MarioProtVI wrote: I would not use OSCAT as it is unreliable and has a closed circ bias, same as the HY one which it is related to IIRC.
From everything I've read, it does not have a closed circulation bias, but has a high wind speed bias at higher speeds.
From:
https://mdc.coaps.fsu.edu/scatterometry ... esults.pdf
The Oceansat-3 OSCAT instrument performs well and good quality winds can be retrieved
› Coastal processing yields consistent results; it will be used in our processing, unlike for ScatSat-1
› The innermost and outermost full resolution slices in the footprints (eggs) appear to have slightly inconsistent σ0 values and they are not used in the wind retrievals for now;
› Outer azimuth peak at 180o needs further attention
› The wind statistics w.r.t. ECMWF winds are comparable to those from ScatSat-1
› Both HY-2B and Oceansat-3 show an increasing positive wind speed bias for higher wind speeds, this trend is stronger for Oceansat-3 than for HY-2B.
› The NSCAT4-HY2 GMF results in a flatter wind speed bias as a function of wind speed, but slightly deteriorates the wind direction and u/v statistics. It works better for HY-2B than for Oceansat-3.
› Backscatter data can be corrected with HOC prior to the wind inversion. This results in a flatter wind speed bias as a function of wind speed, but at the same time a negative overall wind speed bias and a deterioration of the wind speed bias as a function of WVC number and also a deterioration of the wind direction and u/v statistics. This effect is stronger for Oceansat-3 than for HY-2B.
› Retrieved wind speeds can also be corrected using HOC. This results in a flatter wind speed bias without introducing overall biases and without changing the wind direction and u/v statistics.
› QuikSCAT shows an increasing wind speed bias for higher wind speeds, comparable in magnitude to Oceansat-3, ASCAT shows an almost flat wind speed bias for high wind speeds.
› OPS* improves differences between scatterometer and ECMWF model winds
When you think about it, a scatterometer having a "closed circulation bias" wouldn't make any sense. Either it would have higher than normal ambiguities in direction, irrespective of a closed LLC, or it wouldn't. If you can point me to another study of this instrument which mentions this alleged "bias" of which you speak, I'll take a look. I'm always willing to reconsider my position in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.