015) 767–778,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.024.
[58] A.K. Betts, M. Kohler, Y.C. Zhang, Comparison of river basin hydrometeorology
in ERA- Interim and ERA-40 reanalyses with observations, J. Geophys. Res.
114 (2009) D02101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010761.
[59] J.E. Stopa, K.F. Cheung, Intercomparison of wind and wave data from the
ECMWF reanalysis interim and the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis,
Ocean Modell. 75 (2014) 65–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.12.
006.
[60] A.M. Reece, V.J. Cardone, Test of wave hindcast model results against
measurements during four meteorological systems, Offshore Technology
Conference. OTC 4323-MS (1982), http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4323-MS.
[61] V.J. Cardone, A.T. Cox, V.R. Swail, Specification of global wave climate: is this
the final answer? in: Preprints of 66th International Workshop on Wave
Hindcasting and Forecasting, November 6–10, Monterey, CA, 2000, pp.
211–223.
[62] American Petroleum Institute–API, Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design,
2002, API recommended practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD) Twenty-First Edition,
December 2000. Errata and supplement 1, December 2002. Washington, D.C.,
242 pp.
[63] S.G. Coles, An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values,
Springer, 2001, ISBN 978-1852334598.
[64] E.J. Gumbel, Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press, New York,
1958, Online version: (OCoLC)644510357. ISBN: 0231021909
9780231021906. 375 pp.
[65] C.A.S. Coelho, C.A.T. Ferro, D.B. Stephenson, D.J. Steinskog, Methods for
exploring spatial and temporal variability of extreme events in climate data J.
Clim. 21 (2008) 2072–2092, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1781.1.
[66] J.P. Palutikof, B.B. Brabson, D.H. Lister, S.T. Adcock, A review of methods to
calculate extreme wind speeds, Meteorol. Appl. 6 (1999) 119–132.
[67] S. Caires, Extreme Value Analysis: Wave Data. JCOMM Technical Report No.
57, World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC of UNESCO), 2011, 38 pp.
[68] N.V. Teena, V.S. Kumar, K. Sudheesh, R. Sajeev, Statistical analysis on extreme
wave height, Nat. Hazards 64 (2012) 223–236, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-012-0229-y.
[69] N.J. Cook, The Designer’s Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures. Part 1:
Background, Damage Survey, Wind Data and Structural Classification,
Building Research Establishment, Garston, and Butterworths, London, 1985,
371 pp.
[70] M.M.F. De Oliveira, N.F.F. Ebecken, J.L.F. de Oliveira, E. Gilleland, Generalized
extreme wind speed distributions in South America over the Atlantic Ocean
region, Theor. Appl. Climatol. 104 (2011) 377–385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00704-010-0350-3.
[71] E.B.L. Mackay, P.G. Challenor, A.S. Bahaj, A comparison of estimators for the
generalised Pareto distribution? Ocean Eng. 38 (11) (2011) 1338–1346.
[72] D. Walshaw, L. Fawcett, Bias in return level estimation incurred by peaks over
threshold analyses, Presented at the Graybill VIII 6th International Conference
on Extreme Value Analysis Held in Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
80526 (2009), Downloaded at http://www.stat.colostate.edu/
graybillconference2009/Presentations/.
[73] P. de Zea Bermudez, S. Kotz, Parameter estimation of the generalized Pareto
distribution? Part I, J. Stat. Plann. Inference 140 (6) (2010) 1353–1373.
[74] I.D. Morton, J. Bowers, G. Mould, Estimating return period wave heights and
wind. speeds using a seasonal point process model, Coastal Eng. 31 (1997)
305–326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3839(97)00016-1.
[75] P. Thompson, Y. Cai, D. Reeve, J. Stander, Automated threshold selection
methods for extreme wave analysis, Coastal Eng. 56 (10) (2009) 1013–1021,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2009.06.003.
[76] D.J.T. Carter, P.G. Challenor, Estimating return values of environmental
variables, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 107 (1981) 259–266.
[77] D. Walshaw, Getting the most from your extreme wind data: A step by step
guide, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 99 (4) (1994) 399–411.
26 A. Devis-Morales et al. / Applied Ocean Research 69 (2017) 10–26
[78] N.J. Cook, Towards better estimation of extreme winds, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 9 (1982) 295–323.
[79] R.I. Harris, Improvements to the ‘method of independent storms’, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 80 (1–2) (1999) 1–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
6105(98)00123-8, ISSN 0167-6105.
[80] A.C. Davison, R.L. Smith, Models for exceedances over high thresholds, J. R.
Stat. Soc. B 52 (1990) 393–442.
[81] S. Hastenrath, D. Polzin, Climatic variations in central america and the
caribbean, Int. J. Climatol. 33 (2013) 1348–1356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
joc.3515.
[82] V. Magaña, J.A. Amador, S. Medina, The midsummer drought over Mexico and
central america, J. Clim. 12 (6) (1999) 1577–1588.
[83] C.M. Appendini, A. Torres-Freyermuth, F. Oropeza, P. Salles, J. López-González,
E.T. Mendoza, Wave modeling performance in the Gulf of Mexico and
Western Caribbean: wind reanalyses assessment, Appl. Ocean Res. 39 (2013)
20–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2012.09.004.
[84] J.E. Stopa, K.F. Cheung, Intercomparison of wind and wave data from the
ECMWF reanalysis interim and the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis,
Ocean Modell. 75 (2014) 65–83, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.12.
006.
[85] K.B. Karnauskas, R. Seager, A. Giannini, A.J. Busalacchi, A simple mechanism
for the climatological midsummer drought along the Pacific coast of Central
America, Atmósfera 26 (2013) 261–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0187-
6236(13)71075-0.
[86] E. Herrera, V. Magaña, E. Caetano, Air-sea interactions and dynamical
processes associated with the midsummer drought, Int. J. Climatol. 35 (2015)
1569–1578, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.4077.
[87] F.J. Méndez, M. Menénez, A. Luceño, R. Medina, N.E. Graham, Seasonality and
duration in extreme value distributions of significant wave height, Ocean Eng.
35 (2008) 131–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2007.07.012.
[88] J.A. Amador, V. Magaña, Dynamics of the low level jet over the Caribbean Sea,
Preprints 23rd. Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology vol. 2
(1999) 868–869, Am. Meteor. Soc.
[89] Y.-F. Thomas, A.N. Lerma, P. Durand, C. García-Valencia, C.A. Andrade-Amaya,
Significant Wave Height in the Colombian Basin of the Caribbean–radar
Altimetry Data. CIOH Scientific Bulletin No. 29, 2011, pp. 29–46, ISSN
0120-0542.
[90] N.M. González, F.E. Muller-Karger, S.C. Estrada, R.P. de los Reyes, I.V. del Rio,
P.C. Pérez, I.M. Arenal, Near-surface phytoplankton distribution in the
western intra-Americas sea: the influence of el nino and weather events, J.
Geophys. Res. 105 (C6) (2000) 14029–14043.
[91] E. Martin, C. Schumacher, The caribbean low-level jet and its relationship
with precipitation in IPCC AR4 models, J. Clim. 24 (2011) 5935–5950.
[92] C.M. Appendini, A. Torres-Freyermuth, P. Salles, L. López-González, E.T.
Mendoza, Wave climate and trends for the Gulf of Mexico: a 30-yr wave
hindcast, J. Clim. 27 (2014) 1619–1632, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-
00206.1.
[93] M. Inoue, I.C. Handoh, G.R. Bigg, Bimodal distribution of tropical cyclogenesis
in the Caribbean: characteristics and environmental factors, J. Clim. 15 (2002)
2897–2905.
Websites visited
https://www.elheraldo.co/barranquilla/causas-de-la-onda-de-
tsunami-se-estableceran-esta-semana-cioh-385763.
http://www.weather.gov/lwx/WarningsDefined.
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-75/
issue-7/latin-america-report/e-p-activities-heat-up-offshore-
colombia.html.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data Storm.html.
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/seawinds/SI/uv/6hrly/netcdf/.
https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform
OceanSurfaceWindVectorAnalyses.
ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/ccmp/L2.5/docs/ccmp
users guide.pdf.
https://software.ecmwf.int/wiki/display/CKB/ERA-
Interim%3A+What+is+the+spatial+reference.