The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Toward the true near‐surface wind speed: Error modeling and calibration using triple collocation
Abstract
Wind is a very important geophysical variable to accurately measure. However, a statistical phenomenon important for the validation or calibration of winds is the small dynamic range relative to the typical measurement uncertainty, i.e., the generally small signal‐to‐noise ratio. In such cases, pseudobiases may occur when standard validation or calibration methods are applied, such as regression or bin‐average analyses. Moreover, nonlinear transformation of random error, for instance, between wind components and speed and direction, may give rise to substantial pseudobiases. In fact, validation or calibration can only be done properly when the full error characteristics of the data are known. In practice, the problem is that prior knowledge on the error characteristics is seldom available. In this paper we show that simultaneous error modeling and calibration can be achieved by using triple collocations. This is a fundamental finding that is generally relevant to all geophysical validation. To illustrate the statistical analysis using triple collocations, in situ, ERS scatterometer, and forecast model winds are used. Wind component error analysis is shown to be more convenient than wind speed and direction error analysis. The anemometer winds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) buoys are shown to have the largest error variance, followed by the scatterometer and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) forecast model winds proved the most accurate. When using the in situ winds as a reference, the scatterometer wind components are biased low by −4%. The NCEP forecast model winds are found to be biased high by −6%, After applying a higher‐order calibration procedure an improved ERS scatterometer wind retrieval is proposed. The systematic and random error analysis is relevant for the use of nearsurface winds to compute fluxes of momentum, humidity, or heat or to drive ocean wave or circulation models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Magnitude and variability of land evaporation and its components at the global scale
Miralles, D. G., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Holmes, T. R. H., & Dolman, A. J. (2011) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-15-967-2011 · Cited by 508
Triple Collocation-Based Merging of Satellite Soil Moisture Retrievals
Gruber, A., Dorigo, W. A., Crow, W., & Wagner, W. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2734070 · Cited by 423
Khazaei, B., Khatami, S., Alemohammad, S. H., Rashidi, L., Wu, C., Madani, K., Kalantari, Z., Destouni, G., & Aghakouchak, A. (2019) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.004 · Cited by 245
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Hochreiter, S., & Nearing, G. S. (2021) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021 · Cited by 213
Uncertainty information in climate data records from Earth observation
Merchant, C. J., Paul, F., Popp, T., Ablain, M., Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., Hollmann, R., Lavergne, T., Laeng, A., de Leeuw, G., et al. (2017) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-9-511-2017 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Stoffelen, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1998-04-15
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- C4
- Pages
- 7755-7766
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969645208
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Toward the true near‐surface wind speed: Error modeling and calibration using triple collocation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/97jc03180
- The paper
- Stoffelen, A. (1998). Toward the true near‐surface wind speed: Error modeling and calibration using triple collocation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/97jc03180
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.