## 4 Results
### Significant Wave Height Results from SWAN  
The wind field data at a height of 10 m from the empirical parameterized typhoon models Holland and Jelesnianski, as well as from WRF simulations driven by FNL and ERA5, were used as the input wind fields for the SWAN model. The significant wave height data within the simulation domain were then output. Figure 12 presents a comparison of the significant wave height simulations in Typhoon Surigae. From the figure, it is evident that, except for the ERA5-driven WRF simulation, the extreme values of the significant wave height reached 16 m. However, the range of extremely significant wave height values from the empirical parameterized typhoon models, Holland and Jelesnianski, was higher than that from the FNL-driven WRF simulation, which is consistent with the earlier wind field comparison. Figure 11: Comparison of Typhoon Nepartak Intensity Simulations. **(a)** shows the comparison of extreme wind speeds, **(b)** shows the minimum surface pressure. The black line represents the WRF simulation driven by FNL, the blue line represents the WRF simulation driven by ERA5, the green line corresponds to the empirical parameterized typhoon model Holland, the yellow line corresponds to the empirical parameterized typhoon model Jelesnianski, the purple dots represent the maximum wind speed data recorded by CMA, and the red triangles represent the maximum wind speed data from SMAP. A reference point was then selected to extract the time series of significant wave height at this location. Figure 13 shows the location of the reference point near the coast, and the time series of significant wave height at this point. As shown in Figure 13, between 00:00 on 13 April 2021, and 00:00 on 18 April 2021, the significant wave height simulations are relatively consistent across all cases except for the Jelesnianski model. This can be attributed to the smaller radius of maximum wind speed in the Jelesnianski model compared to the Holland model, as observed in the previous wind field comparisons. Since the reference point is located farther from the typhoon's center, the wind field simulated by the Jelesnianski model at this location is weaker. Between 00:00 on 18 April 2021, and 00:00 on 19 April 2021, the maximum significant wave height exceeded 8 m in simulations using the FNL-driven WRF model and the Holland model, whereas it remained below 8 m in cases driven by ERA5 and the Jelesnianski model. This difference is likely due to the lower typhoon wind speeds produced by the ERA5-driven WRF simulation compared to the FNL-driven WRF simulation. Additionally, since the reference point is far from the typhoon's center, the WRF model's advantage in simulating peripheral wind fields becomes predominant. Consequently, the significant wave height simulated using FNL-driven WRF surpasses that of the Jelesnianski model. Figure 14 shows the significant wave height output from SWAN for Typhoon Nepartak. The distribution of significant wave height from the empirical parameterized typhoon models, Holland and Jelesnianski, differs significantly. The high-value range of significant wave height simulated by the Holland model is larger compared to the Jelesnianski model. This discrepancy is related to the radius of maximum wind speed of the typhoon. From the  
Figure 12: Comparison of Significant Wave Height Simulations in Typhoon Surigae. (**a**) shows the WRF simulation driven by FNL, (**b**) shows the WRF simulation driven by ERA5, (**c**) shows the empirical parameterized typhoon model Holland, and (**d**) shows the empirical parameterized typhoon model Jelesnianski. wind speed comparison in Figure 8, it is evident that the radius of maximum wind speed simulated by Jelesnianski is smaller than that of the Holland model, which contributes to the difference in significant wave height distribution. For the WRF simulations, the wind speeds simulated using ERA5 are lower than those simulated using FNL.