4.3 Article

Accuracy of Wind Observations from Open-Ocean Buoys: Correction for Flow Distortion

Journal

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 687-703

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0132.1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA [NNX14AM71G, NNX11AE84G, NNX15AG20G, 80NSSC18K1494]
  2. NOAA's Climate Program Office's Ocean Observing and Monitoring Division
  3. Cooperative Institute for the North Atlantic Region (CINAR) [NA14OAR4320158]
  4. NOAA Climate Program Office (CPO) [100007298]
  5. NASA [NNX14AM71G, 804281, NNX15AG20G, 679083, NNX11AE84G, 147275] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The comparison of equivalent neutral winds obtained from (i) four WHOI buoys in the subtropics and (ii) scatterometer estimates at those locations reveals a root-mean-square (RMS) difference of 0.56-0.76 m s(-1). To investigate this RMS difference, different buoy wind error sources were examined. These buoys are particularly well suited to examine two important sources of buoy wind errors because 1) redundant anemometers and a comparison with numerical flow simulations allow us to quantitatively assess flow distortion errors, and 2) 1-min sampling at the buoys allows us to examine the sensitivity of buoy temporal sampling/averaging in the buoy-scatterometer comparisons. The interanemometer difference varies as a function of wind direction relative to the buoy wind vane and is consistent with the effects of flow distortion expected based on numerical flow simulations. Comparison between the anemometers and scatterometer winds supports the interpretation that the interanemometer disagreement, which can be up to 5% of the wind speed, is due to flow distortion. These insights motivate an empirical correction to the individual anemometer records and subsequent comparison with scatterometer estimates show good agreement.

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