in feet squared-seconds. The time-corresponding forecasted wave spectra of 

 New York University were then plotted in histogram form on the same graphs 

 for lag numbers 6.5 to 29.5 for 14 different frequency bands. Thus, visual 

 comparisons could be readily made between the wave-record estimated spectra 

 and the computed prognostic spectra obtained from the meteorological data. 

 Comparisons were also made of the wave-record and prognostic significant wave 

 heights as well as the observed and computed prognostic wind directions and 

 speeds. By these comparisons a reliable evaluation is believed to be possible. 



DATA 



Two sets of data were used: (1) the standard of comparison obtained from 

 the wave records and meteorological observations of the weather ships and Argus 

 Island; (2) the data to be evaluated which were generated on the New York 

 University CDC 1604 computer in the form of two sets (USWB and FNWF) of 

 prognostic wave spectra and wind conditions. The significant wave heights for 

 both the standard and the prognostic data were computed from the respective 

 wave spectra. Although the forecast wave spectra were given in the directional 

 form to twelve 30-degree ranges, no use was made of these since the wave records 

 were all one-dimensional allowing no comparisons of the directional spectra as 

 prognosticated. Therefore, only the non-directional total energy versus frequency 

 spectra were used in this evaluation. 



A total of 75 different wave records were used for making evaluation 

 comparisons with 190 prognostic wave spectra at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36-hourly 

 periods. Table II shows a breakdown of the number of prognostic wave spectra 

 for both the USWB and FNWF inputs in each of the six-hourly intervals at the 

 five locations where comparisons were made. Table III is a summary of the more 

 important factors concerning the wave record data from the wave meters on the 

 three weather ships and from the Argus Island wave staff. 



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 



The results of the data evaluation are presented in graphic and tabular 

 form. Figures 2 through 5 present graphic comparisons of the predicted and 

 observed significant wave heights with time for the USWB input data at the 

 five different locations from which wave observations were obtained. Figures 6 

 through 9 give the same comparisons of wave heights for the FNWF input data. 

 Note that for both sets of data the observed significant wave heights are graphed 

 but the 5 and 95% confidence levels are also shown for each value by the vertical 

 line. Table IV presents in tabular form the significant wave heights at the various 

 stations for the analyzed wave meter or wave staff data and the automated pre- 

 dicted wave heights at the various corresponding gridpoints. For the wave meter 



