New model used existing formulation for foam coverage and foam emissivity; tested over 3 half orbits in the Pacific

foam coverage exponent modified to 2.6 instead of 2.55 to better fit SMOS data obtained on 3 orbits (exponent still well inside uncertainties in existing measurements)

Two-Scale without foam

Two-Scale with foam

SMOS SSS

SMOS SSS ECMWF WS

Validation over 1 month (August) in Pac. Ocean reprocessed at LOCEAN (ascending orbits only)

Two-Scale with foamTwo-Scale without foam

38

32

SSS comparisons

1

-1

15

0

Wind Speed

Two-Scale without foam

SSS differences

Two-Scale with foam

Two-Scale without foamSSS profilesMonthly average

Two-Scale with foam

When the new model is implemented, anomaly associated with ice border appears notrh of 55N => we have to change our zone of validation in the Pac from 45S-55S to 45s-50S ! This is an example of compensated errors (bad wind correction compensated ice contamination!)

-4

0

4

SS

Sar

go-S

SS

smos

Wind speed (m/s)0 5 10 15 20 25

Colocations with ARGO (New model 1)

Colocations with ARGO Center of track (<300km)

New model Old model

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind speed (m/s) Wind speed (m/s)

-4

4

SSSsmos-SSSargo

South Pacific: N=9505all=0.12+/-1.26

ITCZ : N=15674all=-0.31+/-0.67

South Pacific: N=9615all=0.15+/-1.29

ITCZ : N=16291all=-0.16+/-0.67

(IFREMER/CLS empirical)

New empirical model 2

New semi-theoretical model 1

In term of 1st stokes parameter, model 1 and model 2 are now close… but their dependence in incidence angle is different; need to introduce other dependencies in the processor for model 1 (air-sea temperature instability influence on foam coverage is now neglected but need to be tested…)

Colocations with ARGO Whole track

New model Old model

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind speed (m/s) Wind speed (m/s)

-4

4

SSSsmos-SSSargo

South Pacific: N=19032all=0.02+/-1.70

ITCZ : N=26313all=-0.23+/-0.87

South Pacific: N=17493all=0.31+/-1.60

ITCZ : N=31970all=-0.05+/-1.03