2000
DOI: 10.1029/1999gl011133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct observations of skin‐bulk SST variability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
37
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(4 reference statements)
5
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For wind speeds up to 12 m s Ϫ1 , the numbers of points per bin are sufficient to make statistically significant statements about variation of the SST residual against wind speed. For the range 3-12 m s Ϫ1 the mean residuals are, to within the standard errors, constant against wind speed at Ϫ0.23 K. For the Ͻ3 m s Ϫ1 range the residual is 0.12 K cooler at Ϫ0.35 K. This is a modest difference, but it is statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, it is geophysically plausible, and it matches the results observed in completely independent data (Murray et al 2000). We therefore cautiously attribute this cooling at low wind speed to thickening of the skin layer.…”
Section: Filtering With Respect To Wind Speedsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For wind speeds up to 12 m s Ϫ1 , the numbers of points per bin are sufficient to make statistically significant statements about variation of the SST residual against wind speed. For the range 3-12 m s Ϫ1 the mean residuals are, to within the standard errors, constant against wind speed at Ϫ0.23 K. For the Ͻ3 m s Ϫ1 range the residual is 0.12 K cooler at Ϫ0.35 K. This is a modest difference, but it is statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, it is geophysically plausible, and it matches the results observed in completely independent data (Murray et al 2000). We therefore cautiously attribute this cooling at low wind speed to thickening of the skin layer.…”
Section: Filtering With Respect To Wind Speedsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…There may also be diurnal warm-layer effect (Fairall et al 1996) causing temperature stratification in the upper meters of the ocean, as a result of near-surface heating by solar irradiance during daytime. These differences are detectable in comparisons of accurate satellite SSTs and high quality in situ measurements (Murray et al 2000).…”
Section: Offset Adjustment: General Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…During periods of low wind speeds (weak wind condition; < 6 m/s), there are significant skin deviations. If wind is strong (> 6 m/s), the SST can be corrected by considering the bias (skin-subsurface) of 0.17 K. If wind speed is low, however, the deviation between skin and sub-skin is much larger, up to 1.5 K with high solar radiation (Donlon et al 1999(Donlon et al , 2002Barton 2001;Murray et al 2000). During the observation periods in 2008, there were low wind speeds (therefore, a lower mixing effect) on several days.…”
Section: Ngsst-o Vs In-situ Sstsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…These corrections are still subject to active research. For example, using almost 6000 skin and bulk temperature measurements collected over four-year period Murray et al (2000) found the mean skin-bulk SST difference of -0.2±0.46K at night, and +0.05±0.51K during daytime; for the low wind conditions (prevailing in summer months over the Adriatic Sea) Murray et al found the mean skin-bulk daytime difference of approximately 0.8 K. On the other hand, Donlon and Robinson (1998) report less than 0.05K in situ skin-bulk temperature difference ascribing it to the high wind speeds that dominate their dataset. In an effort to avoid introduction of two more still researched models, which themselves require additional data and introduce their own uncertainties, we have kept the ERA40 solutions uncorrected, and focused more on the scatter in residuals.…”
Section: Such An Error Exhibits Regional and Seasonal Variability (O'mentioning
confidence: 99%