Proceedings OCEANS
DOI: 10.1109/oceans.1989.587130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field Evaluation Of Real-Time XBT Systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To assess the potential impact of the XBT measurement errors on weekly to interannual estimates, a comparison is performed on the magnitude of the generated MOC and MHT errors with respect to the natural variability of these quantities. To accomplish this, we generate the XBT error parameters drawn from uniform distributions bounded by the manufacturer's tolerance for the measurement error values [ Wright and Szabados , ]. Thus, the measurement errors are randomly generated using the following range for the parameter settings: Z 0 = ±5 m, Z 1 = ±2% of depth, and T 0 = ± 0.15°C.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To assess the potential impact of the XBT measurement errors on weekly to interannual estimates, a comparison is performed on the magnitude of the generated MOC and MHT errors with respect to the natural variability of these quantities. To accomplish this, we generate the XBT error parameters drawn from uniform distributions bounded by the manufacturer's tolerance for the measurement error values [ Wright and Szabados , ]. Thus, the measurement errors are randomly generated using the following range for the parameter settings: Z 0 = ±5 m, Z 1 = ±2% of depth, and T 0 = ± 0.15°C.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…FRE errors, stated by the manufacturer as ±5 m or 2% of depth, whichever is greater, generate the largest uncertainty in XBT temperature measurements. In addition, temperature accuracy from XBT thermistors suffers from the influence of several factors, such as wire resistance imbalance, time response to thermal gradients, and static bath calibrations (see Reseghetti et al [2007] for a comprehensive analysis of error sources affecting XBT data accuracy), which produce an accuracy of ±0.15°C [e.g., Wright and Szabados, 1989] in comparison to ±0.001°C for conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) stations or ±0.005°C for Argo profiling floats. XBT data are increasingly being used in climate research, in which much greater measurement accuracy is required.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These measurements were collected throughout the world oceans during 1900-92 using a variety of instruments, including expendable bathythermographs (XBT); conductivity, temperature, and depth profilers; salinity, temperature, and depth profilers; bathythermographs; and mechanical bathythermographs. Corrections of the depth error associated with the drop rate problem for several kinds of XBTs (Barnes and Sessions 1984;Hanawa and Yoritaka 1987;Wright and Szabados 1989;Singer 1990;Hallock and Teague 1992) are made at NODC. Levitus and Boyer (1994) checked the profiles for unreasonable ship speed between measurements, temperature or density inversion, data duplication, as well as other unrealistic features in comparison to the climatological field and its seasonal standard deviations.…”
Section: B Observational Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, that of the T-7 was most frequently reviewed because of their popularity (Flierl and Robinson, 1977;Federov et al, 1978;Seaver and Kuleshov, 1982;Heinmiller et al, 1983;Green, 1984;Hanawa and Yoritaka, 1987;Roemmich and Cornuelle, 1987;Wright and Szabados, 1989;Singer, 1990;Hanawa and Yoshikawa, 1991;Biggs, 1992;Hallock and Teague, 1992;Hanawa and Yasuda, 1992;Narayan and Lilly, 1993;Thadathil et al, 1998Thadathil et al, , 2002Reseghetti et al, 2007). Most studies prior to the mid-1990s concluded that the original fall-rate coefficients by the Sippican (a = 6.472 and b = 0.00216) had systematic bias that caused underestimation of depth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%