The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scatterometer-Based Assessment of 10-m Wind Analyses from the Operational ECMWF and NCEP Numerical Weather Prediction Models
Open accessAbstract
Wind measurements by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scatterometer (NSCAT) and the SeaWinds scatterometer on the NASA QuikSCAT satellite are compared with buoy observations to establish that the accuracies of both scatterometers are essentially the same. The scatterometer measurement errors are best characterized in terms of random component errors, which are about 0.75 and 1.5 m s−1 for the along-wind and crosswind components, respectively. The NSCAT and QuikSCAT datasets provide a consistent baseline from which recent changes in the accuracies of 10-m wind analyses from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) operational numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are assessed from consideration of three time periods: September 1996–June 1997, August 1999–July 2000, and February 2002–January 2003. These correspond, respectively, to the 9.5-month duration of the NSCAT mission, the first 12 months of the QuikSCAT mission, and the first year after both ECMWF and NCEP began assimilating QuikSCAT observations. There were large improvements in the accuracies of both NWP models between the 1997 and 2000 time periods. Though modest in comparison, there were further improvements in 2002, at least partly attributable to the assimilation of QuikSCAT observations in both models. There is no evidence of bias in the 10-m wind speeds in the NCEP model. The 10-m wind speeds in the ECMWF model, however, are shown to be biased low by about 0.4 m s−1. While it is difficult to eliminate systematic errors this small, a bias of 0.4 m s−1 corresponds to a typical wind stress bias of more than 10%. This wind stress bias increases to nearly 20% if atmospheric stability effects are not taken into account. Biases of these magnitudes will result in significant systematic errors in ocean general circulation models that are forced by ECMWF winds.
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
An improved C‐band scatterometer ocean geophysical model function: CMOD5
Hersbach, H., Stoffelen, A., & de Haan, S. (2007) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1029/2006jc003743 · Cited by 584
Risien, C. M., & Chelton, D. B. (2008) · Journal of Physical Oceanography · doi:10.1175/2008jpo3881.1 · Cited by 511
Self-citationCoupled ocean-atmosphere interaction at oceanic mesoscales.
Chelton, D., & Xie, S.-P. (2010) · Oceanography · doi:10.5670/oceanog.2010.05 · Cited by 416
Self-citationRegional variations in the influence of mesoscale eddies on near‐surface chlorophyll
Gaube, P., McGillicuddy, D. J., Chelton, D. B., Behrenfeld, M. J., & Strutton, P. G. (2014) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans · doi:10.1002/2014jc010111 · Cited by 381
Self-citationPrecipitation and Cloud Structure in Midlatitude Cyclones
Field, P. R., & Wood, R. (2007) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3998.1 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Chelton, D. B., & Freilich, M. H.
- Venue
- Monthly Weather Review
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2005-02-01
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 409-429
- ISSN
- 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0493
- OpenAlex
- W2150121776
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.63
- 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-Based Assessment of 10-m Wind Analyses from the Operational ECMWF and NCEP Numerical Weather Prediction Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/mwr-2861.1
- The paper
- Chelton, D. B., & Freilich, M. H. (2005). Scatterometer-Based Assessment of 10-m Wind Analyses from the Operational ECMWF and NCEP Numerical Weather Prediction Models. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-2861.1
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.