4.7 Article

On the Value of Early Marine Weather Observations the Malaspina Expedition (1789-94)

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 103, Issue 7, Pages E1684-E1695

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0051.1

Keywords

North America; Pacific Ocean; South America; Databases; Ship observations; History

Funding

  1. Economy and Infrastructure Counselling of the Junta of Extremadura
  2. (European Regional Development Fund)
  3. [GR18097]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Great advances were made in meteorological science in the late eighteenth century, particularly in the field of marine weather observations. The Malaspina expedition carried out systematic meteorological readings during their journey, which have now been digitized and analyzed for consistency and quality.
Great advances in meteorological science were made in the late eighteenth century. In particular, meteorological instruments were carried on ships and the first systematic meteorological readings over the oceans were made. One of these collections of instrumental meteorological readings was carried out by the Malaspina expedition (1789-94), organized by the Spanish Crown to study its vast possessions around the world. We have recovered meteorological variables such as air temperature (maximum and minimum), atmospheric pressure (maximum and minimum), wind (intensity and direction), and appearance (state of the sky) from the documentation generated by the explorers during the journey. In total, nearly 13,000 instrumental data have been digitized and rescued from this maritime expedition. The comparison of daily temperature and pressure observations with reanalysis and weather stations data shows a good overall agreement. Moreover, apparent discrepancies during several anchored periods have allowed for testing the consistency and quality of these early instrumental marine weather readings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available