|Home||<< 1 2 >>|
|Ali, M. M., Bhat, G. S., Long, D. G., Bharadwaj, S., & Bourassa, M. A. (2013). Estimating Wind Stress at the Ocean Surface From Scatterometer Observations. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sensing Lett., 10(5), 1129–1132.|
|Bentamy, A., Piollé, J. F., Grouazel, A., Danielson, R., Gulev, S., Paul, F., et al. (2017). Review and assessment of latent and sensible heat flux accuracy over the global oceans. Remote Sensing of Environment, 201, 196–218.|
|Bourassa, M. A., & Weissman, D. E. (2003). The development and application of a sea surface stress model function for the QuikSCAT and ADEOS-II SeaWinds scatterometers. In IEEE International Symposium on Geoscience and Remote Sensing (IGARSS) (pp. 239–241).|
Bourassa, M. A., and P.J. Hughes. (2018). Surface Heat Fluxes and Wind Remote Sensing. In and J. Verron J. Tintoré A. Pascual E. P. Chassignet (Ed.), (pp. 245–270). Tallahassee, FL: GODAE OceanView.
Abstract: The exchange of heat and momentum through the air-sea surface are critical aspects of ocean forcing and ocean modeling. Over most of the global oceans, there are few in situ observations that can be used to estimate these fluxes. This chapter provides background on the calculation and application of air-sea fluxes, as well as the use of remote sensing to calculate these fluxes. Wind variability makes a large contribution to variability in surface fluxes, and the remote sensing of winds is relatively mature compared to the air sea differences in temperature and humidity, which are the other key variables. Therefore, the remote sensing of wind is presented in greater detail. These details enable the reader to understand how the improper use of satellite winds can result in regional and seasonal biases in fluxes, and how to calculate fluxes in a manner that removes these biases. Examples are given of high-resolution applications of fluxes, which are used to indicate the strengths and weakness of satellite-based calculations of ocean surface fluxes.
Keywords: HEAT; OCEAN SURFACE; WINDS; SCATTEROMETERS; FLUXE; STRESS; RESPONSES
|Chakraborty, A., Sharma, R., Kumar, R., & Basu, S. (2014). An OGCM assessment of blended OSCAT winds. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 119(1), 173–186.|
|Dukhovskoy, D., & Bourassa, M. (2011). Comparison of ocean surface wind products in the perspective of ocean modeling of the Nordic Seas. In OCEANS 2011.|
Ford, K. M. (2008). Uncertainty in Scatterometer-Derived Vorticity. Master's thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Abstract: A more versatile and robust technique is developed for determining area averaged surface vorticity based on vector winds from the SeaWinds scatterometer on the QuikSCAT satellite. This improved technique is discussed in detail and compared to two previous studies by Sharp et al. (2002) and Gierach et al. (2007) that focused on early development of tropical systems. The error characteristics of the technique are examined in detail. Specifically, three independent sources of error are explored: random observational error, truncation error and representation error. Observational errors are due to random errors in the wind observations, and determined as a worst-case estimate as a function of averaging spatial scale. The observational uncertainty in vorticity averaged for a roughly circular shape with a 100 km diameter, expressed as one standard deviation, is approximately 0.5 x 10 -5 s-1 for the methodology described herein. Truncation error is associated with the assumption of linear changes between wind vectors. For accurate results, it must be estimated on a case-by-case basis. An attempt is made to determine a lower bound of truncation errors through the use of composites of tropical disturbances. This lower bound is calculated as 10-7 s-1 for the composites, which is relatively small compared to the tropical disturbance detection threshold set at 5 x 10-5 s-1, used in an earlier study. However, in more realistic conditions, uncertainty related to truncation errors is much larger than observational uncertainty. The third type of error discussed is due to the size of the area being averaged. If the wind vectors associated with a vorticity maximum are inside the perimeter of this area (away from the edges), it will be missed. This type of error is analogous to over-smoothing. Tropical and sub-tropical low pressure systems from three months of QuikSCAT observations are used to examine this error. This error results in a bias of approximately 1.5 x 10-5 s-1 for area averaged vorticity calculated on a 100 km scale compared to vorticity calculated on a 25 km scale. The discussion of these errors will benefit future projects of this nature as well as future satellite missions.
|Hilburn, K. A. (2003). Development of scatterometer-derived surface pressures for the Southern Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 108(C7).|
|Holbach, H. M., & Bourassa, M. A. (2017). Platform and Across-Swath Comparison of Vorticity Spectra From QuikSCAT, ASCAT-A, OSCAT, and ASCAT-B Scatterometers. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Observations Remote Sensing, 10(5), 2205–2213.|
Paget, A. C., Bourassa, M. A., & Anguelova, M. D. (2015). Comparing in situ and satellite-based parameterizations of oceanic whitecaps. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 120(4), 2826–2843.
Keywords: whitecap fraction; foam fraction; whitecap coverage; breaking waves; actively breaking waves; air-sea interaction processes; in situ whitecap observations scatterometers; QuikSCAT; WindSat; microwave radiometry; passive remote sensing; satellite oceanography