# Impact of sea level changes on future wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Alisée Chaigneau, Stéphane Law-Chune, Angélique Melet, Aurore Voldoire, Guillaume Reffray, Lotfi Aouf

► To cite this version:

Alisée Chaigneau, Stéphane Law-Chune, Angélique Melet, Aurore Voldoire, Guillaume Reffray, et al. Impact of sea level changes on future wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe. Ocean Science, 2023, 19 (4), pp.1123-1143. 10.5194/os-19-1123-2023. meteo-04245307

HAL Id: meteo-04245307

https://meteofrance.hal.science/meteo-04245307

Submitted on 20 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Impact of sea level changes on future wave conditions along the coasts of western Europe

Alisée A. Chaigneau<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Stéphane Law-Chune<fnref n="2" />, Angélique Melet<fnref n="2" />, Aurore Voldoire<fnref n="1" />, Guillaume Reffray<fnref n="2" />, and Lotfi Aouf<fnref n="3" />

**Correspondence:** Alisée A. Chaigneau (alisee.chaigneau@gmail.com)

Received: 17 June 2022 – Discussion started: 5 July 2022

Revised: 29 April 2023 – Accepted: 18 May 2023 – Published: 20 July 2023

**Abstract.** Wind waves and swells are major drivers of coastal environment changes and coastal hazards such as coastal flooding and erosion. Wave characteristics are sensitive to changes in water depth in shallow and intermediate waters. However, wave models used for historical simulations and projections typically do not account for sea level changes whether from tides, storm surges, or long-term sea level rise. In this study, the sensitivity of projected changes in wave characteristics to the sea level changes is investigated along the Atlantic European coastline. For this purpose, a global wave model is dynamically downscaled over the northeastern Atlantic for the 1970–2100 period under the SSP5-8.5 climate change scenario. Twin experiments are performed with or without the inclusion of hourly sea level variations from regional 3D ocean simulations in the regional wave model. The largest impact of sea level changes on waves is located on the wide continental shelf where shallow-water dynamics prevail, especially in macro-tidal areas. For instance, in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel in France, due to an average tidal range of 10 m, extreme historical wave heights were found to be up to 1 m higher (+30%) when sea level variations are included. At the end of the 21st century, extreme significant wave heights are larger by up to +40% (+60 cm), mainly due to the effect of tides and mean sea level rise. The estimates provided in this study only partially represent the processes responsible for the sea-level-wave non-linear interactions due to model limitations in terms of resolution and the processes included.

## 1 Introduction

Coastal zones are among the most densely populated and urbanized areas in the world (McMichael et al., 2020; Neumann et al., 2015; Wolff et al., 2020) which implies that monitoring their evolution in the context of climate change is important in several aspects. Wind waves and swells are major drivers of coastal environment changes (Ranasinghe, 2016) and can drive coastal marine hazards such as coastal flooding (Melet et al., 2020b).

To build knowledge on future changes in wave climate, a growing number of global and regional wave projections have been developed and intercompared (Hemer et al., 2013; Morim et al., 2018, 2021, 2023; Meucci et al., 2020; Labeto et al., 2021). These projections are commonly based on dynamical wave models often forced by surface winds projected by climate models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with potential downscaling of atmospheric forcing. A multi-model analysis is required to assess the uncertainties and robustness of projected changes in wave climate. Morim et al. (2018, 2019) provided a review of wave projections. Over the northeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea bordering the coasts of western Europe, models project a robust decrease in annual and seasonal mean significant wave height together with a decrease in the mean wave period. Regarding mean wave direction, a robust clockwise change is projected for the Iberian Atlantic coast. Extreme significant wave heights are also consistently projected to decrease over the northeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (Morim et al., 2018, 2021; Aarnes et al., 2017).

<footnote n="1">¹CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Mercator Ocean International, 42 Av. Gaspard Coriolis, 31000 Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Météo-France, 42 Av. Gaspard Coriolis, 31000 Toulouse, France</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** List of the different wave and ocean simulations used in the study.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name of the simulation</th><th>Model type</th><th>Name of the model</th><th>Historical time span</th><th>Future time span and scenarios</th><th>Horizontal resolution</th><th>Forcings</th><th>Application in the paper</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh</td><td>Regional wave model</td><td>MFWAM</td><td>1970–2014</td><td>2015–2100 (SSP5–8.5)</td><td>1/10°</td><td>CNRM-CM6-1-HR (winds) IBI-CCS (surface currents, sea level) CNRM-HR-WAV (wave spectra)</td><td>Analyses (Sects. 3 and 4)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>CNRM-HR-WAV</td><td>Global wave model</td><td>MFWAM</td><td>1970–2014</td><td>2015–2100 (SSP5–8.5)</td><td>1°</td><td>CNRM-CM6-1-HR (winds, surface currents, ice cover)</td><td>Forcing</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>IBI-WAV (reanalysis)</td><td>Regional wave model</td><td>MFWAM</td><td>1993–2020</td><td>n/a</td><td>1/20°</td><td>ERA5 (winds) IBIRYS (surface currents) WAVERYS (wave spectra), with assimilated data</td><td>Validation (Sect. 3)</td><td>Copernicus Marine Service: García San Martín et al. (2021) Toledano et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>WAVERYS (reanalysis)</td><td>Global wave model</td><td>MFWAM</td><td>1993–2021</td><td>n/a</td><td>1/5°</td><td>ERA5 (winds) GLORYS2V1 (surface currents), with assimilated data</td><td>Calibration, forcing</td><td>Law-Chune et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>CNRM-CM6-1-HR</td><td>Global climate model</td><td>NEMO3.6</td><td>1970–2014</td><td>2015–2100 (SSP5–8.5)</td><td>1/4° ocean 1/2° atm</td><td></td><td>Forcing</td><td>Voldoire et al. (2019) Saint-Martin et al. (2021)</td></tr><tr><td>IBI-CCS</td><td>Regional ocean model</td><td>NEMO3.6</td><td>1970–2014</td><td>2015–2100 (SSP5–8.5)</td><td>1/12°</td><td>CNRM-CM6-1-HR</td><td>Forcing</td><td>Chaigneau et al. (2022)</td></tr><tr><td>IBIRYS (reanalysis)</td><td>Regional ocean model</td><td>NEMO3.6</td><td>1993–2020</td><td>n/a</td><td>1/12°</td><td>ERA5 GLORYS2V4 1/4° with assimilated data</td><td>Forcing</td><td>Copernicus Marine Service: Levier et al. (2020)</td></tr></tbody></table>

2022). In addition, the zone also contains very different tidal regimes with both macro and micro tidal regimes: macro tidal regime in the English Channel and the Celtic Sea (Valiente et al., 2019; Stokes et al., 2021) and micro tidal regime in the Mediterranean Sea.

Regional wave simulations IBI-CCS-WAV (IBI Climate Change Scenarios WAVe) are produced using MFWAM (Sect. 2.1) at a 1/10° resolution. The configuration was designed over the IBI domain based on the Copernicus Marine Service regional configuration (Table 1, IBI-WAV, https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00030). The regional domain covered by IBI-CCS-WAV extends from 27 to 61° N and from 17° W to 8° E (Fig. 1), leading to a horizontal resolution ranging from 5.5 to 10 km. The regional wave configuration is used to dynamically downscale global wave simulations. The dynamical downscaling method allows the resolution of regional processes at a finer scale. The method consists of forcing the regional wave model at its lateral boundaries with wave spectra from the larger-scale wave model and at the surface with winds and surface currents from other suitable models (global climate model and 3D regional ocean model, Table 1). The models and simulations that provide these forc-

ings are described in Appendix A. The bathymetry used is a smoothed ETOPO1 ocean bathymetry (https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/etopo1-topography-and-bathymetry/, last access: 5 July 2023). The wave simulations are performed over the historical period (1970–2014) and the 21st century (2015–2100) under the SSP5–8.5 climate change scenario. Classical integrated wave parameters such as the significant wave height $H_s$ and the peak period $T_p$ are generated hourly.

## 2.3 Regional wave simulations with sea level variations: IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh

To measure the impact of sea level changes on waves in the IBI region, a twin configuration to IBI-CCS-WAV (Sect. 2.2) was set up to consider sea level variations as an additional forcing, namely IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh. For this purpose, MFWAM (Sect. 2.1) has been modified to include hourly sea level forcing coming from the same 3D regional ocean simulations as the surface currents. Hourly sea level forcing includes tides, storm surges, and mean sea level but also the non-linear interactions between these processes. In our ocean simulations, the mean sea level contains the stericodynamic sea level (thermal expansion and dynamic sea level as-

<footnote>* n.a. – not applicable</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** (a–d) The 99th percentile (based on hourly outputs) coastal significant wave height ($H_s$, in m) over the 1993–2014 period for (a) IBI-CCS-WAV for the domain and wave buoys for the circles; (b) differences between IBI-CCS-WAV and the reanalysis; (c) bias between IBI-CCS-WAV and wave buoys at buoys locations; (d) scatter plot at each wave buoy location of simulations IBI-CCS-WAV (red marks), IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh (yellow marks), and the reanalysis (blue marks) vs. observations. (e–h) The corresponding figures for the coastal peak period ($T_p$, in s); (i) must be interpreted with caution, as the observations are scarce. Note the different color bars in (a)–(c) and in (e)–(g). For (b) and (f), the domain is limited to the domain distributed by the Copernicus Marine Service, with a cut in the northern part. In (d) and (h), the thin dashed lines indicate the 20 % error margin. The RMSE is calculated as the root-mean-squared deviations from the line $y = x$ (spatial RMSE). Note that the color scales for the biases are larger than for Fig. 2.</figcaption></figure>

decrease in mean significant wave height and peak period in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 5). Projected changes in the mean peak period can reach a decrease of –0.5 s or –6 % in the southern domain in comparison to the historical period (Fig. 5c). For the mean significant wave height, projected changes are largest in the northwestern domain and can reach –30 cm or –10 % (Fig. 5a). Changes in wave height and peak period result from changes in the wave spectrum composed by different wave regimes (e.g., swells and wind waves). The large decrease in significant wave height is due to a general decline in wind speed forcing from the global climate model forcing (Table 1) over the domain and in the North Atlantic Ocean, inducing changes in both wind waves and swells in the domain (not shown). The decrease in wind speed under the SSP5–8.5 scenario is consistent with other CMIP6 models projections (Carvalho et al., 2021).

Projected changes in the extremes are spatially substantially different from those in the mean state, as reported in Morim et al. (2018). This is associated with different changes in the extreme wind speed forcing compared to those in the mean state (not shown). For example, a large decrease in extreme wind speed (Fig. A2b) and thus in significant wave height of more than 1 m or 12 % is located in the North Atlantic, south of 45 and north of 55° N (Fig. 5b). This is consistent with other studies (Aarnes et al., 2017; Meucci et al., 2021) in which the largest decrease in extreme significant wave height is also found in the southern domain. In the English Channel, Celtic Sea, and French Atlantic coasts, the model even exhibits an increase in extreme significant wave height that has not been reported in other studies. This increase is, however, consistent with projected changes in extreme wind speed shown in Fig. A2b for the English Channel for the forcing global climate model. Projected changes
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Directional distributions of significant wave height at star locations of Fig. 1a: North Atlantic buoy 6200093 (a–c), Belle-Ile buoy 6200074 (French Atlantic coast, (d, e)). First column represents the wave roses based on wave buoy data over the (a) 2003–2022 and (d) 2005–2022 periods. Second column (b, e) represents the roses for IBI-CCS-WAV over the 1993–2014 period, and last column (c) is for the reanalysis over the 1993–2014 period. Different periods are chosen for the wave buoys because of the lack of data for the wave direction over the 1993–2014 period. Wave roses at the North Atlantic buoy 6200093 location were computed using mean wave direction. Wave roses at the Belle-Ile buoy 6200074 location were computed using the wave direction at spectral peak, as this was the data provided by the wave buoy. However, this variable was not an output of the reanalysis. Colors indicate the wave height distribution in each direction bin.</figcaption></figure>

in the extreme peak period are moderate, as they generally represent a decrease of less than 2.5% (Fig. 5d).

### 3.2.2 Projected changes in wave roses

Projected changes in directional wave height distributions are presented on wave roses at the two locations validated in Sect. 3.1 (Fig. 6). The wave roses are decomposed into wind wave and primary swell contributions. The roses due to the primary swell contribution (Fig. 6b and d) are very close to those of Figure 4, showing that the primary swell is the main contributor to significant wave height in the Atlantic Ocean. At the end of the century, the wave rose at the Belle-Ile buoy exhibits a clockwise shift of 20° in the main direction of the wind wave, changing from a west-southwest to a west-northwest direction (Fig. 6c). In this zone, a clockwise shift in the wave direction has already been documented in Morim et al. (2019). This shift seems to come mainly from small waves with a significant wave height of less than 50 cm. For the primary swell at Belle-Ile, we observe a slight strengthening of the swell from the west direction associated with a

reduction of the wave components coming from the southwest (Fig. 6d). Projected changes are different for North Atlantic buoy, showing a slight strengthening of the wind wave heights in the southwest and west-southwest direction bins (Fig. 6a) and a larger strengthening (occurrence increased by 5%) of the primary swell heights in the west direction (Fig. 6b).

In summary, we observe a general decrease in mean and extreme significant wave height and peak period over the domain, as well as a clockwise mean wave direction change along the French Atlantic coasts. These projected changes are coherent with previous studies.

## 4 Results: impact of sea level changes on waves considered in the regional wave model

We now assess the methodological question of the impact on wave characteristics of considering hourly sea level variations in the regional wave model. For that purpose, the two simulations that do and do not account for the impact of
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Projected changes in mean (a, c) and coastal extreme 1-in-100-year (b, d) wave conditions for the 2081–2100 period (relative to 1986–2005) under the SSP5–8.5 climate scenario for (a, b) the significant wave height (ΔHs, in m) and (c, d) the peak period (ΔTp, in s).</figcaption></figure>

sea level changes on waves (IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh, respectively) are compared in terms of significant wave height and peak period for both the mean state and extreme events.

# 4.1 Impact for the entire coastal domain

## 4.1.1 Mean state

Except for a few locations, such as the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel or the mouth of some rivers in the United Kingdom, there is almost no impact of including sea level variations in the wave model on the mean state of waves conditions for the historical period (Fig. 7a, c). This suggests that there is

no strong non-linear effect of sea level on waves that would make a difference to the 20-year mean state for the majority of the coastal domain with our model settings.

At the end of the century, projected sea level changes in the regional ocean simulations used as forcing (Table 1, Sect. 2.3) are mainly dominated by the mean sea level rise (sterodynamic and barystatic sea level rise), with rather small changes in tides and storm surges (Chaigneau et al., 2022). This increase reaches approximately +80 cm in our region in 2100 compared to the 1986–2005 period under the SSP5–8.5 scenario. Therefore, since IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh are forced by the same winds and thus the same storms, Fig. 7 mainly shows the impact of mean sea level
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Projected changes (SSP5–8.5 scenario) in directional distribution of significant wave height for the 2081–2100 period (narrow-angle bins, dark colors) relative to 1986–2005 (wide-angle bins, pale colors) in IBI-CCS-WAV at star locations of Fig. 1a: North Atlantic buoy 6200093 (a, b) and Belle-Ile buoy 6200074 (c, d). The significant wave height and mean wave direction have been classified according to their origin: wind wave (a, c) and primary swell (b, d). Colors indicate wave height distribution in each direction bin.</figcaption></figure>

rise on the mean wave conditions. This long-term mean sea level rise has an overall small effect on the large continental shelf where shallow- and intermediate-water dynamics predominate (Fig. 1a). Future mean significant wave heights are up to +8% (+4 cm) higher in IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh than in IBI-CCS-WAV along the French Atlantic coasts and in the southern North Sea (Fig. 7b). This result is consistent with Arns et al. (2017), who showed that changes in water depth induced by sea level rise resulted in greater wave amplitudes near the coast. The impact of sea level on future mean peak periods is even smaller, with differences of up to +4% (or 0.05 s) (Fig. 7d). In the southern North Sea, projected changes in both significant wave height and peak period are small (< 10 cm, Fig. 5a). The small impact of the sea level changes on waves (+3 cm, +0.05 s) is therefore not negligible.

### 4.1.2 Extreme conditions: 1-in-100-year return level

Considering extreme events, the impact of sea level on significant wave heights over the historical period is substantially more important (Fig. 8a). The coastal points of the wide continental shelf are significantly impacted (southern North Sea, English Channel, seas around the United Kingdom, and French Atlantic coasts). This is particularly the case for macro-tidal locations (Fig. 1b) such as the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, the Bristol Channel, and the eastern Irish Sea. In these areas, the historical 1-in-100-year event of significant wave height is up to +30% (+40 cm) higher when considering sea level variations, mostly dominated by tidal variations, as discussed in Sect. 4.2. At the end of the century, the impact of including hourly sea level variations on the future 1-in-100-year level wave events is even larger, mostly due to the combined effect of the tides and mean sea level rise. Future extreme significant wave heights are increased by up to +40% or +60 cm (Fig. 8b). On the contrary, ex-
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Figure 7.** Mean state. Impact of the inclusion of hourly sea level variations in the wave model on the mean state of (a, b) significant wave height (ΔHs, in %) and (c, d) peak period (ΔTp, in %). (a, c) The relative differences of mean state between IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh and IBI-CCS-WAV for the 1986–2005 period. (b, d) The relative differences of mean state between IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh and IBI-CCS-WAV for the 2081–2100 period under the SSP5–8.5 scenario. Note that the color bars of Figs. 7 and 9 are not linear and are identical to facilitate the comparisons between the two figures.

treme peak periods are negligibly impacted by the non-linear
effect of sea level with waves (Fig. 8c, d).

## 4.2 Example of the impact on extreme events at two specific locations

The largest impact of including sea level variations in the
wave model is found during extreme events, as shown in
Fig. 8. We now focus on two specific French regions where
an impact has been identified in Fig. 8. In the Bay of Mont-
Saint-Michel, strong hourly sea level variations occur due to
the large tidal range in the region (10 m, Fig. 1b). For the
French Atlantic coast, the tidal range is large (4 m, Fig. 1b)
but smaller than in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Figure 8.** Extreme conditions. Impact of the inclusion of hourly sea level variations in the wave model on the 1-in-100-year return level of (a, b) significant wave height (ΔHs, in %) and (c, d) peak period (ΔTp, in %). (a, c) The relative differences of the 1-in-100-year return level between IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh and IBI-CCS-WAV for the 1986-2005 period. (b, d) The relative differences of the 1-in-100-year return level between IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh and IBI-CCS-WAV for the 2081-2100 period under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. The large diamonds represent the locations where the differences between both simulations are significant (i.e., where the confidence intervals associated with the 100-year return level calculation are disjointed). Note that the color bars of Figs. 7 and 9 are not linear and are identical to facilitate the comparisons between the two figures.

Time series of significant wave height and peak period dur-
ing an extreme-significant-wave-height event are shown in
Fig. 9. Note that, as the global climate model forcing is not
in phase with observation in terms of internal climate vari-
ability, the event selected cannot be compared directly to ob-
servations. Nevertheless, we have validated in Sect. 3.1 that
the amplitude of simulated extreme events was realistic. The
significant wave height time series from IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh
oscillate hourly, in phase with the tide, illustrating the con-
sideration of hourly sea levels in the regional wave model (Fig. 9a, b). In the case of the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, the largest significant wave height reached on the day of 25 October 1993 at high tide is 1 m higher (+30 %) in IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh than in IBI-CCS-WAV due to the large tidal range (Fig. 9a). As the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the IBI domain, the observed impact of sea level variations on waves corresponds to the upper limit with the parameters of our model. For the French Atlantic coast, in this specific case, the extreme event of significant wave height occurs at low tide during a medium neap tide, so the impact of hourly sea level variations on the extreme significant wave height is null. In both cases, it can be pointed out that the increase in wave height occurs at high tide. These results are in agreement with Lewis et al. (2019) and Calvino et al. (2022), who both showed a significant increase in wave height at high tide at a finer scale. In Calvino et al. (2022), this impact seems to be explained mainly by the effect of bottom friction, which is less important at high tide, as the water column is higher. In the case of Arns et al. (2017), waves are higher when sea level increases (e.g., at high tide) because they break closer to the shore. In our case, additional analyses would be needed to understand which process included in the model (Sect. 2.1) is the most responsible for the non-linear effect of sea level with significant wave height. In both IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh, diurnal variations of the peak period appear due to tidal current that shortens or lengthens the dominant wave period (Ardhuin et al., 2012), but the impact of sea level variations is almost null (Fig. 9c, d).

To better assess the impact of sea level variations on the extreme significant wave heights, return period curves are displayed in Fig. 10 for the two locations. The higher the return periods, the larger the impact of sea level changes on waves. For instance, in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, the 1-in-100-year return level of significant wave height is +60% larger when considering sea level variations in the wave model (Fig. 10a). At the end of the century, the differences between the two simulations are even larger and can reach +70%, mainly due to the mean sea level rise of about +80 cm under the SSP5–8.5 scenario. The curves also indicate that considering the interaction of sea level on waves modifies the shape of the return period curve, which may have important implications for the future amplifications of extreme events.

# 5 Discussion

## 5.1 Model limitations

The use of a single-forcing climate model does not allow us to quantify the uncertainties of the projected changes. Here, the focus of the study is not on providing a likely range of wave projected changes over the IBI domain, but

rather, the focus is process-oriented. In our study, the estimation of the impact of including hourly sea level variations in the wave model is limited by several resolution aspects. The first limitation is the horizontal resolution of the wave model. The model resolution of 1/10° (~10 km) is conditioned by the computational cost due to the length of the simulations needed to address the question of extremes on climate scales. It does not allow a very fine representation of the coastline and of the bathymetry in the coastal zones. Moreover, the regional ocean model (Table 1 and Appendix A) used for the surface currents and sea level forcing does not allow for dry areas. Therefore, a minimal bathymetry is set to 6 m to run the ocean model with tides (Chaigneau et al., 2022). We chose to apply the same minimal bathymetry of 6 m in the regional wave model to maintain consistency between both regional ocean and wave models. In fact, because it would have been unrealistic to have a bathymetry of 1 m within a 10 km grid point, the minimum bathymetry (6 m) also allows us to maintain a realistic balance between the 10 km horizontal resolution and the water depth. This results in fewer areas of shallow and intermediate water in the wave model and thus less of an effect of sea level variations on the waves. The implementation of wetting and drying (O'Dea et al., 2020), allowing for dry areas in NEMO version 4.2, should improve this limitation on the ocean model and therefore on the wave model. Another limitation is the resolution of the atmospheric forcing from the global climate model (Table 1). Given that winds are the major drivers of extreme-wave events in our study, even with a relatively high-resolution climate model forcing, the resolution of 50 km for the atmospheric drivers implies that generated waves are more representative of a large-scale forcing than of coastal processes.

For all these reasons, the estimates provided in this study only partially represent the processes responsible for the non-linear interaction of sea level with waves, and the results found in this study are not representative of any purely local situation at the coast but rather provide regional information. A second step of dynamical downscaling at higher resolution would be necessary to overcome such resolution limitations.

## 5.2 Impact of waves on sea level

The aim of the study was to better understand the non-linear interactions between waves and sea level. In the modeling framework of the paper, only the effect of sea level on waves is accounted for. However, both are coupled in reality, with waves impacting on sea level. For instance, Bonaduce et al. (2020) have studied the contribution of wave processes to sea level variability over the European Seas with ocean-wave coupled simulations at an eddy-resolving spatial resolution of 3.5 km. They highlighted the occurrence of mesoscale features of the ocean circulation and a modulation of the surge at the shelf break due to the effect of the wave forcing on sea level. More importantly, they also reported a large contribution of wave-induced processes to sea level extremes, which
ditions and therefore coastal flooding could be affected in areas where large changes in tides are projected, such as in the China Sea and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (Pickering et al., 2017; Haigh et al., 2020). Future extreme waves could also be significantly impacted in areas subject to large relative mean sea level rise, such as along the eastern coasts of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, where a rise of +1.4 m is expected by the end of the century under the SSP5–8.5 scenario (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021).

## 6 Conclusions

Several studies have shown that water depth changes can induce changes in the wave field at a fine spatial scale (Hoeke et al., 2015; Arns et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2019; Idier et al., 2019; Calvino et al., 2022). The aim of this paper was to characterize, at a larger scale, the sensitivity of historical and projected sea states to the sea level changes (tides, storm surges, and mean sea level changes) notably during extreme events. To address this question, a regional wave model has been adapted to include sea level variations over the northeastern Atlantic for the 1970–2100 period. This is one of the first studies assessing the impact of sea level changes on wave conditions at such a regional large scale.

First, the regional wave model is presented and validated over the 1993–2014 period. Comparisons to observations and a wave reanalysis show overall good performance of the model. Secondly, as we used a single-forcing climate model, projected regional changes in mean and extreme-wave conditions are compared to previous studies. They are shown to be representative of other published projections over the northeastern Atlantic region, with a general decrease in mean and extreme significant wave height and peak period under the SSP5–8.5 scenario.

The impact of including hourly sea level variations in the wave model is assessed over the historical period and for 21st century projections for the mean state and extremes of wind

wave characteristics. The impact on the mean state is found to be weak in general over the historical period and at the end of the 21st century. Over the northeastern Atlantic, mean sea level rise and, to a lesser extent, changes in tidal amplitudes and storm surges reach approximately +80 cm in 2100 compared to the 1986–2005 period for the SSP5–8.5 scenario. This increase leads to mean significant wave heights up to +3 cm (or +6%) higher along the French Atlantic coasts and in the southern North Sea by the end of the 21st century. The impact of sea level variations is substantially more important for extreme significant wave heights over the wide continental shelf, where shallow-water dynamics prevail, and particularly in large-tidal-range areas. For example, in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, where the tidal range is 10 m on average, extreme significant wave heights are found to be larger by 1 m (or +30%) during a historical extreme wave. Accounting for the combination of tides, storm surges, and sea level rise in the wave model also leads to higher values of 1-in-100-year significant wave heights, up to +40% at the end of the 21st century located in the Bay of Biscay, the North Sea, around United Kingdom, and Ireland. Moreover, as the regional wave model does not have a very fine representation of the bathymetry and of the coastline and does not include the feedback of waves on sea level, the estimates provided in this study only partially represent the processes responsible for the sea-level-wave non-linear interactions. Overall, the inclusion of water level variations in the wave model had almost no impact on the peak period.

In conclusion, our results advocate for the inclusion of sea-level-wave non-linear interactions in modeling studies of wave extremes at this resolution or higher, in particular when extreme significant wave heights are of interest. These non-linear interactions should be accounted for when threshold exceedances are calculated, for example in order to prevent coastal flooding or to build coastal protection structures in a climate change context.
## Appendix A: External forcings used to produce the regional wave simulations

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A1.** Sketch of the downscaling strategy explaining the links between the different simulations used in this study.</figcaption></figure>

### A1 Wave forcing from CNRM-HR-WAV global wave simulations

The regional wave simulations IBI-CCS-WAV and IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh described in Sect. 2.2 and 2.3 are forced at lateral boundaries by 3-hourly wave spectra information from CNRM-HR-WAV global wave simulations (Fig. A1, Table 1). CNRM-HR-WAV simulations are produced over the 1970–2100 period using the MFWAM wave model (Sect. 2.1) at a 1° resolution. These simulations are forced by 3-hourly surface winds (1/2°), monthly sea ice cover (1/4°), and daily ocean surface currents (1/4°) taken from the CMIP6 CNRM-CM6-1-HR global climate simulations (Voldoire et al., 2019; Saint-Martin et al., 2021). The historical simulation of CNRM-CM6-1-HR is used over the 1970–2014 period. Then, over the 2015–2100 period, the SSP5–8.5 climate change scenario simulations are used (O’Neill et al., 2016).

CNRM-HR-WAV simulations use 2 min gridded global topography data from ETOPO2/NOAA (NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, 2006). The model grid has a constant spacing in longitude but is compressed in latitude to maintain a constant resolution (Bidlot, 2012). A wave growth calibration was performed to adjust the mean significant wave height of CNRM-HR-WAV to the Copernicus Marine Service WAVERYS wave reanalysis (Law-Chune et al., 2021) over the IBI domain. The wave spectrum is discretized in 24 directions and 30 frequencies, starting from 0.035 up to 0.58 Hz. Classical integrated wave parameters such as significant wave height ($H_s$) or peak period ($T_p$) are output at every 3 h from CNRM-HR-WAV.

### A2 Atmospheric forcing from CNRM-CM6-1-HR global climate model

Regional wave projections are driven by the same 3-hourly surface winds as CNRM-HR-WAV (Sect. A1.1), produced by the CNRM-CM6-1-HR global climate model (Voldoire et al., 2019; Saint-Martin et al., 2021), which is part of the CMIP6 database. The use of a global climate model with a higher spatial resolution compared to the typical coarse resolutions of CMIP5 and 6 models was interesting for the atmosphere (1/2°) and notably for the intensity of the winds.

By driving our simulations with only one global climate model simulation, the aim of the study was not to characterize the uncertainties of wave projected changes over the IBI domain but rather to discuss the impact of the sea level changes on the downscaled projections. However, before using the winds to force the global and regional wave models, we verified that CNRM-CM6-1-HR was consistent with other CMIP6 global climate models, particularly in terms of extreme winds and their projections. A comparison of extreme winds (99th percentile) between CNRM-CM6-1-HR, some other CMIP6 global climate models, the atmospheric reanalysis ERA5 (Hersbach et al., 2020), and wind observations from wave buoys (Wehde et al., 2021) is performed at different locations in the IBI region (Fig. A2a). The three different locations considered (shown in Fig. 1) are chosen along storm trajectories in the northeastern Atlantic and North Sea (Lozano et al., 2004). Figure A2a shows that CNRM-CM6-1-HR is representative of an ensemble of 21 CMIP6 models over the historical period. In general, CNRM-CM6-1-HR also agrees with ERA5, which is the reference here. However, wave buoy observations seem to be significantly different from both the global climate models and ERA5, except in the North Sea. Figure A2b shows the projected changes for the extreme wind speed at the three lo-
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

**Figure A2.** (a) Extreme winds (99th percentile) for CNRM-CM6-1-HR (dark-red dot), 21 different CMIP6 global climate models (black box), the atmospheric reanalysis ERA5 (dark-red cross), and wind observations from wave buoys (yellow cross) at the three locations in the IBI region marked on Fig. 1a for the 1993–2014 period. The 2011–2022 period was chosen for the wave buoy in the North Sea, as it was the only period available. (b) Projected changes in extreme wind speed for CNRM-CM6-1-HR and 12 different CMIP6 climate models at the three locations marked on Fig. 1a under the SSP5-8.5 scenario (2081–2100 vs. 1986–2005). The selected CMIP6 climate models are those with 3-hourly atmospheric outputs. In (a) and (b), the purple line represents the median, the black box represents the interquartile range, and the whiskers represent the last model under or above 1.5 times the interquartile range. The black circles represent the outlier models, i.e., models outside 1.5 times the interquartile range. Units are in meters per second.

cations. Projected changes in extreme wind speed are quite small in all models and rather uncertain (large interquartile range). Projected changes are of the same sign for 7, 9, and 10 models out of 12 for the three boxes, respectively. In the English Channel and North Sea, CNRM-CM6-1-HR shows an increase in extreme wind speed, which is representative of the other CMIP6 models. In the North Atlantic, CNRM-CM6-1-HR exhibits a large decrease in extreme wind speed, which is in the high range (in absolute value) of CMIP6 models but still of the same sign as most models.

## A3 Ocean forcing from IBI-CCS regional ocean model

IBI-CCS-WAV regional wave projections are also forced by hourly surface current (and hourly sea level variations in the dedicated simulation IBI-CCS-WAV_ssh) of IBI-CCS, a 3D regional ocean model at a 1/12° horizontal resolution, it-self forced by the CNRM-CM6-1-HR global climate model. IBI-CCS was implemented in Chaigneau et al. (2022) to refine sea level projections of CNRM-CM6-1-HR over the northeastern Atlantic region through a dynamical downscal-ing. For a more complete representation of processes driving coastal sea level changes, tides and atmospheric surface pres-sure forcing are explicitly resolved in IBI-CCS in addition to the mean sea level (including ocean general circulation and dynamic sea level).
*Competing interests.* The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.

*Disclaimer.* Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

*Acknowledgements.* Analyses were carried out with Python. The authors thank Joanna Staneva for her advice and help in the implementation of the sea level forcing in the regional wave model.

*Financial support.* The PhD thesis of Alisée A. Chaigneau is supported by Mercator Ocean and Météo-France.

*Review statement.* This paper was edited by Joanne Williams and reviewed by two anonymous referees.

## References

Aarnes, O. J., Reistad, M., Breivik, Ø., Bitner-Gregersen, E., In-golf Eide, L., Gramstad, O., Magnusson, A. K., Natvig, B., and Vanem, E.: Projected changes in significant wave height toward the end of the 21st century: Northeast Atlantic: PROJECTED CHANGES IN WAVE HEIGHT, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 122, 3394–3403, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012521, 2017.

Alari, V.: Multi-Scale Wind Wave Modeling in the Baltic Sea, PhD thesis, 2013.

Almar, R., Ranasinghe, R., Bergsma, E. W. J., Diaz, H., Melet, A., Papa, F., Vousdoukas, M., Athanasiou, P., Dada, O., Almeida, L. P., and Kestenare, E.: A global analysis of extreme coastal water levels with implications for potential coastal overtopping, Nat. Commun., 12, 3775, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24008-9, 2021.

Aouf, L. and Lefèvre, J.-M.: On the Impact of the As-simulation of SARAL/AltiKa Wave Data in the Opera-tional Wave Model MFWAM, Mar. Geod., 38, 381–395, https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419.2014.1001050, 2015.

Arduin, F., Rogers, E., Babanin, A. V., Filipot, J.-F., Magne, R., Roland, A., Westhuysen, A. van der, Queffeulou, P., Lefèvre, J.-M., Aouf, L., and Collard, F.: Semiempirical Dissipation Source Functions for Ocean Waves. Part I: Definition, Cal-ibration, and Validation, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 40, 1917–1941, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JPO4324.1, 2010.

Arduin, F., Roland, A., Dumas, F., Bennis, A.-C., Sentchev, A., Forget, P., Wolf, J., Girard, F., Osuna, P., and Benoit, M.: Numer-ical Wave Modeling in Conditions with Strong Currents: Dissi-pation, Refraction, and Relative Wind, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 42, 2101–2120, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-11-0220.1, 2012.

Arns, A., Dangendorf, S., Jensen, J., Talke, S., Bender, J., and Pattiaratchi, C.: Sea-level rise induced amplification of coastal protection design heights, Sci. Rep., 7, 40171, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40171, 2017.

Battjes, J. A. and Janssen, J. P. F. M.: Energy loss and set-up due to breaking random waves, in: Proceedings of 16th Conference on Coastal Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 27 August–3 September, 569–587, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780872621909.034, 1978.

Bergsma, E. W. J., Almar, R., Anthony, E. J., Garlan, T., and Kestenare, E.: Wave variability along the world's con-tinental shelves and coasts: Monitoring opportunities from satellite Earth observation, Adv. Space Res., 69, 3236–3244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.02.047, 2022.

Bidlot, J.: Present status of wave forecasting at ECMWF, in: Workshop on Ocean Waves. ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2012/8234-present-status-wave-forecasting-ecmwf.pdf (last access: 11 July 2023), 2012.

Bidlot, J., Janssen, P., and Abdalla, S.: A revised formulation of ocean wave dissipation and its model impact, Technical report, 27, https://doi.org/10.21957/m97gmhqze, 2007.

Bonaduce, A., Staneva, J., Grayek, S., Bidlot, J.-R., and Breivik, Ø.: Sea-state contributions to sea-level variability in the European Seas, Ocean Dynam., 70, 1547–1569, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-020-01404-1, 2020.

Bruciaferri, D., Tonani, M., Lewis, H. W., Siddorn, J. R., Saulter, A., Castillo Sanchez, J. M., Valiente, N. G., Conley, D., Sykes, P., Ascione, I., and McConnell, N.: The Impact of Ocean-Wave Coupling on the Upper Ocean Circulation During Storm Events, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 126, e2021JC017343, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017343, 2021.

Calvino, C., Dabrowski, T., and Dias, F.: A study of the wave effects on the current circulation in Galway Bay, using the numerical model COAWST, Coast. Eng., 180, 104251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2022.104251, 2022.

Carvalho, D., Rocha, A., Costoya, X., deCastro, M., and Gómez-Gesteira, M.: Wind energy resource over Europe under CMIP6 future climate projections: What changes from CMIP5 to CMIP6, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 151, 111594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111594, 2021.

Casas-Prat, M., Wang, X. L., and Swart, N.: CMIP5-based global wave climate projections including the entire Arctic Ocean, Ocean Model., 123, 66–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.12.003, 2018.

Chaigneau, A. A., Reffray, G., Voldoire, A., and Melet, A.: IBI-CCS: a regional high-resolution model to simulate sea level in western Europe, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2035–2062, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2035-2022, 2022.

Chen, G., Chapron, B., Ezraty, R., and Vandemark, D.: A Global View of Swell and Wind Sea Climate in the Ocean by Satellite Altimeter and Scatterometer, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 19, 1849–1859, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019<1849:AGVOSA>2.0.CO;2, 2002.

Chini, N., Stansby, P., Leake, J., Wolf, J., Roberts-Jones, J., and Lowe, J.: The impact of sea level rise and climate change on inshore wave climate: A case study for East Anglia (UK), Coast. Eng., 57, 973–984, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.05.009, 2010.

Copernicus: Reanalysis data, Marine Data Store [data set], https://doi.org/10.48670/moi-00030, 2022a.

Copernicus: Observational data, Marine Data Store [data set], https://doi.org/10.13155/53381, 2022b.
Dodet, G., Bertin, X., Bouchette, F., Gravelle, M., Testut, L., and Wöppelmann, G.: Characterization of Sea-level Variations Along the Metropolitan Coasts of France: Waves, Tides, Storm Surges and Long-term Changes, J. Coast. Res., 88, 10–24, https://doi.org/10.2112/SI88-003.1, 2019.

ECMWF: IFS Documentation CY40R1, ECMWF, https://doi.org/10.21957/f56vvey1x, 2014.

ESGF: historical data, http://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip6-dkrz/?mip_era=35CMIP6&activity_id=CMIP&institution_id=CNRM-CERFACS&source_id=CNRM-CM6-1-HR&experiment_id=historical (last access: 11 July 2023), 2022a.

ESGF: piControl data, http://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip6-dkrz/?mip_era=CMIP6&activity_id=CMIP&institution_id=CNRM-CERFACS&source_id=CNRM-CM6-1-HR&experiment_id=piControl (last access: 11 July 2023), 2022b.

ESGF: ssp585 data, http://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip6-dkrz/?mip_era=CMIP6&activity_id=ScenarioMIP&institution_id=CNRM-CERFACS&source_id=CNRM-CM6-1-HR&experiment_id=ssp585 (last access: 11 July 2023), 2022c.

Fortunato, A. B., Oliveira, A., Rogeiro, J., Tavares da Costa, R., Gomes, J. L., Li, K., de Jesus, G., Freire, P., Rilo, A., Mendes, A., Rodrigues, M., and Azevedo, A.: Operational forecast framework applied to extreme sea levels at regional and local scales, J. Oper. Oceanogr., 10, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2016.1255471, 2017.

Fox-Kemper, B., Hewitt, H. T., Xiao, C., Aðalgeirsdóttir, G., Drifjhout, S. S., Edwards, T. L., Golledge, N. R., Hemer, M., Kopp, R. E., Krinner, G., Mix, A., Notz, D., Nowicki, S., Nurhati, I. S., Ruiz, L., Sallée, J.-B., Slangen, A. B. A., and Yu, Y.: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: MassonDelmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1211–1362, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.011, 2021.

García San Martín, L., Barrera, E., Toledano, C., Amo, A., Aouf, L., and Sotillo, M.: Product User Manual (CMEMS-IBI-PUM-005-006), available at: https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/PUM/CMEMS-IBI-PUM-005-006.pdf (last access: 16 December 2022), 2021.

Haigh, I. D., Pickering, M. D., Green, J. A. M., Arbic, B. K., Arns, A., Dangendorf, S., Hill, D. F., Horsburgh, K., Howard, T., Idier, D., Jay, D. A., Jänicke, L., Lee, S. B., Müller, M., Schindelegger, M., Talke, S. A., Wilmes, S.-B., and Woodworth, P. L.: The tides they are a-changin': A comprehensive review of past and future nonastronomical changes in tides, their driving mechanisms and future implications, Rev. Geophys., 57, e2018RG000636, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000636, 2020.

Hasselmann, S., Hasselmann, K., Allender, J. H., and Barnett, T. P.: Computations and parameterizations of the nonlinear energy transfer in a gravity-wave spectrum. Part II: Parameterizations of the nonlinear energy transfer for application in wave models, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 15, 1378–1391, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1985)015<1378:CAPOTN>2.0.CO;2, 1985.

Hemer, M. A., Fan, Y., Mori, N., Semedo, A., and Wang, X. L.: Projected changes in wave climate from a multi-model ensemble, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 471–476, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1791, 2013.

Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Fleming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.

Hoeke, R. K., McInnes, K. L., and O'Grady, J. G.: Wind and Wave Setup Contributions to Extreme Sea Levels at a Tropical High Island: A Stochastic Cyclone Simulation Study for Apia, Samoa, J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 3, 1117–1135, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse3031117, 2015.

Idier, D., Bertin, X., Thompson, P., and Pickering, M. D.: Interactions Between Mean Sea Level, Tide, Surge, Waves and Flooding: Mechanisms and Contributions to Sea Level Variations at the Coast. Surv. Geophys., 40, 1603–1630, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-019-09549-5, 2019.

Law-Chune, S., Aouf, L., Dalphinet, A., Levier, B., Drillet, Y., and Drevillon, M.: WAVERYS: a CMEMS global wave reanalysis during the altimetry period, Ocean Dynam., 71, 357–378, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-020-01433-w, 2021.

Levier, B., Lorente, P., Reffray, G., and Sotillo, M.: Quality Information Document (CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-002), https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/QUID/CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-002.pdf (last access: 16 December 2022), 2020.

Lewis, M. J., Palmer, T., Hashemi, R., Robins, P., Saulter, A., Brown, J., Lewis, H., and Neill, S.: Wave-tide interaction modulates nearshore wave height, Ocean Dynam., 69, 367–384, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-018-01245-z, 2019.

Lobeto, H., Menendez, M., and Losada, I. J.: Future behavior of wind wave extremes due to climate change, Sci. Rep., 11, 7869, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86524-4, 2021.

Longuet-Higgins, M. S. and Stewart, R. W.: Radiation stresses in water waves; a physical discussion, with applications, Deep Sea Research and Oceanographic Abstracts, 11, 529–562, https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-7471(64)90001-4, 1964.

Lozano, I., Devoy, R. J. N., May, W., and Andersen, U.: Storminess and vulnerability along the Atlantic coastlines of Europe: analysis of storm records and of a greenhouse gases induced climate scenario, Mar. Geol., 210, 205–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.05.026, 2004.

Masselink, G., Castelle, B., Scott, T., Dodet, G., Suanez, S., Jackson, D., and Floc'h, F.: Extreme wave activity during 2013/2014 winter and morphological impacts along the Atlantic coast of Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2135–2143, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067492, 2016.

McMichael, C., Dasgupta, S., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., and Kelman, I.: A review of estimating population exposure to sea-level rise and the relevance for migration, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 123005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb398, 2020.
Melet, A., Almar, R., Hemer, M., Cozannet, G. L., Meyssignac, B., and Ruggiero, P.: Contribution of Wave Setup to Projected Coastal Sea Level Changes, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 125, e2020JC016078, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JC016078, 2020a.

Melet, A., Teatini, P., Le Cozannet, G., Jamet, C., Conversi, A., Benveniste, J., and Almar, R.: Earth Observations for Monitoring Marine Coastal Hazards and Their Drivers, Surv. Geophys., 41, 1489–1534, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-020-09594-5, 2020b.

Mentaschi, L., Vousdoukas, M., Voukouvalas, E., Sartini, L., Feyen, L., Besio, G., and Alfieri, L.: The transformed-stationary approach: a generic and simplified methodology for non-stationary extreme value analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3527–3547, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3527-2016, 2016.

Meucci, A., Young, I. R., Hemer, M., Kirezci, E., and Ranasinghe, R.: Projected 21st century changes in extreme wind-wave events, Sci. Adv., 26, 24, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz7295, 2020.

Morim, J., Hemer, M., Cartwright, N., Strauss, D., and Andutta, F.: On the concordance of 21st century wind-wave climate projections, Glob. Planet. Change, 167, 160–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.05.005, 2018.

Morim, J., Hemer, M., Wang, X. L., Cartwright, N., Trenham, C., Semedo, A., Young, I., Bricheno, L., Camus, P., Casas-Prat, M., Erikson, L., Mentaschi, L., Mori, N., Shimura, T., Timmermans, B., Aarnes, O., Breivik, Ø., Behrens, A., Dobrynin, M., Menendez, M., Staneva, J., Wehner, M., Wolf, J., Kamranzad, B., Webb, A., Stopa, J., and Andutta, F.: Robustness and uncertainties in global multivariate wind-wave climate projections, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 711–718, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0542-5, 2019.

Morim, J., Vitousek, S., Hemer, M., Reguero, B., Erikson, L., Casas-Prat, M., Wang, X. L., Semedo, A., Mori, N., Shimura, T., Mentaschi, L., and Timmermans, B.: Global-scale changes to extreme ocean wave events due to anthropogenic warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 074056, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1013, 2021.

Morim, J., Wahl, T., Vitousek, S., Santamaria-Aguilar, S., Young, I., and Hemer, M.: Understanding uncertainties in contemporary and future extreme wave events for broad-scale impact and adaptation planning, Sci. Adv., 9, eade3170, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade3170, 2023.

Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., and Nicholls, R. J.: Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding – A Global Assessment, PLOS ONE, 10, e0118571, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571, 2015.

NOAA National Geophysical Data Center: 2-minute Grid-ded Global Relief Data (ETOP02) v2, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.7289/V5J1012Q, 2006.

O'Dea, E., Bell, M. J., Coward, A., and Holt, J.: Implementation and assessment of a flux limiter based wetting and drying scheme in NEMO, Ocean Model., 155, 101708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2020.101708, 2020.

O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (Sce-

narioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016.

Pickering, M. D., Horsburgh, K. J., Blundell, J. R., Hirschi, J. J.-M., Nicholls, R. J., Verlaan, M., and Wells, N. C.: The impact of future sea-level rise on the global tides, Cont. Shelf Res., 142, 50–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2017.02.004, 2017.

Ranasinghe, R.: Assessing climate change impacts on open sandy coasts: A review, Earth-Sci. Rev., 160, 320–332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.07.011, 2016.

Saint-Martin, D., Geoffroy, O., Voldoire, A., Cattiaux, J., Brient, F., Chauvin, F., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Douville, H., Guérémy, J.-F., Joetzjer, E., Ribes, A., Roehrig, R., Terray, L., and Valcke, S.: Tracking Changes in Climate Sensitivity in CNRM Climate Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 13, 6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ms002190, 2021.

Staneva, J., Grayek, S., Behrens, A., and Günther, H.: GCOAST: Skill assessments of coupling wave and circulation models (NEMO-WAM), J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1730, 012071, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1730/1/012071, 2021.

Stokes, K., Poate, T., Masselink, G., King, E., Saulter, A., and Ely, N.: Forecasting coastal overtopping at engineered and naturally defended coastlines, Coast. Eng., 164, 103827, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103827, 2021.

Toledano, C., García San Martín, L., Barrera Rodríguez, E., Dalphinet, A., Ghantous, M., Aouf, L., Lorente, P., de Alfonso, M., and García Sotillo, M.: Quality Information Document (CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-006), https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/QUID/CMEMS-IBI-QUID-005-006.pdf (last access: 16 December 2022), 2021.

The Wamdi Group: The WAM Model – A Third Generation Ocean Wave Prediction Model, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 18, 1775–1810, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018<1775:TWMTGO>2.0.CO;2, 1988.

Valiente, N. G., Masselink, G., Scott, T., Conley, D., and McCarroll, R. J.: Role of waves and tides on depth of closure and potential for headland bypassing, Mar. Geol., 407, 60–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2018.10.009, 2019.

Valiente, N. G., Saulter, A., Gomez, B., Bunney, C., Li, J.-G., Palmer, T., and Pequignet, C.: The Met Office operational wave forecasting system: the evolution of the regional and global models, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2515–2538, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2515-2023, 2023.

Viitak, M., Maljutenko, I., Alari, V., Suursaar, Ü., Rikka, S., and Lagemaa, P.: The impact of surface currents and sea level on the wave field evolution during St. Jude storm in the eastern Baltic Sea, Oceanologia, 58, 176–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2016.01.004, 2016.

Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical, Version YYYYMMDD[1], Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4067, 2019a.

Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP piControl, Version YYYYMMDD[1], Earth System Grid Federation [data set], https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4164, 2019b.

Voldoire, A.: CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-1-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585, Version
YYYYMMDD[1], Earth System Grid Federation [data set],
https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.422, 2019c.

Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J.-F., Michou, M., Moine, M.-P., Nabat, P., Roehrig, R., Mélia, D. S. Y., Séférian, R., Valcke, S., Beau, I., Belamari, S., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Cattiaux, J., Deshayes, J., Douville, H., Ethé, C., Franchistéguy, L., Geoffroy, O., Lévy, C., Madec, G., Meurdes-oif, Y., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E., Terray, L., and Waldman, R.: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM-CM6-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2177–2213, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683, 2019.

Wandres, M., Pattiaratchi, C., and Hemer, M. A.: Projected changes of the southwest Australian wave climate under two atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration pathways, Ocean Model., 117, 70–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.08.002, 2017.

Wehde, H., Schuckmann, K. V., Pouliquen, S., Grouazel, A., Bartolome, T., Tintore, J., De Alfonso Alonso-Munoyerro, M., Carval, T., Racapé, V., and the INSTAC team: Quality Information Document (CMEMS-INS-QUID-013-030-036), https://catalogue.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/QUID/CMEMS-INS-QUID-013-030-036.pdf (last access: 16 December 2022), 2021.

Wolff, C., Nikoletopoulos, T., Hinkel, J., and Vafeidis, A. T.: Future urban development exacerbates coastal exposure in the Mediterranean, Sci. Rep., 10, 14420, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70928-9, 2020.