Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (94)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = ocean surface roughness

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
17 pages, 2987 KiB  
Article
Melt Pond Evolution along the MOSAiC Drift: Insights from Remote Sensing and Modeling
by Mingfeng Wang, Felix Linhardt, Victor Lion and Natascha Oppelt
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(19), 3748; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16193748 - 9 Oct 2024
Viewed by 594
Abstract
Melt ponds play a crucial role in the melting of Arctic sea ice. Studying the evolution of melt ponds is essential for understanding changes in Arctic sea ice. In this study, we used a revised sea ice model to simulate the evolution of [...] Read more.
Melt ponds play a crucial role in the melting of Arctic sea ice. Studying the evolution of melt ponds is essential for understanding changes in Arctic sea ice. In this study, we used a revised sea ice model to simulate the evolution of melt ponds along the MOSAiC drift at a resolution of 10 m. A novel melt pond parameterization scheme simulates the movement of meltwater under the influence of gravity over a realistic sea ice topography. We evaluated different melt pond parameterization schemes based on remote sensing observations. The absolute deviation of the maximum pond coverage simulated by the new scheme is within 3%, while differences among parameterization schemes exceed 50%. Errors were found to be primarily due to the calculation of macroscopic meltwater loss, which is related to sea ice surface topography. Previous studies have indicated that sea ice with a lower surface roughness has a larger catchment area, resulting in larger pond coverage during the melt season. This study has identified an opposing mechanism: sea ice with lower surface roughness has a larger catchment area connected to the macroscopic flaws of the sea ice surface, which leads to more macroscopic drainage into the ocean and thereby a decrease in melt pond coverage. Experimental simulations showed that sea ice with 46% higher surface roughness, resulting in 12% less macroscopic drainage, exhibited a 38% higher maximum pond fraction. The presence of macroscopic flaws is related to the fragmentation of sea ice cover. As Arctic sea ice cover becomes increasingly fragmented and mobile, this mechanism will become more significant. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Surface Radiative Transfer: Modeling, Inversion, and Applications)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Drift trajectories of five SIMBA buoys selected for simulation and Sentinel-2 images of the floe on which buoy 2019T58 was deployed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Illustration of the proposed melt pond scheme. (<b>a</b>) Three-dimensional surface topography and melt ponds of the floe where SIMBA buoy 2019T58 was deployed. (<b>b</b>) A section of the sea ice surface marked by the red box in (<b>a</b>) and the pathway of meltwater acceleration at the topography low determined using G-D.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of the MPF evolution between modeling and remote sensing. The line indicates the simulated mean MPF across the melting season of different floes, the shadow indicates the standard deviation of the simulated MPF of different floes, and the markers represent the MPF observed from Sentinel-2 images of different floes on different dates.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatter plot of observed and simulated MPF of control run.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the MPF evolution. (<b>a</b>) Comparison between the observation and the CNTL, TOPO, and LVL runs. The black dots indicate the MPF observed from Sentinel-2 images. Lines indicate the simulated MPF. (<b>b</b>) Comparison between the observation and the CNTL, TOPO-H, and LVL-H runs. The black dots indicate the MPF observed from Sentinel-2 images. Lines indicate the simulated MPF. The error bars represent the error of the classification scheme. Note that the y-scales of (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) are not the same.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of observed and simulated MPF evolution. The dates in each column from left to right are 21 June, 30 June, 7 July, 27 July, and 21 July, respectively. (<b>a</b>) Melt ponds observed from Sentinel-2. (<b>b</b>) Simulated melt pond depth (m) of the CNTL run. (<b>c</b>) Simulated melt pond depth (m) of the TOPO-H run. (<b>d</b>) Simulated melt pond depth (m) of the LVL-H run. (<b>e</b>) Simulated melt pond depth (m) of the TOPO run. (<b>f</b>) Simulated melt pond depth (m) of the LVL run.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Simulated probability distribution functions of melt pond depth on (<b>a</b>) 30 June and (<b>b</b>) 7 July.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Initial topography plotted over a true-color Sentinel-2 image of GRID run (<b>a</b>) and RADIAL run (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Meltwater production and drainage of floes with GRID and RADIAL runs over the melting season. The meltwater produced is in the positive numerical range, whereas the meltwater lost has negative numbers.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The relationship between the number of sea ice breakups and the total length of the ice floe edge. The Monte Carlo method is used to simulate the random breaking of ice floes into smaller fragments. The solid line is the average value and the shadow is the standard deviation.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 4579 KiB  
Article
Investigating the Role of Wave Process in the Evaporation Duct Simulation by Using an Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave Coupled Model
by Zhigang Shan, Miaojun Sun, Wei Wang, Jing Zou, Xiaolei Liu, Hong Zhang, Zhijin Qiu, Bo Wang, Jinyue Wang and Shuai Yang
Atmosphere 2024, 15(6), 707; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15060707 - 13 Jun 2024
Viewed by 704
Abstract
In this study, a diagnostic model for evaporation ducts was established based on the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) models. Utilizing this model, four sensitivity tests were conducted over the South China Sea from 21 September to 5 [...] Read more.
In this study, a diagnostic model for evaporation ducts was established based on the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) models. Utilizing this model, four sensitivity tests were conducted over the South China Sea from 21 September to 5 October 2008, when four tropical cyclones affected the study domain. These tests were designed with different roughness schemes to investigate the impact mechanisms of wave processes on evaporation duct simulation under extreme weather conditions. The results indicated that wave processes primarily influenced the evaporation duct heights by altering sea surface roughness and dynamical factors. The indirect impacts of waves without dynamical factors were rather weak. Generally, a decrease in local roughness led to increased wind speed, decreased humidity, and a reduced air–sea temperature difference, resulting in the formation of evaporation ducts at higher altitudes. However, this affecting mechanism between roughness and evaporation ducts was also greatly influenced by changes in regional circulation. In the eastern open sea areas of the South China Sea, changes in evaporative ducts were more closely aligned with local impact mechanisms, whereas the changes in the central and western areas demonstrated greater complexity and fewer local impacts due to variations in regional circulation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Topography for the WRF model; (<b>b</b>) bathymetry for the ROMS and SWAN model. The entire colored area is D01 domain and the area enclosed by the black frame is D02 domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The pathways of the four TCs during the simulation period with the location of observation tower in Yongxing Island, South China Sea.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The hourly series of (<b>a</b>) significant wave height and (<b>b</b>) evaporation duct height for the CTL, ERA5 data and station observation in Yongxing Island.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The spatial distributions of mean evaporation duct height for (<b>a</b>) the ERA5 reanalysis data and (<b>b</b>) the CTL during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The spatial distributions of mean roughness differences for (<b>a</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>b</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>c</b>) T3−CTL, mean evaporation duct height differences for (<b>d</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>e</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>f</b>) T3−CTL, and mean wind differences at 10 m level for (<b>g</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>h</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>i</b>) T3−CTL during the simulation period. The area enclosed by the black frame is D02 domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The spatial distributions of mean SLP differences for (<b>a</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>b</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>c</b>) T3−CTL, mean differences of T2m minus SST for (<b>d</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>e</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>f</b>) T3−CTL, and mean RH2m differences for (<b>g</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>h</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>i</b>) T3−CTL during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The spatial distributions of mean sensible heat flux differences for (<b>a</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>b</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>c</b>) T3−CTL, mean latent heat flux for (<b>d</b>) T1−CTL, (<b>e</b>) T2−CTL, (<b>f</b>) T3−CTL during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The vertical profiles of (<b>a</b>) mean wind speed differences, (<b>b</b>) mean air pressure differences, (<b>c</b>) mean air temperature differences, (<b>d</b>) mean relative humidity differences, and (<b>e</b>) mean revised atmospheric refractivity differences for the three sensitivity tests within the D02 typical domain during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The temporal series of (<b>a</b>) mean roughness length differences, (<b>b</b>) mean evaporation duct height differences, (<b>c</b>) mean wind speed differences at 10 m level, and (<b>d</b>) mean SLP differences for the three sensitivity tests within the D02 typical domain during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The temporal series of (<b>a</b>) mean differences of T2m minus SST, (<b>b</b>) mean relative humidity differences at 2 m level, (<b>c</b>) mean sensible heat flux differences, and (<b>d</b>) mean latent heat flux differences for the three sensitivity tests within the D02 typical domain during the simulation period.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 9257 KiB  
Article
Polarized Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function Matrix Derived from Two-Scale Roughness Theory and Its Applications in Active Remote Sensing
by Lingli He, Fuzhong Weng, Jinghan Wen and Tong Jia
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(9), 1551; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16091551 - 26 Apr 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 904
Abstract
A polarized bidirectional reflectance distribution function (pBRDF) matrix was developed based on the two-scale roughness theory to provide consistent simulations of fully polarized microwave emission and scattering, required for the ocean–atmosphere-coupled radiative transfer model. In this study, the potential of the two-scale pBRDF [...] Read more.
A polarized bidirectional reflectance distribution function (pBRDF) matrix was developed based on the two-scale roughness theory to provide consistent simulations of fully polarized microwave emission and scattering, required for the ocean–atmosphere-coupled radiative transfer model. In this study, the potential of the two-scale pBRDF matrix was explored for simulating ocean full-polarization backscattering and bistatic-scattering normalized radar cross sections (NRCSs). Comprehensive numerical simulations of the two-scale pBRDF matrix across the L-, C-, X-, and Ku-bands were carried out, and the simulations were compared with experimental data, classical electromagnetic, and GMFs. The results show that the two-scale pBRDF matrix demonstrates reasonable dependencies on ocean surface wind speeds, relative wind direction (RWD), geometries, and frequencies and has a reliable accuracy in general. In addition, the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations were compared with the observations from the advanced scatterometer (ASCAT) onboard MetOP-C satellites, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9634 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.5083 dB. In the bistatic case, the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations were compared with Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS) observations, demonstrating a good correlation coefficient of 0.8480 and an RMSE of 1.2859 dB. In both cases, the two-scale pBRDF matrix produced fairly good simulations at medium-to-high wind speeds. The relatively large differences at low wind speeds (<5 m/s) were due probably to the swell effects. This study proves that the two-scale pBRDF matrix is suitable for the applications of multiple types of active instruments and can consistently simulate the ocean surface passive and active signals. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Different geometrical configurations for wave scattering from the ocean surface. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"> <mi>I</mi> </mstyle> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the incoming radiance vectors from the solid angle <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <msup> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> incident from the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> direction on a microfacet (pink area). <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mstyle mathvariant="bold" mathsize="normal"> <mi>I</mi> </mstyle> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the outgoing radiance vectors from the solid angle <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <msup> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> in the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> <mo>,</mo> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The spatial distribution of the scattering energy simulated by the two-scale pBRDF matrix at 37 GHz and 10 m/s wind speed in the specular direction. The unit of each matrix element is sr<sup>−1</sup>. The SST is 285 K, the SSS is 35‰, and the ocean wave spectrum is the modified Durden and Vesecky spectrum (DV2). (<b>a</b>) Rvvvv, (<b>b</b>) Rvhvh, (<b>c</b>) Re(Rvhvv), (<b>d</b>) Im(Rvhvv), (<b>e</b>) Rhvhv, (<b>f</b>) Rhhhh, (<b>g</b>) Re(Rhhhv), (<b>h</b>) Im(Rhhhv), (<b>i</b>) 2Re(Rvvhv), (<b>j</b>) 2Re(Rvhhh), (<b>k</b>) Re(Rvvhh+Rvhhv), (<b>l</b>) Im(Rhhvv+Rhvvh), (<b>m</b>) 2Im(Rvvhv), (<b>n</b>) 2Im(Rvhhh), (<b>o</b>) Im(Rvvhh+Rvhhv), (<b>p</b>) Re(Rhhvv-Rhvvh).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of three different emissivity models. The ordinate is the emissivity of each component. The wind speed is 10 m/s, the SST is 285 K, the frequency is 37 GHz, the observation angle is 45°, the SSS is 35‰, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) vertical component, (<b>b</b>) horizontal component, (<b>c</b>) the third component, (<b>d</b>) the fourth component.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on RWD at a 10 m/s wind speed and the comparisons with other simulations or data. (<b>a</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (solid line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dotted line) polarizations at the Ku-band. (<b>b</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> polarizations at the Ku-band. (<b>c</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (solid line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dotted line) polarizations at the C-band. (<b>d</b>) Simulations of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> polarizations at the C-band. The Ku-band and C-band simulations are at incidence zenith angles of 45° and 35°, respectively. The black dots’ line, stars’ line, and triangles’ line are the <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> experimental data, respectively. The SSS is set to 35‰, and the SST is 285 K. The cyan, orange color, and purple colors represent the simulations of the two-scale pBRDF matrix with Kudryatsev, Elfouhaily, and DV2 spectra, respectively. The yellow color represents the classical TSM simulation. The magenta and green colors represent the simulations of the NSCAT4 and CMOD7 simulations, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the incidence angle at the X-band and a 10 m/s wind speed. The results are shown for three different RWDs: (<b>a</b>) RWD = 0°, (<b>b</b>) RWD = 90°, and (<b>c</b>) RWD = 180°. (<b>d</b>) The polarization ratios under different RWDs and the comparisons with other X-band polarization ratio models. The SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the L-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 46°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the C-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The dependencies of the backscattering NRCSs predicted by the two-scale pBRDF matrix on the wind speed at the Ku-band. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, the SSS is set to 35‰, the SST is 285 K, and the ocean wave spectrum is DV2. (<b>a</b>) 5 m/s; (<b>b</b>) 10 m/s; (<b>c</b>) 15 m/s; (<b>d</b>) 20 m/s; (<b>e</b>) 25 m/s; and (<b>f</b>) 30 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The dependencies of bistatic-scattering NRCSs on the scattering zenith angle at the L-band with a wind speed of 10 m/s. The incidence zenith angle is set to 45°, and the incidence azimuth angle is 0°. The scattering azimuth angles are set to (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 0°, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 30°, (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 60°, and (<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>φ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 90°, respectively. The SSS is set to 35‰, and the SST is 285 K.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparisons of bistatic NRCSs simulated using the two-scale pBRDF matrix (solid line) and SSA2 (dotted line) at the L-band. The results are obtained for 10 m/s as a function of the RWD, within the plane of incidence, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>i</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 45°, <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msup> <mi>θ</mi> <mi>s</mi> </msup> </mrow> </semantics></math> = 35 °. (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>v</mi> <mi>v</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (dark cyan line) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>h</mi> <mi>h</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> (orange-red line) polarizations, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> circular polarization, and (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msubsup> <mi>σ</mi> <mrow> <mi>L</mi> <mi>R</mi> </mrow> <mn>0</mn> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> circular polarization.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Density scatter plot from the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations and ASCAT measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The dependencies of differences (measurements minus simulations) on wind speed and incidence zenith angle. Color represents the difference value.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Density scatter plot from the two-scale pBRDF matrix simulations and CYGNSS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The dependencies of the differences (measurements minus simulations) on wind speed and incidence zenith angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>The plot of circularly polarized bistatic NRCSs came from CYGNSS measurements (blue plus), the two-scale pBRDF matrix (magenta circle), and GO simulations (black circle) versus the wind speed.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 1986 KiB  
Article
Radar Signal Behavior in Maritime Environments: Falling Rain Effects
by Xun Wang, Menghan Wei, Ying Wang, Houjun Sun and Jianjun Ma
Electronics 2024, 13(1), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13010058 - 21 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1320
Abstract
Precision modeling of radar signal behavior in maritime environments holds paramount importance in ensuring the robust functionality of maritime radar systems. This work delves into the intricate dynamics of radar signal propagation in maritime environments, with a particular focus on the effects of [...] Read more.
Precision modeling of radar signal behavior in maritime environments holds paramount importance in ensuring the robust functionality of maritime radar systems. This work delves into the intricate dynamics of radar signal propagation in maritime environments, with a particular focus on the effects of falling rain. A theoretical model encompassing raindrop scattering, gaseous absorption, and ocean surface backscattering was developed and validated. Key findings reveal that rain significantly alters radar backscattering, with a noticeable decrease in signal strength under higher rainrates. Additionally, gaseous absorption, particularly at elevated frequencies and humidity levels, emerged as a critical factor. The study also highlights the complex interplay between wind-induced ocean surface roughness and radar signal behavior. We think these insights are pivotal for enhancing maritime radar system accuracy, particularly in adverse weather conditions, and paving the way for future research in refining environmental impact models on radar signals. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognition and Utilization of Electromagnetic Space Signals)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Diagram of effects suffered by radar signal. ① scattering, ② absorption, ③ backscattering by falling rain, ④ gaseous absorption, and ⑤ backscattering by ocean surface.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Degradation of radar signal due to falling rain in Mashall–Palmer drop size distribution. (<b>a</b>) Scattering loss, (<b>b</b>) absorption loss, and (<b>c</b>) backscattering by rain droplets. Plot (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) keep the same legend as plot (<b>a</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Degradation of radar signal due to falling rain in Mashall–Palmer drop size distribution. (<b>a</b>) Scattering loss, (<b>b</b>) absorption loss, and (<b>c</b>) backscattering by rain droplets. Plot (<b>b</b>) and (<b>c</b>) keep the same legend as plot (<b>a</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Attenuation due to atmospheric gases versus relative humidity under different frequencies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Measured and calculated backscattering coefficient by ocean surface. Measure data source: [<a href="#B43-electronics-13-00058" class="html-bibr">43</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation in backscattering with respect to channel distance under different (<b>a</b>) operating frequency, (<b>b</b>) rainrate, and (<b>c</b>) wind speed with parameters relative humidity RH = 90%, incidence angle <span class="html-italic">θ</span> = 5°, rainrate <span class="html-italic">Rr</span> = 30 mm/h, and wind speed <span class="html-italic">v</span> = 3 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Variation in backscattering with respect to channel distance under different (<b>a</b>) operating frequency, (<b>b</b>) rainrate, and (<b>c</b>) wind speed with parameters relative humidity RH = 90%, incidence angle <span class="html-italic">θ</span> = 5°, rainrate <span class="html-italic">Rr</span> = 30 mm/h, and wind speed <span class="html-italic">v</span> = 3 m/s.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 18560 KiB  
Article
Characterizing the Effect of Ocean Surface Currents on Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) Winds Using Open Ocean Moored Buoy Data
by Tianyi Cheng, Zhaohui Chen, Jingkai Li, Qing Xu and Haiyuan Yang
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(18), 4630; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15184630 - 21 Sep 2023
Viewed by 1816
Abstract
The ocean surface current influences the roughness of the sea surface, subsequently affecting the scatterometer’s measurement of wind speed. In this study, the effect of surface currents on ASCAT-retrieved winds is investigated based on in-situ observations of both surface winds and currents from [...] Read more.
The ocean surface current influences the roughness of the sea surface, subsequently affecting the scatterometer’s measurement of wind speed. In this study, the effect of surface currents on ASCAT-retrieved winds is investigated based on in-situ observations of both surface winds and currents from 40 open ocean moored buoys in the tropical and mid-latitude oceans. A total of 28,803 data triplets, consisting of buoy-observed wind vectors, current vectors, and ASCAT Level 2 wind vectors, were collected from the dataset spanning over 10 years. It is found that the bias between scatterometer-retrieved wind speed and buoy-observed wind speed is negatively correlated with the ocean surface current speed. The wind speed bias is approximately 0.96 times the magnitude of the downwind surface current. The root-mean-square error between the ASCAT wind speeds and buoy observations is reduced by about 15% if rectification with ocean surface currents is involved. Therefore, it is essential to incorporate surface current information into wind speed calibration, particularly in regions with strong surface currents. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) The spatial distributions of the 40 moored buoys. (<b>b</b>) Timeline of hourly wind vector and current vector observations from these operational buoys. Distinct colors are utilized to denote moored buoy data acquired from various projects or organizations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) The number of data triplets that the ASCAT L2 wind vector matched with the moored buoy’s wind vector and current vector. (<b>b</b>) is the same as (<b>a</b>), but for the ASCAT L3 wind vector.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Multi-year averaged ocean surface current speed from 2007 to 2021. The gray arrows indicate the average current direction. (<b>b</b>) The probability density function (PDF) of the magnitude of the current speed, zonal component |u|, and meridional component |v|. (<b>c</b>) The PDF of the current direction and the angle between the current vector and wind vector.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparisons of (<b>a</b>) the wind speed (WSPD), (<b>b</b>) the zonal and (<b>c</b>) meridional wind components between the buoy-based earth-relative observations and the collocated ASCAT L2 data. (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) are the same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) but for the ASCAT L3 products. The color of each dot represents the density of the data. The number (<span class="html-italic">n</span>) of data pairs in each panel is noted in the title.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The relationship between the ASCAT L2 wind bias and ocean surface velocity. The panels in each column represent differing buoys with all buoys on the left. The panels in each row represent the differing variables, with the scalar wind speed bias on the top. The bin-averaged wind bias with error bars as a function of the surface current is shown in each panel. The black dashed line provides the result from a linear regression fit, and the gray dashed line indicates a linear relationship with a slope of unity. The regression equation and the correlation coefficient (R) are noted in each panel. The number of data triplets and the distribution of the surface current speed are depicted in red shades.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-04630-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a> but for the ASCAT L3 wind product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) The correlation coefficients and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) the slopes of the linear regression equation between the ASCAT L2 wind bias and the surface current velocity. (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) are for the scalar wind speed bias and projected current speed. (<b>b</b>,<b>e</b>) represent the zonal wind speed bias and surface velocity, while (<b>c</b>,<b>f</b>) correspond to the meridional component. Stations where the linear correlation does not pass the significance test at a 95% confidence level are labeled with gray triangles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-04630-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a> but for the ASCAT L3 wind product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of the ASCAT scalar wind speed and the buoy wind speed. The ASCAT wind speeds in (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) are uncorrected, while they have been corrected with surface current measured via moored buoys in (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>). (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represent the results for the ASCAT L2 and L3 wind products, respectively. The color of the points indicates the projection of the ocean surface current onto the direction of the buoy-observed wind. The number (<span class="html-italic">n</span>) of data triplets in each panel is noted in the title.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparisons of the zonal current <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>u</mi> </semantics></math> between the buoy observations and CMEMS reprocessing. Each subfigure represents data from different buoy stations, with the coordinates of each buoy indicated in the subfigure’s title. The color of each dot represents the density of the data. The number (<span class="html-italic">n</span>) of data pairs and the correlation coefficient (R) are noted in the top left corner of each panel. The units of bias and RMSEs are in meters per second (m/s).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-04630-f010" class="html-fig">Figure 10</a> but for the meridional current <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>v</mi> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The same as <a href="#remotesensing-15-04630-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a>, but the reprocessed current is utilized for the correction of the ASCAT winds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The root-mean-square error of the ASCAT wind speed before and after correction using the ocean surface current. The corresponding percentages indicate the extent of the reduction in RMSE achieved.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4899 KiB  
Article
The SSR Brightness Temperature Increment Model Based on a Deep Neural Network
by Zhongkai Wen, Huan Zhang, Weiping Shu, Liqiang Zhang, Lei Liu, Xiang Lu, Yashi Zhou, Jingjing Ren, Shuang Li and Qingjun Zhang
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(17), 4149; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174149 - 24 Aug 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1323
Abstract
The SSS (sea surface salinity) is an important factor affecting global climate changes, sea dynamic environments, global water cycles, marine ecological environments, and ocean carbon cycles. Satellite remote sensing is a practical way to observe SSS from space, and the key to retrieving [...] Read more.
The SSS (sea surface salinity) is an important factor affecting global climate changes, sea dynamic environments, global water cycles, marine ecological environments, and ocean carbon cycles. Satellite remote sensing is a practical way to observe SSS from space, and the key to retrieving SSS satellite products is to establish an accurate sea surface brightness temperature forward model. However, the calculation results of different forward models, which are composed of different relative permittivity models and SSR (sea surface roughness) brightness temperature increment models, are different, and the impact of this calculation difference has exceeded the accuracy requirement of the SSS inversion, and the existing SSR brightness temperature increment models, which primarily include empirical models and theoretical models, cannot match all the relative permittivity models. In order to address this problem, this paper proposes a universal DNN (deep neural network) model architecture and corresponding training scheme, and provides different SSR brightness temperature increment models for different relative permittivity models utilizing DNN based on offshore experiment data, and compares them with the existing models. The results show that the DNN models perform significantly better than the existing models, and that their calculation accuracy is close to the detection accuracy of a radiometer. Therefore, this study effectively solves the problem of SSR brightness temperature correction under different relative permittivity models, and provides a theoretical support for high-precision SSS inversion research. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Offshore platform.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Location of the offshore platform.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Installation diagram of observation platform equipment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Transmission process of sea surface radiation to the offshore platform radiometer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Fundamental architecture of the DNN model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>PReLU activation function.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The RMSE of the H-polarization models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The RMSE of the V-polarization models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The MAE of the H-polarization models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The MAE of the V-polarization models.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 27658 KiB  
Article
Estimation of Aerosol Layer Height from OLCI Measurements in the O2A-Absorption Band over Oceans
by Lena Katharina Jänicke, Rene Preusker, Nicole Docter and Jürgen Fischer
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(16), 4080; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15164080 - 18 Aug 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1611
Abstract
The aerosol layer height (ALH) is an important parameter that characterizes aerosol interaction with the environment. An estimation of the vertical distribution of aerosol is necessary for studies of those interactions, their effect on radiance and for aerosol transport models. ALH can be [...] Read more.
The aerosol layer height (ALH) is an important parameter that characterizes aerosol interaction with the environment. An estimation of the vertical distribution of aerosol is necessary for studies of those interactions, their effect on radiance and for aerosol transport models. ALH can be retrieved from satellite-based radiance measurements within the oxygen absorption band between 760 and 770 nm (O2A band). The oxygen absorption is reduced when light is scattered by an elevated aerosol layer. The Ocean and Land Colour Imager (OLCI) has three bands within the oxygen absorption band. We show a congruent sensitivity study with respect to ALH for dust and smoke cases over oceans. Furthermore, we developed a retrieval of the ALH for those cases and an uncertainty estimation by applying linear uncertainty propagation and a bootstrap method. The sensitivity study and the uncertainty estimation are based on radiative transfer simulations. The impact of ALH, aerosol optical thickness (AOT), the surface roughness (wind speed) and the central wavelength on the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiance is discussed. The OLCI bands are sufficiently sensitive to ALH for cases with AOTs larger than 0.5 under the assumption of a known aerosol type. With an accurate spectral characterization of the OLCI O2A bands better than 0.1 nm, ALH can be retrieved with an uncertainty of a few hundred meters. The retrieval of ALH was applied successfully on an OLCI dust and smoke scene. The found ALH is similar to parallel measurements by the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). OLCI’s high spatial resolution and coverage allow a detailed overview of the vertical aerosol distribution over oceans. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Earth Observation Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic overview of aerosol vertical distributions for five cases with ALH at 327, 777, 1244, 3076 and 5255 m. The lines indicate the layer interfaces.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Phase function of aerosol models <span class="html-italic">dust</span> in solid lines and <span class="html-italic">strong absorbing aerosol</span> (SABS) in dashed lines at 760 nm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Relative spectral response functions (RSR) of OLCI-B in <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>O</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msub> </semantics></math> absorption band. Transparent colors show RSR of different detectors and non-transparent colors are the harmonized response functions. In grey, the TOA transmission is given for an air mass factor of <a href="#sec2dot2-remotesensing-15-04080" class="html-sec">Section 2.2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of original transmission on the <b>left</b>, calculated as ratio of OLCI-B L1 radiance at 761.25 and 753.75 nm, and harmonized transmission on the <b>right</b>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Jacobians of TOA radiance ratios at different central wavelengths relative to (<b>a</b>) ALH, (<b>b</b>) AOT, (<b>c</b>) wind speed and (<b>d</b>) central wavelength. Jacobians are given for two aerosol models (circles: SABS, triangles: dust) and for different AOTs (transparent: 0.15, non-transparent: 1.0). All results are given for SZA of 30<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>, VZA at 46<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> and AZI at 170<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) RGB composite generated from OLCI L1 on 18/06/2020 between 11:35 and 11:38 UTC over the Atlantic west of central Africa. (<b>b</b>) Optimized ALH derived from OLCI-B measurements (<b>c</b>) TROPOMI ALH on 18/06/2020 at 14:13, 14:18 and 15:53 UTC. (<b>d</b>) CALIOP, OLCI and CALIPSO ALH along CALIPSO track on 18/06/2020 at about 03:29 UTC. White pixels are cloud flags, light grey pixels are non-convergence pixels and dark grey pixels are flagged out due to AOT smaller than 0.55. The red line in a–c shows the same CALIPSO track as in (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) RGB composite generated from OLCI L1 on 8 September 2020 at 18:26 UTC in west of California. (<b>b</b>) Optimized ALH derived from OLCI-B measurements. (<b>c</b>) TROPOMI ALH on 8 September 2020 at 20:24 and 20:29 UTC. (<b>d</b>) OLCI, CALIPSO and TROPOMI ALH along CALIPSO track on 08/09/2020 at 21:27 UTC. The red line in (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) shows the same CALIPSO track as in (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Optimized ALH derived from OLCI-B measurements on 18 June 2020 between 11:35 and 11:38 UTC over the Atlantic west of central Africa. (<b>b</b>) Estimated pixelwise uncertainty using linear uncertainty propagation. White pixels are cloud flags, light grey pixels are non-convergence pixels and dark grey pixels are flagged out due to AOT smaller than 0.55.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Optimized ALH derived from OLCI measurements on 08/09/2020 at 18:26 UTC over the Pacific west of California. (<b>b</b>) Estimated pixelwise uncertainty using linear uncertainty propagation. White pixels are cloud flags, and light grey pixels are non-convergence pixels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Histograms of differences of all 1,000,000 retrieved ALH with and without noise for dust in yellow and SABS in grey using the LUT (<b>a</b>) based on the correct aerosol type and (<b>b</b>) based on the wrong aerosol type.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Jacobians of TOA radiance ratios at different central wavelengths relative to the ALH, AOT, wind speed and central wavelength. Jacobians are given for two aerosol models (circles: strong absorbing, triangles: dust) and for different AOTs (transparent: 0.15, non-transparent: 1.0). All results are given for SZA of 30<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>, VZA at 46<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> and AZI at 10<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Sun glint risk flag for dust test case on 18/06/2020 at the west coast of Africa. For the red pixels, the sun glint risk is true, and for blue pixels, it is false. (<b>b</b>) SZA in degrees for the two OLCI-B sequences. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) VZA and AZI in degrees for the two OLCI-B sequences, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Sun glint risk flag for dust test case on 08/09/2020 at the west coast of North America. For the red pixels, the sun glint risk is true, and for blue pixels, it is false. (<b>b</b>) SZA in degrees for the OLCI-A and OLCI-B sequences. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) VZA and AZI in degrees for the OLCI-A and OLCI-B sequences, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Uncertainty of ALH from retrieval error covariance matrix over AOT for different simulated dust cases (<b>a</b>) and SABS cases (<b>b</b>) with observation geometries of (i) the western representation (solid lines): SZA of 40<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>, VZA at 50<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> and AZI at 150<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> and (ii) the eastern representation (dashed lines): SZA of 40<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>, VZA at 25<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> and AZI at 40<math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mrow/> <mo>∘</mo> </msup> </semantics></math>. The colors show simulations with different ALHs: blue: 1100 m; green: 3000 m and orange: 4900 m.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 1095 KiB  
Editorial
Half a Century of Oceans from Space: Features and Futures
by Vittorio Barale
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(16), 4064; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15164064 - 17 Aug 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1128
Abstract
Half a century separates us from the dawning of satellite oceanography. Aircraft flights, photographs from early space missions, and data from meteorological satellites in the 1960s already provided glimpses of the future role of remote sensing in marine science. A first generation of [...] Read more.
Half a century separates us from the dawning of satellite oceanography. Aircraft flights, photographs from early space missions, and data from meteorological satellites in the 1960s already provided glimpses of the future role of remote sensing in marine science. A first generation of dedicated ocean-viewing satellites followed in the 1970s. The “Oceans from Space” conference series, which convenes every ten years in Venice, Italy, started in 1980, when unprecedented data sets originated by a second generation of satellites, SEASAT, TIROS-N, and NIMBUS-7, were just beginning to be analyzed. When “Oceans from Space II” was held in 1990, no major new missions were operating. However, in the 1990s, a third generation of missions were underway, based on a longer satellite series and larger orbital platform. By the time “Oceans from Space III” was held in 2000, increasing data quality, accessibility, and usability were contributing to the growth of this young research field. “Oceans from Space IV”, in 2010, came at a time when remote sensing was already in everyday use as part of the marine scientist’s standard toolkit. “Oceans from Space V”, delayed by the COVID pandemic until 2022, offered a scientific and technical program reflecting the astounding panorama of missions, instruments, and innovations available today. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oceans from Space V)
Show Figures

Figure A1

Figure A1
<p>Co-chairs of the “Oceans from Space III, IV and V” Symposiums: Luigi Alberotanza (left), Vittorio Barale (center), and Jim Gower (right). In the background, a partial view of the façade of the <span class="html-italic">Scuola Grande di San Marco</span>, where the fifth edition of the Symposium was held in 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>“Oceans from Space V” Closing Session slide introducing the <span class="html-italic">Fero da Pròra</span> Awards.</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 5630 KiB  
Article
Improving the Forecasts of Surface Latent Heat Fluxes and Surface Air Temperature in the GRAPES Global Forecast System
by Miaoling Liang, Xing Yuan and Wenyan Wang
Atmosphere 2023, 14(8), 1241; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14081241 - 2 Aug 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1382
Abstract
The GRAPES (Global/Regional Assimilation and Prediction System) global medium-range forecast system (GRAPES_GFS) is a new generation numerical weather forecast model developed by the China Meteorological Administration (CMA). However, the forecasts of surface latent heat fluxes and surface air temperature have systematic biases, which [...] Read more.
The GRAPES (Global/Regional Assimilation and Prediction System) global medium-range forecast system (GRAPES_GFS) is a new generation numerical weather forecast model developed by the China Meteorological Administration (CMA). However, the forecasts of surface latent heat fluxes and surface air temperature have systematic biases, which affect the forecasts of atmospheric dynamics by modifying the lower boundary conditions and degrading the application of GRAPES_GFS since the 2 m air temperature is one of the key components of weather forecast products. Here, we add a soil resistance term to reduce soil evaporation, which ultimately reduces the positive forecast bias of the land surface latent heat flux. We also reduce the positive forecast bias of the ocean surface latent heat flux by considering the effect of salinity in the calculation of the ocean surface vapor pressure and by adjusting the parameterizations of roughness length for the exchanges in momentum, heat, and moisture between the ocean surface and atmosphere. Moreover, we modify the parameterization of the roughness length for the exchanges in heat and moisture between the land surface and atmosphere to reduce the cold bias of the nighttime 2 m air temperature forecast over areas with lower vegetation height. We also consider the supercooled soil water to reduce the warm forecast bias of the 2 m air temperature over northern China during winter. These modified parameterizations are incorporated into the GRAPES_GFS and show good performance based on a set of evaluation experiments. This paper highlights the importance of the representations of the land/ocean surface and boundary layer processes in the forecasting of surface heat fluxes and 2 m air temperature. Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Numerical Models and Weather Extreme Events)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Comparison of the 24 h forecasts of latent heat fluxes (W/m<sup>2</sup>) averaged in July 2016. The left panel (<b>a</b>) is the difference between the original GRAPES_GFS experiment (CTL) and ERA interim reanalysis, and the right panel (<b>b</b>) is the difference between the improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP1; with modifications in the parameterizations of surface latent heat fluxes) and the CTL experiment. The 24 h forecasts started from each day during 1–31 July 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The same as <a href="#atmosphere-14-01241-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>, but for the latitudinal averages of atmospheric column water vapor content (g/kg) for the 24 h forecasts during 1–31 July 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Biases for the 2 m air temperature forecasts (°C) at 2000+ weather stations in China. The forecasts started from 12 UTC on 11 March 2019, with the lead times of 12 h (top panels, <b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and 24 h (bottom panels, <b>c</b>,<b>d</b>). The left panels (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) are for the biases of CTL experiment, and the right panels (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) are for the biases of improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP2; with modifications in the parameterizations of soil evaporation and roughness length).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Differences in 2 m air temperature (°C) forecasts between improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP2; with modifications in the parameterizations of soil evaporation and roughness length) and CTL experiment at with different forecast lead times. The forecasts started at 12 UTC on 11 March 2019. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) are the differences for lead times of 12 hours, 24 hours, 108 hours and 120 hours, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Root mean squared error (RMSE; °C) of 24 h forecasts of 2 m air temperature for CTL experiment and improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP2; with modifications in the parameterizations of soil evaporation and roughness length). The forecasts started at 12 UTC on each day from 1 March 2019 to 15 April 2019. The forecasts were compared with the observations from 2000+ weather stations in China, and the mean RMSEs were shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Root mean squared error (RMSE; °C) of 2 m air temperature forecasts over northeastern China with lead times from 6 h to 186 h for CTL experiment and improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP3; with parameterizations of soil evaporation, roughness length and the supercooled soil water). The forecasts started at 12 UTC on each day from 1 January 2016 to 31 January 2016, and RMSE for each forecast lead was calculated. The top panel shows the RMSE for CTL and EXP3, while the bottom panel shows the differences in RMSE between EXP3 and CTL. Negative values in the bottom panel show the reduction of RMSE after improving GRAPES_GFS, and the error reduction is significant if it exceeds the uncertainty with 95% confidence level indicated by the vertical bars.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Biases of 24 h precipitation forecasts (mm) started each day from 16 June 2019 to 30 September 2019 for CTL experiment and improved GRAPES_GFS experiment (EXP4; the model version is the same as EXP3, but for forecasts during summer period). The bias was calculated as the ratio of forecast rainfall events over the observed rainfall events, and the values close to 1 suggested un-biased forecasts. The horizontal axis showed the rainfall thresholds, where the events with daily rainfall larger than the threshold were counted. The forecasts were compared with the observations from 2000+ weather stations in China, and the mean biases were shown.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 2861 KiB  
Article
Sea Surface Roughness Determination from Grazing Angle GPS Ocean Observations and Scatterometry Simulations
by Per Høeg and Anders Carlström
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(15), 3794; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15153794 - 30 Jul 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1201
Abstract
Measurements of grazing angle GNSS-R ocean reflections combined with meteorological troposphere data are used for retrieval of ocean wave heights and surface roughness parameters. The observational results are compared to multiphase screen simulations for the same atmosphere conditions. The retrieved data from observations [...] Read more.
Measurements of grazing angle GNSS-R ocean reflections combined with meteorological troposphere data are used for retrieval of ocean wave heights and surface roughness parameters. The observational results are compared to multiphase screen simulations for the same atmosphere conditions. The retrieved data from observations and simulations give equal results within the error bounds of the methods. The obtained ocean mean wave-heights are almost proportional to the square of the wind speed when applying a first-order approximation model to the high-wave-number part of the measured GNSS-R power spectra. The spectral variances from the measurements link directly to the ocean surface roughness, which is also verified by the performed multiple phase-screen wave propagation simulations. Thus, grazing angle GNSS-R techniques are an efficient method for determining the ocean state and the conditions in the boundary layer of the troposphere. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The transmitted wave from the GNSS satellite (Tx) in blue is reflected at the ocean surface and received by the GNSS receiver (Rx). The red line represents the direct GNSS signal path.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Signal-to-noise ratio (<span class="html-italic">C/N</span><sub>0</sub>) as function of time for a rising GPS satellite. The measurements originate from 4 October 2004 (6:56–7:21 UTC).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Stacked power spectra as function of the elevation (GPS SVN15). The spectra reveal the direct GPS signal and the ocean reflected backscattered GPS signal. The latter is here observed for elevations angles from −3.5° to 3.0°. Observations originate from 7 October 2004 (4:48–5:09 UTC).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Retrieved averaged variances (0.1 Hz) for the measurements shown in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03794-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a> as a function of the elevation angle.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Sliding power spectra as function of the elevation (GPS SVN15). The observations originate from October 10, 2004 (6:22–6:46 a.m. UTC).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Variances for sea surface states with higher wind fields ranging from 10 m/s to 15 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Calculated surface roughness parameters as a function of the observed wind fields for all datasets. The blue curve is the mean estimate of the relation, based on all the observed GPS surface reflection signals and meteorological wind fields in the reflection zone. The gray curves represent the envelopes of all retrieved roughness parameters for all datasets. The orange curve is the relation derived from the above equations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Ocean rms wave-height as a function of the spectral frequency in the frequency domain from 90 to 100 Hz.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The relation between the Rayleigh roughness parameter and the spectral frequency for the same frequency range as in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03794-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a>. The Rayleigh roughness parameters were calculated for a grazing angle of −1.5°.</p>
Full article ">
42 pages, 220416 KiB  
Article
Characterization of Wind Resources of the East Coast of Maranhão, Brazil
by Felipe M. Pimenta, Osvaldo R. Saavedra, Denisson Q. Oliveira, Arcilan T. Assireu, Audálio R. Torres Júnior, Ramon M. de Freitas, Francisco L. Albuquerque Neto, Denivaldo C. P. Lopes, Clóvis B. M. Oliveira, Shigeaki L. de Lima, João C. de Oliveira Neto and Rafael B. S. Veras
Energies 2023, 16(14), 5555; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145555 - 22 Jul 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2068
Abstract
The objective of this work is to assess the wind resources of the east coast of Maranhão, Brazil. Wind profilers were combined with micrometeorological towers and atmospheric reanalysis to investigate micro- and mesoscale aspects of wind variability. Field campaigns recorded winds in the [...] Read more.
The objective of this work is to assess the wind resources of the east coast of Maranhão, Brazil. Wind profilers were combined with micrometeorological towers and atmospheric reanalysis to investigate micro- and mesoscale aspects of wind variability. Field campaigns recorded winds in the dry and wet seasons, under the influence of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. The dry season was characterized by strong winds (8 to 12 m s1) from the northeast. Surface heat fluxes were generally positive (250 to 320 W m2) at midday and negative (−10 to −20 W m2) during the night. Convective profiles predominated near the beach, with strongly stable conditions rarely occurring before sunrise. Further inland, convective to strongly convective profiles occurred during the day, and neutral to strongly stable profiles at night. Wind speeds decreased during the rainy season (4 to 8 m s1), with increasingly easterly and southeasterly components. Cloud cover and precipitation reduced midday heat fluxes (77 W m2). Profiles were convective during midday and stable to strongly stable at night. Terrain roughness increased with distance from the ocean ranging from smooth surfaces (zo = 0.95 mm) and rough pastures (zo = 15.33 mm) to crops and bushes (zo = 52.68 mm), and trees and small buildings (zo = 246.46 mm) farther inland. Seasonal variations of the mean flow and sea and land breezes produced distinct diurnal patterns of wind speeds. The strongest (weakest) breeze amplitudes were observed in the dry (rainy) period. Daily changes in heat fluxes and fetch over land controlled the characteristics of wind profiles. During sea breezes, winds approached the coast at right angles, resulting in shorter fetches over land that maintained or enhanced oceanic convective conditions. During land breezes, winds blew from the mainland or with acute angles against the coastline, resulting in large fetches with nighttime surface cooling, generating strongly stable profiles. Coastal observations demonstrated that with increasing monopiles from 100 to 130 m it is possible to obtain similar capacity factors of beachfront turbines. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A3: Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Brazil equatorial margin. The study region is indicated by a red square with an arrow. Within the equatorial coast, Rio Grande do Norte (RN) has the largest installed wind capacity: 6855 MW; followed by Piauí (PI): 3428 MW; Ceará (CE): 2568 MW; Pernambuco (PE): 1025 MW; Paraíba (PB): 672 MW and Maranhão (MA): 426 MW [<a href="#B31-energies-16-05555" class="html-bibr">31</a>]. (<b>b</b>) Eastern coast of Maranhão, Brazil. Barreirinhas and Paulino Neves counties are indicated. EOSOLAR study region is located in a region known as “little Lençóis”, east of the Preguiças River. Observation points are indicated by green squares, numbered from P0 to P5. Point P0 is located 1.5 km from the beach. Point P4 and point P5 are located 26 and 32 km, respectively, from P1. Turbine locations are identified by magenta dots. ERA5 refers to the grid point location (2.5° S, 42.5° W) derived from the atmospheric reanalysis, which is 26 km from P1. Stations’ geographical coordinates are P0 (2.694107° S, 42.554807° W), P1 (2.724877° S, 42.575182° W), P2 (2.725162° S, 42.606507° W), P3 (2.733535° S, 42.589530° W), P4 (2.759033° S, 42.807133° W) and P5 (2.787355° S, 42.855720° W). Image source: Google Earth.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Wind speed time series comparing ERA5 with observed winds derived from LIDAR and SODAR measurements at P1 location. All series are relative to the height of 100 m and averaged for a 6-hour resolution. A light red line indicates ERA5, dark blue represents the LIDAR and light blue the SODAR. Two-sided arrows on the top of the graph indicate the period of EOSOLAR field campaigns FC1 to FC6. (<b>b</b>) Wind speed climatology (1979–2021) at 100 m height derived from ERA5 monthly database. EOSOLAR observations are plotted as blue bullets (SODAR) and triangles (LIDAR). (<b>c</b>) Precipitation climatology (1979–2021) derived from ERA5. Bullets represent observations derived from micrometeorological towers. Box plot edges on panels (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) are the 25th and 75th percentiles. The central mark in each box represents the median. Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. Outliers are plotted as empty circles. Although this article focuses on the field campaigns FC1 to FC6, up to 27 July 2022, data from August 2022 are included in panels (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) for completeness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Atmospheric conditions during EOSOLAR field campaigns. Maps are organized from top to bottom covering, respectively, the field campaigns FC1 to FC6. The left panels display mean wind speed and direction at 100 m height above the surface. Right panels refer to accumulated precipitation in each field campaign converted to mm month<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math>. Fields were constructed based on ERA5 Atmospheric Reanalysis hourly fields. Labels refer to Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), northeast (NE) and southeast (SE) Trade winds. A black dot indicates the study region. <a href="#energies-16-05555-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a> lists the timing of each field campaign.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Time series of wind speed at the height of wind turbines (z = 100 m) derived from the LIDAR and SODAR wind profilers. A thin gray line illustrates the SODAR series at a 10 min time resolution. Thick red and blue lines, respectively, depict the LIDAR and SODAR averaged to 3 h time resolution. Panels refer to the EOSOLAR campaigns FC1 (top) to FC6 (bottom). Equipment locations are indicated in the legend of each panel. SODAR was installed on station P0 for FC1 but was repositioned to point P1 for all other campaigns. LIDAR started positioned on P1 for FC1 then moved to P0 for FC2. The equipment was reinstalled on points P2 to P5 for subsequent campaigns. In all panels, the <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis is rescaled to represent the time covered for each campaign. Stations locations are indicated in <a href="#energies-16-05555-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>b.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Statistical distributions of wind speed and direction. All panels refer to winds at the height of 100 m above the surface, derived from LIDAR and SODAR measurements at the monitoring point P1 (see <a href="#energies-16-05555-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>b for location). (<b>a</b>) Histograms of wind speed. Each field campaign (FC1 to FC6) is depicted by different line colors. The gray shading represents the distribution considering all campaigns and histogram bins are 0.5 m s<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math> wide. (<b>b</b>) Histogram of wind direction for each field campaign (colored lines) and the entire period of observations (gray shading). Vertical bars are 15° wide and indicate the direction from which the wind blows. All analyses are based on 10 min time resolution dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Wind roses of each measurement campaign FC1 to FC6 at station P1. Direction bins have 5° increments and follow the meteorological convention, indicating the direction from which the wind blows. The radial distance indicates the percentage of occurrence of any particular direction, while the colors represent the intervals of wind speeds. A green shade indicates the coastline’s general orientation, considering a radius of 30 km from point P1 location.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Average vertical wind speed profiles. Panels depict station locations from P0 (right) to P5 (left). Line colors represent the field campaigns covered by observations. Station P1 is the reference station, with data coverage for all field campaigns. Colored symbols indicate the wind profiler. Squares are used to represent the LIDAR and triangles for the SODAR. A gray line is drawn on panels P0 and P2 to P5 to facilitate comparison, based on SODAR observations at P1 during the same field campaign. Station locations are indicated in <a href="#energies-16-05555-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>b.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Diurnal variability of wind speeds as a function of height, position and field campaign. Columns are organized according to field campaigns, with FC1 on the left and FC6 on the right. The top row refers to observations at the fixed station P1. Lower panels refer to positions P0 and P2 to P5. Line colors represent the height (m) of observations in reference to the surface. The title in each panel indicates the source of data (LIDAR or SODAR). Data loss on SODAR P0 (FC1) was substantial, so data above 130 m are not displayed. SODAR P1 (FC4) loss data for heights above 180 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Local wind hodographs, depicting the sea and land breeze interaction with the mean winds. Columns represent field campaigns, top row depicts station P1 and the bottom row stations P0 and P2 to P5. Winds were vertically averaged between 100 and 130 m. Hodographs were obtained by computing the mean wind vectors for each hour of the day. Winds at the peak of the land breeze (8 h) and sea breeze (16 h) are indicated by light blue and orange vectors, respectively. For other hours, vectors are omitted and their heads are indicated as bullets. A color scale represents the local time of observations. A thick black arrow indicates the mean wind vector for each campaign and location. Concentric gray circles indicate the magnitude of the winds with 2 m s<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math> increments. A dashed line represents the general coastline orientation. Data loss on SODAR P0 was substantial so only data up to 130 m are displayed. SODAR P1 loss data are for heights above 180 m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Roughness length <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>z</mi><mi>o</mi></msub></semantics></math> and friction velocity <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>u</mi><mo>∗</mo></msub></semantics></math> results obtained from the analysis of EOSOLAR micrometeorological towers. (<b>a</b>) Roughness length <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>z</mi><mi>o</mi></msub></semantics></math> estimation, without accounting for atmospheric stability. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>) but accounting for the stability function <math display="inline"><semantics><mi>ψ</mi></semantics></math>. Line colors on panels (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) depict the different terrain locations P0 to P5. (<b>c</b>) Diurnal variability of the mean friction velocity <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>u</mi><mo>∗</mo></msub></semantics></math> computed for points P0 and P2 to P5. Line colors indicate the field campaign. (<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>c</b>), but for station P1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Diurnal cycle of heat flux <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>Q</mi><mrow><mi>h</mi><mi>b</mi></mrow></msub></semantics></math> computed from EOSOLAR micrometeorological towers. Panels are organized vertically following the field campaigns, with FC1 positioned at the top and FC6 at the bottom. The left column illustrates the distributions for station P1, while the right column depicts the moving tower for locations P0 and P2 to P5. <math display="inline"><semantics><msub><mi>Q</mi><mrow><mi>h</mi><mi>b</mi></mrow></msub></semantics></math> is given in W m<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math> units and positive (negative) values indicate the surface heating up (cooling down) the atmosphere from below. Vertical bars illustrate <math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mo>±</mo><mi>σ</mi></mrow></semantics></math> standard deviations. Red and blue labels indicate, respectively, the percentage of occurrence of positive <math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mi>Q</mi><mrow><mi>h</mi><mi>b</mi></mrow></msub><mo>&gt;</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow></semantics></math> and negative <math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mi>Q</mi><mrow><mi>h</mi><mi>b</mi></mrow></msub><mo>&lt;</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow></semantics></math> fluxes. Labels on the left represent the statistics before dawn (0 to 6 h) and labels on the right indicate after dusk hours (18 to 24 h).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Frequency distributions of atmospheric stability based on Obukhov length <span class="html-italic">L</span>, estimated from micrometeorological tower data. Panels are organized vertically following the field campaigns, with FC1 positioned at the top and FC6 at the bottom. The left column illustrates the distributions for station P1, while the right column depicts the moving tower for locations P0 and P2 to P5. Limits used for stability classification are strongly stable (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mn>0</mn><mo>≤</mo><mi>L</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>40</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), stable (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mn>40</mn><mo>&lt;</mo><mi>L</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>200</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), neutral (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mo>|</mo><mi>L</mi><mo>|</mo><mo>&gt;</mo><mn>200</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), convective (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>200</mn><mo>≤</mo><mi>L</mi><mo>&lt;</mo><mo>−</mo><mn>40</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), strongly convective (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>40</mn><mo>≤</mo><mi>L</mi><mo>&lt;</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow></semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Frequency distributions of shear exponent computed from the LIDAR and SODAR wind profilers. Panels are organized vertically following the field campaigns, with FC1 positioned at the top and FC6 at the bottom. The left column illustrates the distributions for the fixed station P1, while the right column depicts the tower for P0 and P2 to P5 stations. Colors represent shear exponent classes following Wharton and Lundquist (2012) [<a href="#B36-energies-16-05555" class="html-bibr">36</a>]: strongly stable (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>α</mi><mo>&gt;</mo><mn>0.3</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), stable (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mn>0.2</mn><mo>&lt;</mo><mi>α</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>0.3</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), neutral (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mn>0.1</mn><mo>&lt;</mo><mi>α</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>0.2</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), convective (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mn>0.0</mn><mo>&lt;</mo><mi>α</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>0.1</mn></mrow></semantics></math>), strongly convective (<math display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>α</mi><mo>≤</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow></semantics></math>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Shear exponent average distributions as a function of wind speed (m s<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math>) and direction (degrees) at 100 m height. (<b>a</b>) Station P0 distribution based on LIDAR and SODAR observations obtained during FC1 and FC2 campaigns. (<b>b</b>) As in panel (<b>a</b>) but for station P0. (<b>c</b>) Station P2 distribution derived from LIDAR data for FC3. (<b>d</b>) Station P3 based on LIDAR data for FC4. Here, direction refers to the angle from which the wind blows. Average shear exponents are evaluated for a grid of 0.5 m s<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math>× 6° bins, taking the average of at least 3 observations. A dashed line indicates the coastline’s general orientation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Resource variability as a function of time, location and height. (<b>a</b>) Average wind speeds (m s<math display="inline"><semantics><msup><mrow/><mrow><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow></msup></semantics></math>) as function of field campaigns and the heights of 100, 130, 150, 200 and 260 m. (<b>b</b>) Capacity factor changes across field campaigns and the heights of 100, 130 and 150 m. The monitoring station P1 is illustrated with horizontal bars, whereas stations P0 and P2 to P5 are shown as a stem plot (vertical bars). Datasets are paired for same-time coverage. Heights with less than 50% coverage were not drawn.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 9004 KiB  
Article
Numerical Study of the Impact of Transverse Ribs on the Energy Potential of Air-Based BIPV/T Envelope Systems
by Barilelo Nghana, Fitsum Tariku and Girma Bitsuamlak
Energies 2023, 16(14), 5266; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145266 - 10 Jul 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1338
Abstract
Overheating in BIPV/T applications is a concern due to its negative impacts on the electrical conversion efficiency of the solar cells. Forced air cooling can be an effective thermal management strategy. However, its effectiveness is limited by the thermal resistance associated with the [...] Read more.
Overheating in BIPV/T applications is a concern due to its negative impacts on the electrical conversion efficiency of the solar cells. Forced air cooling can be an effective thermal management strategy. However, its effectiveness is limited by the thermal resistance associated with the boundary layer formation on the walls of the air channel. The heat transfer effectiveness can be improved by appending transverse ribs to the BIPV/T air channel. This study numerically investigates the energy improvements associated with appending transverse ribs to a BIPV/T air channel using CFD. The impact of the varying the transverse rib roughness shape, pitch and height on the thermo-hydraulic performance parameter, electrical efficiency of the BIPV and building heating/cooling load is quantified. With the optimized transverse rib geometry, the heat removal rate is 2.73 times greater than with the smooth channel. This translated to a 30.5% reduction in the PV surface temperature and an increase in the electrical efficiency by 11.3% compared with the smooth channel under peak summer conditions for a mild oceanic climate. The wall heat gain during summer is also reduced by 45.2%. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A2: Solar Energy and Photovoltaic Systems)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic of the BIPV/T system [<a href="#B23-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">23</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Illustration of; (<b>a</b>) the experimental setup [<a href="#B24-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">24</a>]; (<b>b</b>) the detailed geometry of the test section; (<b>c</b>) the 2D computational representation of the experimental setup; and (<b>d</b>) the transverse rib geometries considered; (<b>i</b>) square, (<b>ii</b>) triangle, (<b>iii</b>) circle, (<b>iv</b>) semi-circle. [<a href="#B25-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">25</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mesh of computational domain.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of the numerically derived <span class="html-italic">Nusselt number</span> with experimental data [<a href="#B24-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">24</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the numerically derived <span class="html-italic">friction factor</span> with experimental data [<a href="#B24-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">24</a>,<a href="#B34-energies-16-05266" class="html-bibr">34</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Wall shear stress between consecutive ribs to determine the (<b>a</b>) lower-bound and (<b>b</b>) upper-bound of the wake interference region (<span class="html-italic">Re</span>—3000; <span class="html-italic">e</span>/<span class="html-italic">D</span>—0.10).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Wall shear stress profiles showing similarity of flows for different <span class="html-italic">e</span>/<span class="html-italic">D</span> values for the (<b>a</b>) lower bound and (<b>b</b>) upper bound of the wake interference region factor.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Effects of varying the transverse rib profile on: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">Nusselt number</span> at high heat flux, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">Nusselt number</span> at low heat flux, (<b>c</b>) heat transfer enhancement ratio, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">friction factor</span>, (<b>e</b>) friction factor enhancement ratio and (<b>f</b>) thermo-hydraulic performance parameter, for an <span class="html-italic">e</span>/<span class="html-italic">D</span> of 0.10 and a <span class="html-italic">p</span>/<span class="html-italic">e</span> of 7.5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of the unit length, fully developed wall shear stress for the rib shapes considered having an <span class="html-italic">e</span>/<span class="html-italic">D</span> of 0.10 and a <span class="html-italic">p</span>/<span class="html-italic">e</span> of 7.5.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Effect of varying the transverse rib shape on the (<b>a</b>) PV electrical efficiency and the (<b>b</b>) wall heat flux.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Effect of varying the relative roughness pitch on the (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">Nusselt number</span>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">friction factor</span>, (<b>c</b>) wall shear stress, (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">thermo-hydraulic performance parameter</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Effect of varying the relative pitch ratio (<span class="html-italic">p</span>/<span class="html-italic">e</span>) on the (<b>a</b>) PV electrical efficiency and the (<b>b</b>) wall heat flux.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The effect of varying the relative roughness pitch on the (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">Nusselt number</span>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">friction factor</span> and (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">thermo-hydraulic performance parameter</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Effect of varying the relative roughness height (<span class="html-italic">e</span>/<span class="html-italic">D</span>) on the (<b>I</b>) PV electrical efficiency and the (<b>II</b>) wall heat flux.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 3663 KiB  
Article
Ocean-Surface Wave Measurements Using Scintillation Theories on Seaborne Software-Defined GPS and SBAS Reflectometry Observations
by Lung-Chih Tsai, Hwa Chien, Shin-Yi Su, Chao-Han Liu, Harald Schuh, Mohamad Mahdi Alizadeh and Jens Wickert
Sensors 2023, 23(13), 6185; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23136185 - 6 Jul 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1269
Abstract
In this study, a low-cost, software-defined Global Positioning System (GPS) and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) Reflectometry (GPS&SBAS-R) system has been built and proposed to measure ocean-surface wave parameters on board the research vessel New Ocean Researcher 1 (R/V NOR-1) of Taiwan. A power-law, [...] Read more.
In this study, a low-cost, software-defined Global Positioning System (GPS) and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) Reflectometry (GPS&SBAS-R) system has been built and proposed to measure ocean-surface wave parameters on board the research vessel New Ocean Researcher 1 (R/V NOR-1) of Taiwan. A power-law, ocean-wave spectrum model has been used and applied with the Small Perturbation Method approach to solve the electromagnetic wave scattering problem from rough ocean surface, and compared with experimental seaborne GPS&SBAS-R observations. Meanwhile, the intensity scintillations of high-sampling GPS&SBAS-R signal acquisition data are thought to be caused by the moving of rough surfaces of the targeted ocean. We found that each derived scintillation power spectrum is a Fresnel-filtering result on ocean-surface elevation fluctuations and depends on the First Fresnel Zone (FFZ) distance and the ocean-surface wave velocity. The determined ocean-surface wave speeds have been compared and validated against nearby buoy measurements. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GNSS Software-Defined Radio Receivers: Status and Perspectives)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geometry of a GPS&amp;SBAS-R observation on rough ocean surface. The dash green ellipse represents the corresponding FFZ area on the x-y plane, and the origin is located at the SPP, i.e., the center of FFZ. The GPS&amp;SBAS-R receiver is located at an elevation height of <span class="html-italic">h</span> and a horizontal distance of <span class="html-italic">d</span> from the SPP; therefore, the total distance <span class="html-italic">D</span> is equal to <span class="html-italic">sqrt</span>(<span class="html-italic">d</span><sup>2</sup> + <span class="html-italic">h</span><sup>2</sup>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Theoretical power spectrum of GPS/GNSS-R scattered field (shown as the blue line) as a function of normalized spatial frequency <span class="html-italic">κ/κ<sub>F</sub></span> in log scale. A Fresnel-filter function is also shown as the red line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The (<b>left panel</b>) shows a picture of the R/V NOR1, where the red circle indicates the positions of two GPS&amp;SBAS receiving antennas. The (<b>right panel</b>) shows the two GPS&amp;SBAS-R receiving antenna installations by dotted red rectangles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Views to the surrounding oceans of the GPS&amp;SBAS-R observations from the R/V NOR1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The shipping route of the R/V NOR1 during the GPS&amp;SBAS-R experiment dated from DOYs 349 to 357, 2021, and colored in hours since the start. The red squares represent the validation locations of five CWB buoys from No. 1 to 5, and the digital terrain map of Taiwan is also shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>An example log–log plot on the relative Fourier power spectra with respect to four time series of GPS&amp;SBAS-R signal acquisition data recorded by the NOR1-L system on DOY 356, 2021. The derived break frequencies and spectral indexes of the signal spectrum analyses of reflectometry observations on different GPS and SBAS satellites are also shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The (<b>left panel</b>) shows the azimuth-distance tracks of GPS&amp;SBAS-R SPPs obtained from both the NOR1-L and NOR1-R system observations during 15 ± 0.5 UT on DOY 351, 2021. The (<b>right panel</b>) shows a scatterplot of the corresponding effective breaking frequencies versus the FFZ distances of all GPS&amp;SBAS-R observations, and it also shows two rectangular hyperbola curves corresponding to a least-squares, fitting surface-wave speed and the validation surface-wave speed measured by the buoy at Xiao Liuqiu Station (XLS). The coded colors represent the different GPS&amp;SBAS-R observations from GNSS satellite numbers, where No. 1 to 32 represent GPS satellites, and 33 to 50 represent SBAS satellites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>As in the (<b>right panel</b>) of <a href="#sensors-23-06185-f007" class="html-fig">Figure 7</a> but the results of respective GPS&amp;SBAS-R observations nearby Fugui Cape Station (in the <b>upper-left panel</b>), Chenggong Station (in the <b>upper-right panel</b>), Hualien Station (in the <b>lower-left panel</b>), and Guishan Island Station (in the <b>lower-right panel</b>).</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 4413 KiB  
Article
How Does Wind Influence Near-Nadir and Low-Incidence Ka-Band Radar Backscatter and Coherence from Small Inland Water Bodies?
by Jessica V. Fayne and Laurence C. Smith
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(13), 3361; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15133361 - 30 Jun 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1888
Abstract
While many studies have been conducted regarding wind-driven Ka-band scattering on the ocean and sea surfaces, few have identified the impacts of Ka-band scattering on small inland water bodies, and fewer have identified the influence of wind on coherence over water. These previous [...] Read more.
While many studies have been conducted regarding wind-driven Ka-band scattering on the ocean and sea surfaces, few have identified the impacts of Ka-band scattering on small inland water bodies, and fewer have identified the influence of wind on coherence over water. These previous studies have been limited in spatial scale, covering only large water bodies >25 km2. The recently launched Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission is the first Ka-band InSAR satellite designed for mapping water surface elevations and open water areas for rivers as narrow as 100 m and lakes as small as 0.0625 km2. Because measurements of these types are novel, there remains some uncertainty about expected backscatter amplitudes given wind-driven water surface roughness variability. A previous study using the airborne complement to SWOT, AirSWOT, found that low backscatter and low coherence values were indicative of higher errors in the water surface elevation products, recommending minimum thresholds for backscatter and coherence for filtering the data to increase the accuracy of averaged data for lakes and rivers. We determined that the global average wind speed over lakes is 4 m/s, and after comparing AirSWOT backscatter and coherence data with ERA-5 wind speeds, we found that the minimum required speed to retrieve high backscatter and coherence is 3 m/s. We examined 11,072 lakes across Canada and Alaska, with sizes ranging from 350 m2 to 156 km2, significantly smaller than what could be measured with previous Ka-band instruments in orbit. We found that small lakes (0.0625–0.25 km2) have significantly lower backscatter (3–5 dB) and 0.20–0.25 lower coherence than larger lakes (>1 km2). These results suggest that approximately 75% of SWOT observable lake areas around the globe will have consistently high-accuracy water surface elevations, though seasonal wind variability should remain an important consideration. Despite very small lakes presenting lower average backscatter and coherence, this study asserts that SWOT will be able to accurately resolve the water surface elevations and water surface extents for significantly smaller water bodies than have been previously recorded from satellite altimeters. This study additionally lays the foundation for future high-resolution inland water wind speed studies using SWOT data, when the data become available, as the relationships between wind speed and Ka-band backscatter reflect those of traditional scatterometers designed for oceanic studies. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>(<b>A</b>) The 2017 AirSWOT data collection (black lines) was acquired as a part of the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) Airborne Campaign (AAC) beginning in North Dakota, USA, and flying north through Western Canada to Alaska, USA, before returning south along an overlapping flight path. The inset highlights a snapshot (1 July 2017) of the spatial variability of wind speeds from ERA-5 Reanalysis over several lakes in southern Northwest Territories and northern Alberta. Cumulative density plots demonstrate (<b>B</b>) the distribution of water body areas to be examined in this study and (<b>C</b>) the distribution of wind speeds covered by different incidence angles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>A workflow chart for this study demonstrates two paths of analysis. The primary research seeks to identify the sensitivity of Ka-band radar backscatter and coherence to wind speed and directional variability, and to what extent this variability influences the accuracy of retrieved water surface elevations. The secondary research assesses global wind speed trends over lakes to determine the likelihood that SWOT and other Ka-band InSAR sensors such as AirSWOT will be able to produce accurate water surface elevations globally.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of AirSWOT Ka-band VV backscatter with wind speed (0–7 m/s) over ~11,000 small inland water bodies in western Canada and Alaska. Backscatter consistently increases with increasing wind speeds across all incidence angles. Wind speeds 3 m/s or higher for incidence angles between 3 and 8.6 degrees achieve the minimum ideal value to consistently separate water from land or other wet surfaces (&gt;10 dB). The first incidence angle category (0.05–0.1 radians, 2.8–5.7 degrees) is most comparable to SWOT due to similar viewing geometry. This second category shows consistently high backscatter, 15 dB, for wind speeds greater than 3 m/s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of AirSWOT Ka-band coherence with wind speed (0–7 m/s) over ~11,000 small inland water bodies in western Canada and Alaska. Coherence consistently increases with increasing wind speeds across all incidence angles. Wind speeds 3 m/s or higher for incidence angles between 2.9 and 17.2 degrees achieve the minimum ideal value for producing high-quality AirSWOT elevations (&gt;0.75). The first incidence angle category (0.05–0.1 radians, 2.8–5.7 degrees), while most comparable to SWOT due to similar viewing geometry, does not have the highest coherence due to the AirSWOT antenna pointing having been focused near 12.9 degrees. Due to the antenna pointing, the highest coherence is identified in the third category (0.15–0.2 radians, 8.6–11.4 degrees), with coherence values exceeding 0.85 for wind speeds greater than 3 m/s. Wind speeds of 3–7 m/s are much more likely to produce highly coherent data, important for reducing horizontal and vertical errors in the computed elevation product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of AirSWOT Ka-band VV backscatter with wind speed (0–7 m/s) over ~11,000 small inland water bodies in western Canada and Alaska. Backscatter consistently increases with increasing wind speeds across lake areas. Small lakes, 0.0625–0.25 km<sup>2</sup>, show significantly lower backscatter on average, up to 5 dB lower, compared with larger water bodies, even in high wind conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of AirSWOT Ka-band coherence with wind speed (0–7 m/s) over ~11,000 small inland water bodies in western Canada and Alaska. Coherence consistently increases with increasing wind speeds across lake areas. Small lakes, 0.0625–0.25 km<sup>2</sup>, show significantly lower coherence on average, up to 0.25 lower, compared with larger water bodies, even in high wind conditions, though increasing wind speeds reduce the difference between small and larger water bodies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>An incomplete distribution of wind directions and speeds occurred during the NASA ABoVE AirSWOT flight campaigns (8 July–17 August 2017). During these flight acquisitions, high wind speeds occurred at wind directions 210–320 degrees, while directions 30–150 degrees experienced lower wind speeds. Wind directions between 320 and 30 degrees (winds from the north) rarely occurred during the AirSWOT flight acquisitions. A statistical assessment of the influence of wind direction on the AirSWOT Ka-band backscatter and coherence is not possible due to this insufficient diversity of wind direction/wind speed combinations during the flight campaigns.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Global wind speeds over the SWOT observable Prior Lake Database (PLD). ERA-5 monthly reanalysis of 10 m height wind speeds during 2022 was compared with the global PLD. The frequency of wind speed occurrence across PLD lake areas is distributed into 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile groups with the mean. Using monthly averages, 75% of PLD lake areas met or exceeded the minimum required wind speeds for high backscatter and coherence, which are necessary to retrieve accurate water surface elevations. The average wind speed for lakes around the globe in 2022 is 4.03 m/s.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 48750 KiB  
Article
Construction of a Real-Time Forecast Model for Coastal Engineering and Processes Nested in a Basin Scale Model
by Md Ahsan Habib and Gary A Zarillo
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(7), 1263; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11071263 - 21 Jun 2023
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1421
Abstract
A numerical model was developed using Delft3D to simulate the circulation dynamics in Port Everglades, FL, and the adjacent coastal area. The model was nested within the HYCOM (Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model), while meteorological data were obtained from the NARR (North American Regional [...] Read more.
A numerical model was developed using Delft3D to simulate the circulation dynamics in Port Everglades, FL, and the adjacent coastal area. The model was nested within the HYCOM (Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model), while meteorological data were obtained from the NARR (North American Regional Reanalysis) model. To evaluate the model, model outputs were compared with observed data from the NOAA. Calibration experiments were conducted on the model parameters, including the bottom friction, wind forcings, and vertical layer specification. These experiments revealed that implementing a 10-layer model slightly improved the vertical stratification, while the utilization of 2-D wind data resulted in more pronounced surface layer characteristics in temperature and velocity profiles and employing moderate values of the Chezy coefficient produced optimal outcomes for the bottom roughness parameter. The model demonstrated satisfactory performance across major parameters, including water level, salinity, temperature, and currents. A real-time forecast system has been constructed with this nested model, providing up to 3-day forecasts that are updated daily. To facilitate automated forecasting without manual intervention, an automation system has been developed using a combination of bash, MATLAB, and Python scripts. This study provides a comprehensive documentation of the concepts and detailed methods involved in developing a real-time forecast model for estuarine and coastal regions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Coastal Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area: (<b>a</b>) model domain (red rectangular box); (<b>b</b>) zoomed-in model domain in Port Everglades [<a href="#B10-jmse-11-01263" class="html-bibr">10</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mesh: (<b>a</b>) model grid (subsampled one per three grid lines) and bathymetry; (<b>b</b>) a detailed grid for the Port Everglades area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Topography extracted from the NOAA digital elevation model [<a href="#B11-jmse-11-01263" class="html-bibr">11</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Boundary conditions: (<b>a</b>) time series of sea surface elevation at East1A boundary node (denoted as East1A in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>b); (<b>b</b>) 6 boundary nodes along and 5 boundary nodes across the open ocean.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Salinity and temperature profiles at the East1A boundary node (East1A node in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Meteorological forcings: (<b>a</b>) time series of the uniformly applied U (<b>top panel</b>) and V (<b>bottom panel</b>) components of wind (location is diamond-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) locations of meteorological forcings (diamond-shaped green marker) and NOAA station located in South Port Everglades (star-shaped green marker).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Meteorological forcings: (<b>a</b>) time series of uniformly applied air temperature (<b>top panel</b>), relative humidity (<b>middle panel</b>), and net radiation heat flux (<b>bottom panel</b>) data at the location marked by the diamond-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b; (<b>b</b>) time series of the uniformly applied precipitation rate (<b>top panel</b>) and evaporation rate (<b>bottom panel</b>) data in the location marked by the diamond-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) water level time series for simulations with Chezy parameters equal to 55 (red line), 80 (blue line), and 100 (black line) in the South Port Everglades (marked by star-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) time series of differences between modeled and NOAA water levels for simulations with Chezy parameters equal to 55 (red line), 80 (blue circle), and 100 (black diamond) in the South Port Everglades (marked by star-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) scattered plot of the observed and modeled water levels for a simulation with a Chezy parameter of 55 in the South Port Everglades (star-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in February 2018; (<b>b</b>) scattered plot of the observed and modeled water levels for a simulation with a Chezy parameter of 100 in the South Port Everglades (star-shaped green marker in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in February 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) water level time series of the 5-layer model (red line), 10-layer model (blue line), and observations (green dots) in the South Port Everglades station (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in February 2019; (<b>b</b>) time series of differences between the observed and modeled water levels for simulations with 5 vertical layers (blue diamond) and 10 vertical layers (red line) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of salinity for simulations with 10 sigma layers (<b>top panel</b>) and 5 sigma layers (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of water temperatures for simulations with 10 sigma layers (<b>top panel</b>) and 5 sigma layers (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of the U component of horizontal velocity for simulations with 10 sigma layers (<b>top panel</b>) and 5 sigma layers (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of the V component of horizontal velocity for simulation with 10 sigma layers (<b>top panel</b>) and 5 sigma layers (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) water level time series of the 2-D wind model (green line), the 1-D wind model (blue line), and observations (red dots) in the South Port Everglades station (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in May 2018; (<b>b</b>) time series of differences between observed and modeled water levels for simulations with 1-D wind (blue diamond) and 2-D wind (red line) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of salinity for simulations with 2-D wind (<b>top panel</b>) and 1-D wind (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of water temperatures for simulations with 2-D wind (<b>top panel</b>) and 1-D wind (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of the U component of horizontal velocity for simulations with 2-D wind (<b>top panel</b>) and 1-D wind (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) a 3-D vertical profile of the V component of horizontal velocity for simulations with 2-D wind (<b>top panel</b>) and 1-D wind (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) water level time series for the model with the HYCOM data (blue line), ADCIRC data (green line), and observed data (red dots) at the South Port Everglades station (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) differences between the observed and modeled water levels for simulations with HYCOM data (red line) and ADCIRC data (green circles) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Model calibration: (<b>a</b>) scattered plot of the observations and model run with the ADCIRC model data in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in February 2018; (<b>b</b>) scattered plot of the observations and model run with the HYCOM data in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in February 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) time series of the modeled water level (blue line) and observed data (red line) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) in 2018; (<b>b</b>) scattered plot of the modeled and observed water levels at the South Port Everglades station (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Vertical profiles of water temperature (<b>top panel</b>) and salinity (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) for the year 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) time series of NOAA (red line) and model-simulated (green line) tide data in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) time series of the differences between the observed and modeled water level (<b>top panel</b>), and the differences between the observed and modeled tide data in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) modeled surface salinity (color) and currents (arrow) during the ebb tide near the Port Everglades inlet; (<b>b</b>) modeled surface salinity (color) and currents (arrow) during the flood tide near the Port Everglades inlet.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>A transect line (scattered black diamond shapes) has been drawn across Port Everglades inlet from the inlet entrance into coastal area to the end of the port into harbor. Vertical profiles of salinity, temperature, and u and v components of horizontal velocity during flood and ebb tide phases have been plotted along this transect line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) vertical profiles of salinity (<b>top panel</b>) and water temperature (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the longitudinal direction (along the transect line in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f022" class="html-fig">Figure 22</a>) during an ebb tide event; (<b>b</b>) similar plots during a flood tide event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) vertical profiles of the E-W velocity component (<b>top panel</b>) and N-S velocity component (<b>bottom panel</b>) in the longitudinal direction (along the transect line in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f022" class="html-fig">Figure 22</a>) during an ebb tide event; (<b>b</b>) similar plots during a flood tide event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 25
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) scatter plots of amplitudes of modeled (blue colored) and observed (red colored) tidal constituents in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b); (<b>b</b>) scatter plots of phases of modeled (blue colored) and observed (red colored) tidal constituents in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b).</p>
Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Model performance: (<b>a</b>) time series of filtered water levels for modeled (blue line) and observed (red line) data in the South Port Everglades (see location in <a href="#jmse-11-01263-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a>b) and HYCOM data (green line); the HYCOM data point is the closest HYCOM node from Port Everglades inlet; (<b>b</b>) time series of the differences between modeled and observed filtered water levels (blue line) and differences between modeled and HYCOM filtered water level data (red line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 27
<p>Flow chart of the algorithm for automation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 28
<p>Flow chart of the scripting for automation.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop