Satellite observations of sea surface salinity (SSS) have been validated in a number of instances using different forms of in situ data, including Argo floats, moorings and gridded in situ products. Since one of the most energetic time scales of variability of SSS is seasonal, it is important to know if satellites and gridded in situ products are observing the seasonal variability correctly. In this study we validate the seasonal SSS from satellite and gridded in situ products using observations from moorings in the global tropical moored buoy array. We utilize six different satellite products, and two different gridded in situ products. For each product we have computed seasonal harmonics, including amplitude, phase and fraction of variance (R2). These quantities are mapped for each product and for the moorings. We also do comparisons of amplitude, phase and R2 between moorings and all the satellite and gridded in situ products. Taking the mooring observations as ground truth, we find general good agreement between them and the satellite and gridded in situ products, with near zero bias in phase and amplitude and small root mean square differences. Tables are presented with these quantities for each product quantifying the degree of agreement.

Sea surface salinity (SSS) satellite measurements are validated using in situ observations usually made by surfacing Argo floats. Validation statistics are computed using matched values of SSS from satellites and floats. This study explores how the matchup process is done using a high-resolution numerical ocean model, the MITgcm. One year of model output is sampled as if the Aquarius and Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellites flew over it and Argo floats popped up into it. Statistical measures of mismatch between satellite and float are computed, RMS difference (RMSD) and bias. The bias is small, less than 0.002 in absolute value, but negative with float values being greater than satellites. RMSD is computed using an “all salinity difference” method that averages level 2 satellite observations within a given time and space window for comparison with Argo floats. RMSD values range from 0.08 to 0.18 depending on the space–time window and the satellite. This range gives an estimate of the representation error inherent in comparing single point Argo floats to area-average satellite values. The study has implications for future SSS satellite missions and the need to specify how errors are computed to gauge the total accuracy of retrieved SSS values.

In this work, we present results from the largest study of measured, whole-building energy performance for commercial LEED-certified buildings, using 2016 energy use data that were obtained for 4417 commercial office buildings (114 million m2) from municipal energy benchmarking disclosures for 10 major U.S. cities. The properties included 551 buildings (31 million m2) that we identified as LEED-certified. Annual energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission were compared between LEED and non-LEED offices on a city-by-city basis and in aggregate. In aggregate, LEED offices demonstrated 11% site energy savings but only 7% savings in source energy and GHG emission. LEED offices saved 26% in non-electric energy but demonstrated no significant savings in electric energy. LEED savings in GHG and source energy increased to 10% when compared with newer, non-LEED offices. We also compared the measured energy savings for individual buildings with their projected savings, as determined by LEED points awarded for energy optimization. This analysis uncovered minimal correlation, i.e., an R2 < 1% for New Construction (NC) and Core and Shell (CS), and 8% for Existing Euildings (EB). The total measured site energy savings for LEED-NC and LEED-CS was 11% lower than projected while the total measured source energy savings for LEED-EB was 81% lower than projected. Only LEED offices certified at the gold level demonstrated statistically significant savings in source energy and greenhouse gas emissions as compared with non-LEED offices.

Subfootprint variability (SFV) is variability at a spatial scale smaller than the footprint of a satellite, and it cannot be resolved by satellite observations. It is important to quantify and understand, as it contributes to the error budget for satellite data. The purpose of this study was to estimate the SFV for sea surface salinity (SSS) satellite observations. This was performed by using a high-resolution numerical model, a 1/48° version of the MITgcm simulation, from which one year of output has recently become available. SFV, defined as the weighted standard deviation of SSS within the satellite footprint, was computed from the model for a 2° × 2° grid of points for the one model year. We present maps of median SFV for 40 and 100 km footprint size, display histograms of its distribution for a range of footprint sizes and quantify its seasonality. At a 100 km (40 km) footprint size, SFV has a mode of 0.06 (0.04). It is found to vary strongly by location and season. It has larger values in western-boundary and eastern-equatorial regions, as well as in a few other areas. SFV has strong variability throughout the year, with the largest values generally being in the fall season. We also quantified the representation error, the degree of mismatch between random samples within a footprint and the footprint average. Our estimates of SFV and representation error can be used in understanding errors in the satellite observation of SSS.

Abstract. Using data from the Global Tropical Moored Buoy Array we study the validation process for satellite measurement of sea surface salinity (SSS). We compute short-term variability (STV) of SSS, variability on time scales of 5–14 days. It is meant to be a proxy for subfootprint variability as seen by a satellite measuring SSS. We also compute representation error, which is meant to mimic the SSS satellite validation process where footprint averages are compared to pointwise in situ values. We present maps of these quantities over the tropical array. We also look at seasonality in the variability of SSS and find which months have maximum and minimum amounts. STV is driven at least partly by rainfall. Moorings exhibit larger STV during rainy periods than non-rainy ones. The same computations are also done using output from a high-resolution global ocean model to see how it might be used to study the validation process. The model gives good estimates of STV, in line with the moorings, though tending to have smaller values.