A comparison of buoy meteorological systems
By: by Richard E. Payne ... [et al.].
Contributors: Payne, Richard E.; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Upper Ocean Processes Group.
Series: WHOI -- 2002-10.; UOP -- 2002-05.; Technical report / Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; WHOI (Series) -- 2002-10.; UOP report -- 2002-05.; Technical report (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Publisher: Upper Ocean Processes Group, WHOI
Published: 2002
Place of publication: Woods Hole, Mass
Language: eng
Number of pages: 67
Subjects: Buoys -- Evaluation.; Marine meteorology -- Instruments -- Evaluation.
Description: During May and June 2000, an intercomparison was made of buoy meteorological systems from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), and the Japanese Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC). Two WHOI systems mounted on a 3 m discus buoy, two PMEL systems mounted on separate buoy tower tops and one JAMSTEC system mounted on a wooden platform were lined parallel to, and 25 m from Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. All systems used R. M. Young propeller anemometers, Rotronic relative humidity and air temperature sensors and Eppley short-wave radiation sensors. The PMEL and WHOI systems used R. M.Young self-siphoning rain gauges, while the JAMSTEC system used a Scientific Technology ORG-115 optical rain gauge. The PMEL and WHOI systems included an Eppley PIR long-wave sensor, while the JAMSTEC had no longwave sensor. The WHOI system used an AIR DB-1A barometric pressure sensor. PMEL and JAMSTEC systems used Paroscientific Digiquartz sensors. The Geophysical Instruments and Measurements Group (GIM) from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) installed two Portable Radiation Package (PRP) systems that include Eppley short-wave and long-wave sensors on a platform near the site. It was apparent from the data that for most of the sensors, the correlation between data sets was better than the absolute agreement between them. The conclusions made were that the sensors and associated electronics from the three different laboratories performed comparably.
Notes: "December 2002."

Includes bibliographical references (p. 36-37).

Also issued online.

Funding provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Grant no. NA96GPO429.