Reconciling Discrepancies Between Airborne and Buoy-Based Measurements of Wind Stress Over Mixed Seas
In a previous study it was found that airborne and buoy-based measurements of wind stress made in the Gulf of Tehuantepc, México failed to agree. Here we revisit the issue and analyze data from both platforms in the context of flux-sampling strategies and find that there is now good agreement between wind-stress estimates from both experiments. The sampling strategies used for airborne and buoy-based sampling capture most of the contributing scales to the momentum flux and, correspondingly, the systematic errors for both stress estimates are low. On the other hand, the random error is much larger for the airborne measurements as compared with that for the buoy-based estimates. Increasing the averaging period for the aircraft-based estimates reduces the random error and brings the stress estimates into a better agreement with those from the buoy data. Since there is a good agreement between stress estimates, the apparent underestimation found earlier seems to be coincidental and caused by the interpolation method employed by the source paper.
KeywordsAirborne measurements Eddy covariance Sampling errors Wind stress
- Donelan MA (1990) Air–sea interaction. In: LeMehaute B, Hanes DM (eds) The sea, ocean engineering science, vol 9. Wiley, London, pp 239–292Google Scholar
- Garratt JR (1992) The atmospheric boundary layer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 316Google Scholar
- Kundu PK (1990) Fluid mechanics. Academic Press, London, p 638Google Scholar
- Ocampo-Torres FJ, García-Nava H, Durazo R, Osuna P, Méndez GM, Graber HC (2011) The IntOA experiment: a study of ocean–atmosphere interactions under moderate to strong offshore winds and opposing swell conditions in the Gulf of Tehuantepec, México. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 138:433–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Panofsky HA, Dutton JA (1984) Atmospheric turbulence. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, p 397Google Scholar