4.7 Article

Monsoon effects in the Bay of Bengal inferred from profiling float-based measurements of wind speed and rainfall

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 2080-2093

出版社

AMER SOC LIMNOLOGY OCEANOGRAPHY
DOI: 10.4319/lo.2008.53.5_part_2.2080

关键词

-

资金

  1. U. S. Office of Naval Research [ONR NOOO14-03-1-0446]
  2. University of Washington and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration [NA17RJ1232]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both rainfall and wind have acoustic signatures that can be discerned at depths in the ocean well below the sea surface. We examine observations of rainfall and wind speed collected at a depth of 600 m in the Bay of Bengal from a specially modified Argo profiling float. In addition to the normal Argo sensors, the float carried a passive acoustic listener sensor package that monitored the spectrum of acoustic noise along the float trajectory at intervals of a few minutes and used a set of existing algorithms to estimate the wind speed and rainfall rate from these noise spectra. A comparison of the acoustically derived wind speed and rainfall estimates with analogous satellite-derived data (rainfall from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission and QwikScat winds) showed general agreement in both cases, although the float-based measurements were representative of conditions a few kilometers around the float, whereas the remotely sensed observations were smoothed over much larger length scales. The strong monsoon signal in the Bay of Bengal is clearly present in the float-based wind and rainfall data. The near-surface salinity measured by the float varied because of both rainfall events and the proximity to strong coastal runoff from major rivers. The float profiles of temperature and salinity in the upper ocean, and the effects of wind and rainfall, were simulated in a version of the Price-Weller-Pinkel mixed-layer model, which showed that the direct effects of most rainfall events are concentrated in the upper 20-30 m of the water column.

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

4.7
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