## 5 Results and Discussion
### Validation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Land** & & **Shortwave** & **Longwave** & \\  & **Surface** & **PBL Scheme** & **Radiation** & **Radiation** & **References** \\  & **Scheme** & & **Scheme** & **Scheme** & **Reference** \\ \hline OPTM & Noah-MP & MYNN2 & RRTMG & RRTMG & - \\ EXP1 & Noah-MP & YSU & Dudhia & RRTM & [58] \\ EXP2 & Noah & YSU & Dudhia & RRTM & [62] \\ EXP3 & Noah & MYJ & Dudhia & RRTM & [18] \\ EXP4 & TD & MYJ & Dudhia & RRTM & [63] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: List of the experiments. The overestimation is partly caused by the uncertainty in the sub-grid surface roughness and its associated turbulence at low atmospheric levels [54]. In \(WD_{10m}\), OPTM showed good performance. In \(WS\) and \(WD\), OPTM and EXP1 showed good performance, and  
Figure 5: Comparison of the optimized vs. non-optimized experiments using the normalized RMSE for (**a**) all variables based on Equation (1), (**b**) surface variables based on Equation (2), and (**c**) winds at given vertical levels based on Equation (3), on 17 April 2018, 11 April 2020, and 15 April 2021, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**OPTM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**EXP1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**EXP2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**EXP3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**EXP4**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & **Bias** & **RMSE** & **PCC** & **Bias** & **RMSE** & **PCC** & **Bias** & **RMSE** & **PCC** & **Bias** & **RMSE** & **PCC** & **Bias** & **RMSE** & **PCC** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{_sfc_} & 20180417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & \multirow{5}{*}{\(-0.37\)} & \multirow{5}{*}{1.20} & 0.76 & \(-0.97\) & 1.48 & 0.78 & \(-1.21\) & 1.63 & 0.77 & \(-0.97\) & 1.47 & 0.77 & \(-1.20\) & 1.66 & 0.75 \\  & \(RH_{2m}(\%)\) & \(-5.68\) & 12.34 & 0.59 & \(-3.99\) & 13.02 & 0.56 & \(-4.90\) & 13.00 & 0.53 & \(-1.53\) & 11.37 & 0.58 & 1.44 & 11.99 & 0.58 \\  & \(WS_{10m}\) & 0.40 & 1.23 & 0.53 & 0.39 & 1.17 & 0.62 & 0.50 & 1.18 & 0.64 & 1.12 & 1.66 & 0.63 & 0.61 & 1.32 & 0.63 \\  & \(WD_{10m}\) (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 8.58 & 37.85 & 0.44 & 0.56 & 34.27 & 0.56 & 3.55 & 35.62 & 0.54 & 8.39 & 33.19 & 0.55 & 1.15 & 31.48 & 0.57 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{_vcr_} & \(WS\) (m/s) & \(-2.07\) & 2.82 & 0.20 & \(-2.17\) & 2.92 & 0.12 & \(-2.20\) & 2.92 & 0.16 & \(-1.97\) & 2.82 & 0.13 & \(-2.04\) & 2.88 & 0.19 \\  & \(WD\) (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-1.67\) & 80.39 & 0.50 & \(-13.83\) & 82.91 & 0.37 & \(-0.31\) & 86.78 & 0.49 & 0.38 & 90.07 & 0.32 & 4.5 & 88.64 & 0.14 \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{_sfc_} & 20204411 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020411 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020411 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} & 2020417 & \multirow{5}{*}{\(r\)\%c} \\  & \(TB_{2m}(\%)\) & \(-2.50\) & 11.69 & 0.36 & \(-1.46\) & 12.71 & 0.34 & \(-0.09\) & 11.24 & 0.34 & 1.30 & 12.83 & 0.25 & 7.81 & 15.82 & 0.22 \\  & \(WS_{10m}\) & 0.52 & 1.58 & 0.25 & 0.39 & 1.54 & 0.22 & 0.49 & 1.62 & 0.23 OPTM performance was better in \(WD\). The [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to identify the correlation between simulation and observation for each meteorological variable. Generally, a value of PCC greater than 0.7 is considered a strong correlation, and anything less than 0.4 is considered a weak or no correlation. In most experiments of the three cases, \(T_{2m}\) showed a strong correlation greater than 0.7. However, all experiments showed weak correlations less than 0.4 in \(RH_{2m}\), \(WS_{10m}\), and \(WD_{10m}\) on 11 April 2020. The \(WS\) showed a weak negative correlation in all experiments on 15 April 2021. Overall, OPTM indicated good performance results in most sea breeze cases for \(T_{2m}\), \(RH_{2m}\), \(WD_{10m}\), and \(WD\).