Comparison of reanalyzed, analyzed, satellite-retrieved and NWP modelled winds with buoy data along the Iberian Peninsula coast

• Published in: Remote sensing of environment Vol. 152; pp. 480 - 492
• Main Authors: Carvalho, D., Rocha, A., Gómez-Gesteira, M., Silva Santos, C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.09.2014; Elsevier
• Subjects: Analysis; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied geophysics; Biological and medical sciences; Buoys; Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform Ocean Wind (CCMP); Earth sciences; Earth, ocean, space; ERA-Interim; Exact sciences and technology; Flux; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects. Techniques; GFS; Iberian Peninsula; Internal geophysics; NASA-MERRA; NCEP-CFSR; NCEP-FNL; NCEP-R2; Ocean surface wind; Oceans; Offshore; Offshore engineering; Offshore wind energy; Peninsulas; Portugal; QuikSCAT; Reanalysis; Spain; Teledetection and vegetation maps; Wind power generation; Wind simulation; Wind speed; WRF; Iberian Peninsula; Southern Europe; Portugal; Europe; Spain; ANE, Europe, Iberian Peninsula; NCEP-R2; Offshore wind energy; NASA-MERRA; QuikSCAT; WRF; ERA-Interim; Portugal; Wind simulation; NCEP-FNL; Spain; Ocean surface wind; Iberian Peninsula; GFS; Analysis; Cross-Calibrated Multi-Platform Ocean Wind (CCMP); Reanalysis; NCEP-CFSR; simulation; Wind velocity; accuracy; Modeling; IFREMER; winds; flux; direction; high resolution; NASA; Estimation; satellite measurements; Representation; Measurement in situ; Offshore; errors
• ISSN: 0034-4257; 1879-0704
• DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.017

Offshore wind data derived from satellite measurements (CCMP, QuikSCAT, NCDC Blended Sea Winds and IFREMER Blended Wind Fields), reanalyses (NCEP-CFSR, ERA-Interim, NASA-MERRA and NCEP-RII), analyses (NCEP-FNL and NCEP-GFS) and WRF modelled offshore winds were compared to in situ measurements, in order to assess which one of these products is the best alternative to in situ offshore measured wind data. Wind speed and direction from these products were compared to measurements collected at five buoys moored along the Iberian Peninsula Atlantic coast. Results show that WRF modelled offshore winds are the best alternative to in situ measured offshore wind data, showing the highest temporal accuracy (the ability in representing the wind speed and direction at a given time instant) and lowest errors in terms of offshore wind power flux estimations. However, offshore wind data taken from CCMP shows the lowest errors in terms of the mean wind speeds and, together with IFREMER-BWF, the best wind temporal accuracy after WRF simulation. Therefore, in general CCMP and IFREMER-BWF can be considered as the best alternatives to WRF high resolution modelled offshore winds, if the latter is not available. Specifically for offshore wind energy resource assessment, NCEP-CFSR reanalysis or NCEP-GFS analysis data can also be used with confidence as an alternative to WRF modelled data, showing better wind power flux estimates than CCMP and IFREMER-BWF. Despite the best performances of WRF high resolution offshore winds, such modelling tasks require considerable computational resources and time to obtain quality results. Therefore, the value of satellite-derived wind data should not be disregarded. These remotely sensed offshore wind measurements should be seriously considered when searching for alternative sources of wind information for ocean areas, in particular for open ocean areas where they have their strength. •Several ocean surface wind products were compared with offshore wind measurements.•WRF modelled winds showed the best overall results in representing offshore winds.•CCMP and IFREMER-BWF are globally the best alternatives to WRF modelled winds.•For offshore wind energy NCEP-CFSR and NCEP-GFS are the best alternatives to WRF.