4.3 Article

Accuracy of 10 m winds from satellites and NWP products near land-sea boundaries

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 113, 期 C10, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2007JC004516

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research (ONR)
  2. Global Remote Littoral Forcing via DeepWater Pathways
  3. HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model and Advanced Data Assimilation
  4. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through a comprehensive analysis, reliability of 10 m wind speeds is presented near the land-sea boundaries over the global ocean. Winds from three numerical weather prediction (NWP) centers and two satellite-based products are analyzed. NWP products are 1.875 degrees x 1.875 degrees National Center Environmental Prediction reanalyses, 1.125 degrees x 1.125 degrees European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts 40-year Reanalysis (ERA-40), and 1.0 degrees x 1.0 degrees Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS) operational product. These are compared to much finer resolution (0.25 degrees x 0.25 degrees) satellite winds, Quick Scatterometer (QSCAT) and Special Sensor Microwave/Imager. Large biases (e. g., >3 m s(-1)) may exist in NWP products near the land-sea boundaries, because wind speeds from the uniformly gridded global fields are generally at a spatial scale too coarse to appropriately define the contrast between water and land grid points. This so-called land contamination of ocean-only winds varies, and typically depends on the extent of the land-sea mask. A creeping sea-fill methodology is introduced to reduce errors in winds. It is based on the elimination of land-corrupted NWP grid points and replacement by adjacent, purely over-ocean values. In comparison to winds from many moored buoys, the methodology diminishes RMS errors (from >4 m s(-1) to <1 m s(-1)) for NOGAPS and ERA-40. The creeping sea-fill is not advised for NCEP winds which have low contrast between land and sea points, thereby resulting in little impact from the land contamination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据