Estimation of the Impact of Sampling Errors in the VOS Observations on Air–Sea Fluxes. Part II: Impact on Trends and Interannual Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using the same approach as in Part I, here it is shown how sampling problems in voluntary observing ship (VOS) data affect conclusions about interannual variations and secular changes of surface heat fluxes. The largest uncertainties in linear trend estimates are found in relatively poorly sampled regions like the high-latitude North Atlantic and North Pacific as well as the Southern Ocean, where trends can locally show opposite signs when computed from the regularly sampled and undersampled data. Spatial patterns of shorter-period interannual variability, quantified through the EOF analysis, also show remarkable differences between the regularly sampled and undersampled flux datasets in the Labrador Sea and northwest Pacific. In particular, it is shown that in the Labrador Sea region, in contrast to regularly sampled NCEP–NCAR reanalysis fluxes, VOS-like sampled NCEP–NCAR reanalysis fluxes neither show significant interannual variability nor significant trends. These regions, although quite localized covering small parts of the globe, play a crucial role for the coupled atmosphere–ocean system. In the Labrador Sea, for instance, interannual and decadal-scale changes of the surface net heat fluxes are known to affect oceanic convection and, thus, the meridional overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean. From a discussion of current atmospheric data assimilation systems it is argued that in poorly sampled regions reanalysis products are superior to VOS-based products for studying interannual and interdecadal variations of atmosphere–ocean interaction. In well-sampled regions, on the other hand, conclusions about surface heat flux variations are relatively insensitive to the choice of the flux products used (VOS versus reanalysis data). The results are confirmed for two different datasets, that is, ECMWF 40-yr Re-Analysis (ERA-40) data and seasonal integrations with a recent version of the ECMWF model in which no actual data were assimilated.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".