Buoy wind inhomogeneities related to averaging method and anemometer type: application to long time series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Moored buoy observations began two to three decades ago. These datasets have value for calibration of remotely sensed data, validation of weather and ocean wave models, input to reanalysis models, and studies of climate trend and variability. Changes in buoy wind observation methods have the potential to introduce inhomogeneities into the time series. These include changes in anemometer height (typically between 5 and 10 m) with changes in platform type; the transition in the 1980s and 1990s from use of a vector‐mean to a scalar‐mean averaging method; and, in recent years, the introduction of ultrasonic anemometers in the buoy networks, as well as the continued use of mechanical propeller‐vane type of anemometers. This study examines differences in buoy wind measurements from RM Young propeller‐vane and Vaisala ultrasonic anemometers installed on the same buoy, and differences in vector‐averaged and scalar‐averaged wind speeds from the same RM Young anemometer. This study also considers the effect of waves on these differences. The comparisons are based on large multi‐year datasets from 6‐m buoys with boat‐shaped hulls (6N) and 3‐m buoys with round hulls (3D), deployed off the coasts of Canada in the northeast Pacific and northwest Atlantic Oceans. Results of the anemometer type comparison suggest that the Vaisala ultrasonic winds are 0.16 ms−1 + 1.6% of the RM Young winds. Results of the vector scalar comparison of Canadian buoy data show that scalar mean winds were 2.1% and 2.7% greater than RM Young vector mean winds from 6N and 3D buoys, respectively. Vector‐scalar differences increased with increasing wave height, more quickly with 3D than with 6N buoys. Results are used to adjust the winds from a long‐term buoy in the northeast Pacific. The height adjustment is shown to be more important than the adjustment for vector or scalar averaging of the sustained wind speed, in terms of the impact of monthly mean wind speeds. A homogeneity testing program finds other unexplained significant shifts in the time series of monthly mean wind speeds. Copyright © 2011 Royal Meteorological Society and Crown in the right of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".