The Probability Distribution of Sea Surface Wind Speeds. Part II: Dataset Intercomparison and Seasonal Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The statistical structure of sea surface wind speeds is considered, both in terms of the leading-order moments (mean, standard deviation, and skewness) and in terms of the parameters of a best-fit Weibull distribution. An intercomparison is made of the statistical structure of sea surface wind speed data from four different datasets: SeaWinds scatterometer observations, a blend of Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) satellite observations with ECMWF analyses, and two reanalysis products [NCEP–NCAR and 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40)]. It is found that while the details of the statistical structure of sea surface wind speeds differs between the datasets, the leading-order features of the distributions are consistent. In particular, it is found in all datasets that the skewness of the wind speed is a concave upward function of the ratio of the mean wind speed to its standard deviation, such that the skewness is positive where the ratio is relatively small (such as over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere), the skewness is close to zero where the ratio is intermediate (such as the Southern Ocean), and the skewness is negative where the ratio is relatively large (such as the equatorward flank of the subtropical highs). This relationship between moments is also found in buoy observations of sea surface winds. In addition, the seasonal evolution of the probability distribution of sea surface wind speeds is characterized. It is found that the statistical structure on seasonal time scales shares the relationships between moments characteristic of the year-round data. Furthermore, the seasonal data are shown to depart from Weibull behavior in the same fashion as the year-round data, indicating that non-Weibull structure in the year-round data does not arise due to seasonal nonstationarity in the parameters of a strictly Weibull time series.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".