4.3 Article

Air-sea stability effects on the 10 m winds over the global ocean: Evaluations of air-sea flux algorithms

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
Volume 113, Issue C4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2007JC004324

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spatial and temporal variability of the impact of air-sea stratification on the differences between satellite-derived 10 m equivalent neutral wind speeds and stability-dependent (e. g., in situ) 10 m wind speeds are quantitatively examined over the global ocean. The influences of stability are compared with three air-sea flux algorithms, Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response Experiment (version 3.0), Bourassa-Vincent-Wood, and Liu-Katsaros-Businger. Analyses are first presented at many individual buoy locations and then are extended to the global ocean with the use of rain-free wind measurements from the SeaWinds scatterometer on the QuikSCAT satellite, gridded at a resolution of 0.25 degrees x 0.25 degrees. Overall, stability-dependent winds are found to be weaker than equivalent neutral winds by 0.2 m s(-1) on the basis of 7619 monthly mean values from 208 buoys during 2000-2005. Differences based on hourly winds can be as large as +/- 0.5 m s(-1). Results remain robust regardless of which air-sea flux algorithm is used. Monthly rain-free gridded QuikSCAT measurements, combined with atmospheric stability determined using near-surface variables from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts 40-year reanalysis, demonstrate the effects of stratification on the 10 m winds globally. Differences in stability-dependent and neutral winds are substantially nonsymmetrical and reveal locations where the former is stronger than the latter. These differences may cause physically significant biases in air-sea fluxes if they are not properly considered, especially near the Kuroshio and Gulf Stream current systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available