Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 574

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Scatterometer data interpretation: Estimation and validation of the transfer function CMOD4

Open access
Stoffelen, Ad, Anderson, David·1997·Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans

Abstract

In this paper we estimate the 18 coefficients of the CMOD4 σ 0‐to‐wind transfer function using a maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method in order to improve the prelaunch function. We show that a MLE method has to be used with caution when dealing with a nonlinear relationship or with measurement errors that depend on the measured values. In the transfer function estimation it is crucial to use the components of the wind, rather than wind speed and direction, to use σ 0 in logarithmic units rather than physical ones, and to use well‐sampled input data. In Stoffelen and Anderson [1997a] we showed that the triplets of measured backscatter are very coherent and, when plotted in a three‐dimensional measurement space, they lie on a well‐defined conical surface. Here we propose a strategy for validation of a transfer function, the first step of which is to test the ability of a transfer function to fit this conical surface. We derive an objective measure to compute the average fit of the transfer function surface to the distribution of measured σ 0 triplets. The transfer function CMOD4, derived in the first part of this paper, is shown to fit the cone surface to within the observed scatter normal to the cone, i.e., within roughly 0.2 dB, equivalent to a root‐mean‐square wind vector error of ∼0.5 m s−1 The second step in the validation strategy is the verification of retrieved scatterometer winds at each position on the cone surface. Scatterometer winds computed from CMOD4 compare better to the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts model winds than real‐time conventional surface wind data (ship, buoy, or island reports) with the root‐mean‐square wind vector difference typically 3.0 m s−1. This surprising result can be explained by the so‐called representativeness error. We further show that no significant spatial wind error correlation is present in scatterometer data and therefore conclude that the ERS 1 scatterometer provides winds useful for weather forecasting and climate studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/96jc02860

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 574

Metadata

Authors
Stoffelen, A., & Anderson, D.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
Published
1997-03-15
Volume
102
Issue
C3
Pages
5767-5780
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030836967
Cited by
574
References
0
FWCI
15.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scatterometer data interpretation: Estimation and validation of the transfer function CMOD4. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/96jc02860
The paper
Stoffelen, A., & Anderson, D. (1997). Scatterometer data interpretation: Estimation and validation of the transfer function CMOD4. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/96jc02860

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.