Search

This study presents a generalised characterisation of the surface circulation over the northern shelf of the Gulf of Cadiz, based on 4 years of high-resolution satellite altimetry data from Sentinel-3A and wind model data. The altimetry-based surface zonal currents, adjusted for bottom-drag and wind effects, are compared with a generic CMEMS product and validated against in-situ ADCP measurements. The proposed altimetry product demonstrates superior performance than the CMEMS product, accurately reflecting surface circulation direction compared to in-situ measurements (r = 0.77, RMSE = 0.10 m/s, bias = 0.01 m/s). The use of the bottom-drag and wind-corrected/uncorrected altimetry product for spatiotemporal analysis of the shelf circulation revealed the distinct contributions of wind-driven and geostrophic components in different basin sectors. The results show that over the western basin, positive (eastward) surface currents were predominantly driven by westerly winds, while only occasionally, westward flows coincided with easterly winds, suggesting a higher control of the geostrophic component over the westward flows. In contrast, over the eastern basin, both eastward and westward flows were found to be primarily driven by favourable winds. Additionally, the analysis of Absolute Dynamic Topography (ADT) values along the whole basin showed the presence of ADT gradients both along-shore and cross-shore over the shelf, contributing to geostrophic flows. Finally, the seasonal analysis showed that eastward circulation tends to dominate during the spring and summer months, related to the upwelling season in the Gulf of Cadiz and associated westerly winds. Westward flows prevail during the winter months, related to easterly winds and the rebalancing of the along-shore sea level gradient during relaxed upwelling conditions. The findings demonstrate a significant improvement in the use of satellite altimetry data to study complex oceanographic dynamics in coastal areas, where both spatial and temporal variability are high. Moreover, the similarity of our results to those obtained from in-situ systems supports the use of altimetry data and publicly available wind models to support oceanographic studies in remote or resource-limited areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studying physical oceanography is one of the important fields of remote sensing applications. Previously, the thermal mapping of seas and oceans relied on primitive methods, such as the use of sensors installed on buoys, extracting contour lines, and deriving the values from the confluence of contour lines. Today's remote sensing provides more advanced methods for extracting sea surface temperature (SST) values for all bodies of water as a continuous raster model, through thermal sensors installed on satellites designated to monitor and observe the Earth. The Landsat program has facilitated a quantum leap by providing its data free for the public. What has become increasingly important is the inclusion, in Landsat 8, of a thermal band on the TIRS sensor through which SST can be extracted with a spatial resolution of 100 m². In this article, the accuracy of the two thermal bands (band 10 and 11) of Landsat 8 was validated in estimating the SST of Kuwaiti and Northwest Arabian Gulf waters, through the use of 62 thermal images and 66 ground-truthing points (GTPs) taken from the field in the period from July 2013 to March 2020. This was achieved through a function provided by the ENVI 5.3 software - “brightness temperature” - to derive the surface temperature. The accuracy of Landsat 8 to monitor the SST of Kuwait and north-west Arabian Gulf waters was validated by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). The accuracy of the thermal band 10 was ± 2.03 degrees (7.9%), while the accuracy of the thermal band 11 was ± 3.13 degrees (13.7%). Therefore, this study demonstrated that the thermal band 10 of Landsat 8 is more accurate than the thermal band 11 in monitoring the SST of Kuwaiti and north-west Arabian Gulf waters, with a difference of ± 1.1 degrees (5.8%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]