Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL NOTE N° 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary (French)
1.. Introduct ion _.._ n •• ' ~ •• " •••" , - ; _ _ •••;;_ , .. ; ~ _ ••; ,.............. 1
Resume
1. Introduction
One of the major 'subjects which was discussed at the first session of
both the Commission for Maritime Meteorology and the Commission for Instru-
ments and Methods of Observation was the making of weather observations
aboard ship at sea a
(2) The motion of the ship creates eddies and currents which make ins-
trumental observations of such elements as wind and rainfall unre-
liable~
(ii) When measurements by "buckets" are made, they be made from the
ste~n of the ship in order to minimize errors due to evaporation;
" 3·
. ' .'J?he ·intake temperatures used should be only those' that are .read 'at the·
~-', a ·'r.eque st 'is made by the Bridge •. The main 'intake is usually near t~e.:
'..engine.er 's phpne, and the . thermometer inserted i.n it· (a well in it} can' be
read and reported back while the Bridge wa2ts on the phone. The intake tem~:
erature .reported will almost always be slightly too high, 'but this error is,
in the direction of the 'usual deviation of surface from. intake temperature
when, ·there i·s a d,ifference. The reading of the intake. is too :high because
(1)' the therm0meter is not immersed in the well to the top of the mercurY"· .
in th~ stem (for which point it is calibrated), (2) there is heating of ~he"
well.by conduction from the warm air in the engine-room, '(3}':tliere is heat-
ing .of ,t~eintake wt,lter before reaching the· well, and (4)'the' engineer
usually withdraws the thermometer to read it, thereby subjecting it to the .
heat 'of the. engine-room. (1) could be eliminated by calibrating' therrnomet'ers
for intake use. only by submerging ..their bulbs and a.n· inch of stem in the'··
ca~ibr~tion bath. (2) and (3) are· 'probably' minor, especially (3) .··(2)coulCl
be:reduc~d by the: use of a well about 2t in. deep. (4) cotildbe reduced 'and
nearly eiiminate-d,by using a thermometer that is slow to 'respond. The import-
ance of hav.ing the engineer who is asked make::thereading of-temperature' him-
self was demonstrated very clearly on the MV' "Georgic u • The engineer 'was'"
supposed to read the thermometer at frequent intervals, once an hour, and
to write the temperature on a large blackboard outside his room, where the
engineer who might answer the phone could read it at any time. I found:
(a) that the intake temperature was about 10~ t()ohigh, .owing .to distanqe
from the' sea-and "passage of the water- through,'t~e"'pump·hefore reacl1ipg' the
thermometer • Also, the'pipe was rather' sniall, . which increased the"'6ha:nce of
heating. (b) the engineer did not read the thermometer at regular. times al-
ways,· and when busy on some special task might omit an hourly reading. (c)
the .calls from the Bridge might come just after a reading' one hour.~ and. .just
befor'e a new reading the next, which would re'sult.in- a repetition at the 2'nd'
··hour of the temperature report at the' lst~ (d) the engineer might forget· .
to change the' temperature on the blackboard; so the same temperature'would be
repeated to the Bridge hour after hour. One day the reports were n45°F",
4 - .
I. am afraid that the desire of the IMO to' have sea temperatures to the
nearest O.2°F cannot be realized, I feel convinced that the best one can
expect from engineers reading intake thermometers and quarter-masters re8rd-
ing bucket thermometers is O.5°F. If the engineers should be asked to read
the tenths and give them over ~he phone, the chance of error in transmission
would be greatly increased, by getting units and tenths reversed.
I might add here that the Ashford bucket is very difficult to get a
catch ·with. When the bucket is let down into the sea, water will not flow in
against the strong spring cover until the bucket has begun to trail a bit,
and by then it is about ready to break out· of the sea. I have made a throw
without getting a drop into the bucket. The bucket cannot be "trailed" fro:m.
a fast ship; its bottom bounces along on the water • .3 or 4 dips usually would
not bring up more than h~lf a bucket fUll, and this woUld be only half of
the· volume of the inner metal container. If the mouth of the·bucket were
widened, or equipped with a funnel, and if the spring to the lid were made
only strong enough to keep it lightly shut, it would help. The inner con-
tainer' should be larger. Also, there should be no leak holes around its top
(through which much of a sample can be lost). If the bottom were fitted with
a valve held shut with a spring which would open only when there was more
pressure than the weight of a bucket full, the desideratum of flushing the
bucket would be met, where the present design fails to provide for this.
i.e., the bucket when pulled through the water would have water flowing
through it, but as soon as it left the water the last water to enter the
bucket would be retained. The original design provided for a good flow, but
the. change, to having the outer layer (between canvas and can) empty, virt-
ually eliminated this feature. The bucket has good insulating ability,
changing only half way from sample to wet bulb temperature when exposed on
a wind swept deck for half an hour. .
I note that ·:Dr.· Brooks mentions : liThe engineer usually withdravrs the
thermometer (from the intake) to read it". I suggest this is a very unusual
practice because the intake thermometer is usually screwed firmly into the
intake and is read in :situ. ·In other' cases, the temperature is taken by hold-
·ing·a thermometer'under a tap from the intake •.
4.~ !2i..,
BrQok.§.~sentat1on to the'. Coinmission for Instruments and Methods
of Oh~vat~on of analvsesof observations or sea intake tem~rature at
different dsrp.t.u§.· .
The summary of the situation by the President of the Commission for
Instruments and Methods of Observation reads: .
Resolution XXII (CIMO Toronto, 1947) was made :on the basis"of ample
experience that bucket temperatures were often appreciably "in error, that
scientific comparisons of bucket and intake temperatures carefully obtained.
revealed but an insignificant difference in temperature between surface and
intake levels (except in sunny, quiet weather)~ and that engineer-read intake
temperatures were usually less accurate than thermograph records of such
temperatures.
The contents of the resolutions and additional points arising from the
analysis which lead to the CMM resolutions provided the background for ,the
Sea,temperature section of the, Guide.
1)·-----
See references at end of publication~
coastal zone of upwelling cold water, however, it probably represents an
excess not likely to be found far out to sea. There'are no data from the trop-
ics. It is to be noted that even in the extreme seasons and locations the
difference is only of the order of 1°F, ,but that in the open ocean and in,
higher middle latitudes the difference averages only O.to 0.3°F in the sun-
nier half year.
While these values seem'to indicate that, except' near coasts, sea temp-,
eratures at a depth of 5 m may be accepted as a satisfactory substitute for
actual surface temperatures, the frequencies of differences of various magnit-
udes are of niore 'interest to'the forecaster. These are shown in Table 2,
based on the 296 observations in higher middle latitudes within the period
April to July. The striking'fact is that, while differences of 0.2°F or more
occurr~d in 21% of the cases, those of Q.5°F or more occurred in only 1% at
5 m depth.'Even at 10 m a difference of 0~5°F or more occurred in only 3% of
the cases. Differences as great as 1°F were not observed at depths of 1 or
2 m,onlY once at 5 m, and only twice at 10 m. ,The extremes observed in the
whole body of nearly 300 observations,were -0~5, + 0.8, + le2 and + 2.0 oF at
1,2, 5 and 10 m, respectively.
T~ble 3, of the USA series of 151 sets, shows the distribution of differ-
ences according to Beaufort wind force. At 5 m depth there was U£ case of as
much asO.5°F difference when the wind was Force 4 or more, and at 10 m only
one .such:: The maximum differ~nce of + 1 .. 2°F at 5 m and + 2.. 0 oF at 10 m
occurred at the end of a day (May 30) having wind of only 4.;.6 knots (Force 2)
and 1 to 2 tenths of sky cover for at least 8 hours .. The infrequency of
large or medium solar radiatiOn with light winds (Beaufort 1 and 2),- only
3% of the observations - seems to indicate that the use of intake samples
in all winds and weather should serve in these higher middle latitudes, as,
indeed, is the practice on U.S. Weather Ships, but that when the wind is
Beaufort 1 or 2'and the solar radiation considerable a layering correction
of + O.loF per hour of more or less continuous large solar radiation (rather
clear skies after 09h and until 16h) might be applied. For May 30 such a
correction applied to the temperatures at 5 m would have yielded IIsurface rr
temperatures exactly right at 10h, .Oo4°F too high at 14h and 0.5°F too low
at ISh, instead of the 001, 0.1 and 1.2°F, 'as observed~
Since, with the exception of the rather special case of southern Calif-
ornia, the above cited definitive. observations of the thermal gradient in
the top 10 metres of the sea were made only ,in the higher middle latitudes
it seems desirable to look into less satisfactory types of comparisons to '
obtain some knowledge of thermal gradients in lower latitudes.
--~_ . _ ---_.__.- ..- . - -...-------.-----.-------.---. ------.--------------"1
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF DIRECT MEASUREM:ENTS OF SEA TEMPERATURE AT VARIOUS DEPTHS (oF) ,
I SOURCE" INSTRUMENT LAT. LONG. SEASON Iffi .CASES SURFACE TEMPERATURE MINUS TEMP. AT DEPTH
1-'- . . .-. ~-~_. . .----.--"-.-'. -.. ,,_._..:. ;. ,. .
I
1M 5FT 2M 10FT _ 5M. 20FT 10M. 30FIJ.'1
--...-.----
......
MoEwen 7
I
Reversin'g 10-20 miles Mar... +.5 or
thermometers off S.Calif. +.7: ' I
Notes::
1 Compiled by C.F.·Brooks from Data in CMM r/noc. 55, London, 1952
2 ..C9~pi:l~,Q, .bY...O.F. ,Brooks from data in CMM r/noc. 88, London, 1952
3 J. Richter~: .Ann .·d;.Met·eorol'. v.4, 1951, PI>. 375-379
4 Compiled by C.F. Brooks from data obtain€~dby the U.S. Coast Guard, for,U.S~ . N.•Jlydrog •. Office, .,
5 Compiled by C.FA Brooks from· data obtain€~d'onFregate "Le'Brix"', M. LeRoux, Capt. courtesy L.V.P. Revillon ..
Obs. made frorq.,4.<;>ry 2 m to leeward of ship. Each series took about 1 hr ...
6 Data supplied by·"Lt. Comdr. ('now Rear 'Adm. Ret.') Edw.H. Smith, from Ice' Patrol ships. Discussed by C.F. Brooks
in Mon. Weather Rev., (USA) v. 54, PP. 252-253, 1926 .
7 G.F. McEwen, Jour. Washington Academy of Sciences, v. 18, 1928, p. 545
._------------------- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...--.----- -.--•.------------.....,.-- l
I TABLE I - SUMMARY OF DIRECT MEASUREMENTS OF SEA TEMPERATURE AT VARIOUS DEPTHS (oF) (continued)
I
SOURCE
tt1~~~~
INSTRUMENT LAT. LONG. SEASON HR
.....,..... -.-~,~-~_.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..._ _ _..._ _ _ _ _....., _ ._ _••
CASES SURFACE TEMPERATURE MINUS TEMP. AT DEPTH
1M_.-.-2!'~,." ._£.M ~OFT 2!L,_?OF:T 10M 30FT
Warm Season (May to September)
Richter 3 Reversing 55·5N 7.8E Aug.- OBh 465 o +.20
thermometers Sept. OBh 400 ~.23 ~.18
Notes~
United Kingdom - Bathythermograph - 59.0N 19 .. ow - May la-June 1, 1952 - Various hrsl>- 98 cases
U. S. A. Bathythermograph - 52.7N 35~5W - April-July 31, 1949 - Var. hrs. - 151 cases
France Reversing thermometer - 45.0N 16 .. OW - April 17-May 6, 1952 - Var. hrs. - ,40 ,cases.
l:3
Canada - Thermistors - 50N l45W -. June I-June 28, 1952 - Yare hrs .. - 7 cases (Depths 5,10,20,30 ft)
All four sets combined - 45-59N 16-145W~. April I-July 31 - Yare hrs. - 296 cases
2 10 30 40 90 90 0 10 30 70 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 +.1 -- •2 +1 .. 2 +2.0
a 14 29 0 0 0 0 0 4 +
-.1 +
-.2 +.5 +1.2
3 28 29 29 64 89 57 4 7
t-J
iQ
+
I
0 0 + +
4 39 15 23 54 62 0 8 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.1 -.2 -.2 +.4
0 0 +
+.1 -.1 ..... 3 +.6
5-7 68 9 27 41 62 0 0 7 25 0 0 0 3 Q 0
- 13
itude 41°, perhaps 20miles~ff the coast of Long Iso, N.Y. (USA), ona
sunny (high, thin overcast) July day with wind of Beaufort 1, C.F. Brooks ob-
served a surface temperat~re .(by tnsulated bucket) at least 2.00 F and prob-
ably 2.6°F higher than the intake temperat:ure at about 6 m.
From all the above and from other numerous studi.es, it appe'ars that:
(1) When the wind is Beaufort 4 ,or more the sea temperature at the
surface and at 5 m depth are prac~ically identical at any season in any lat-
itude;
(2) When winds are light, Beaufort 0-3, and app:reciable solar radiation
reaches the surface, in clear weather or with scattered or broken clouds, or
even with a thin overcast, the surface temperature on the open sea becomes
appreciably warmer ,than at 5 m, reaching a maximum in a calm or wind of BE?au-
fort 1 of about 4°F in the tropics and sub-tropics, 3°F in lower middle lat-
itudes, and 2°F in higher middle latitudes 9 and, therefore, that
(3) The use of a bucket or of an intake near the surface in quiet s~nny
weather is necessary if a fair sampling of the surface temperature is to be
obtained within the ,tolerance desired for meteorologic~l purposes, say 0.5°F,
on every occasion. 'However, since such a combination of sunshine arid' quiet-'
ness is so rare in the higher middle latitudes (only 4 cases 'in tHe 296 defin-
itive determinations) even in summer, the gain from using bucket observations
seems hardly worth the extra expense for the eqUipment and the extra labour
in making an observation. In the 151 sets of bathythermograph observations at
lat. 52.7°N, considerable sunshine occurred in 14 of the cases, and medium
in 32%, but most of these were with winds of Beaufort 3 or higher (which
occurred 91% of the time). and so the solar radiation was impotent for produc-
ing a layer structure. In the lower middle latitudes and in the tropics, on
the other hand, '-it would seem desirable to have the sea temperature observ-
ations (on vessels of less than 20 knots 'speed) made by bucket on all occas-
ions when the sun is even dimly shining (or had been within the past 4 hours)
and the wind is Beaufort 3 or lesSG
In other words, though the ideal seems to call for sampling at the surf-
ace in quiet weather, we can get by with sampling at intake dept~s in,higher
middle latitudes. Nevertheless, in the tropics and sUb-tropics, and in the
more or less enclosed seas or coastal waters in middle or even high latitudes,
bucket observations will be required in sunny, quiet weather if sea-§Y£face
temper~tuIes are to be determined with the desired accuracy.
The Guide favors bucket construction which will 'reduce the 'error aris-
ing from a change in the temperature of the sample. When, however, the 'bucket
is doubled or otherwise insulated the result is to increase the 'heat capac-
ity and' reduce the "Tater capac'ity. If sea temperatures are to be obtained
usually from the intake and only in quiet weather by bucket, then the need
for providing' against excessive wind effects on the temperature of the sample
is somewhat reduced" If, however, the bucket still has fro.ill 4-6 quarts J
capacity, some insulation is apparentlyadvantageous~ When the initial temp-
erature ofa British Meteorological Office Mark III (Ashford) bucket was
3°F below sea temperature on2 oC9asions, 2nd dips were 0.3°F and . O.2°F warm-
er tha:n first ones even after more or'less dragging~
'Such an installat~on would still permit errors from careless reading and
at times not on the synoptic hour. A resistance thermometer in the intake
which can be read on the bridge would be better. W.R. Thickstun, U.S. Weather
Bureau, in a letter of January 19, 1953, writes: nWe are des~~gl1ing new equip-
mentfor measuring sea-water ten:tperatures which wiil utilize a "'Teston resist-
ance thermometer sealed in a stainless 'steel well. The use. of a deflection
bridge-type dial indicator designed so that 'indicators can be located at
several points on the ship is being"considered. The data are expected to be
accurate to less "!fan 0,5°FtI.
Th~ United States has made experimental tests on several of its ocean
.stations to obtain sea temperature data by both bucket and condenser intake
methods .. Results of over 1700 observations showed that the mean difference
.between the readings obtained by these two met~ods was less than 0.5°F.
difference found in any set of readings was 0.4°F. The mean difference was
less than O.loF.
5~2 NORWAY
Measurements of sea surface temperature on board Weathership M (Polar-
front I and II)
a~~
The bucket and ~intake method_
by Audvin Amot
Measurements of sea temperature are made every day at 0900 GMT. The
following data are obtained:
Tt = sea-thermograph reading
Tb = bow reading )
Tsb= starboard reading ) bucket
Tst= stern reading )
Tp = port reading )
This preliminary report .only deals 'Hith the bucket and intake measure-
ments. The intake and output of water from the engine is on the port side
of the ships, intake 3.5 m below sea-surface and output at 0.5 m.
0.00 - 0.09 59
0.10 - 0.19 15
0.20 - 0.29 2
Olt30 - 0.39 2
The four readings showing more than 0.2°C difference may happen to be
an error of observation. One must therefore say that the sea ·surface temper-
ature from a ship station using the bucket method, may have errors of-c=0~'4c;>ai
but usually about! O.loC. .
The averages of starboard and bow readings are equal, elsewhere the
differences between the other readings are very small.
The stern readings are a little lower than the bow readings, obvious-
ly caused by the upwelling of colder water by the propeller. The port read-
ings are higher than the bow and starboard re~dings apparently caused by the
output of warm water from the engine just below the sea surface. Even if the
average differences are small, they show that a ship will have a local in-
fluence on the sea surface temperature close to the shipl1 At the time of
observation the weather ship has the stern against the wind. On a fast mov-
ing ship the local influence will probablx be smaller, perhaps insignificant.
As a conclusion one may say that a bucket reading from the bow or star-
board (on ships where the output from the engine is on the port) will give
the most representative values of the sea ,surfa.ce temperature;, Now, the
bucket samples usually are to be taken on the lee side of a ship, and thus
it is not. possible to point out a fixed place for taking bucket samples.
'Our next step is to compare Tt and Tsbft The average of (Tt - Tsb )
(January - March) is + 0.08°C~ The frequency distribution of (Tt - Tsb } is
shown in figure 1. 72% of the observations show .(T - T b) >
Oll The maxim-
um frequency 32% is situated between 0.0 and +O.loC.t s .
The average of (T t - Tsb ) for different wind speed~ is shown as follows:
00 04 7 +0.08
05 09 5 +0~09
10 - 19 30 +0010
>
20 37 +0.07
- 18 ....
=
The two cases with N 0 - 2 cannot give a correct average value of
T Tsbe The average of Tt - Tsb is less by N = 6 - 8 than by N = 3 - 5,
t
but the difference is too small to be reliable.
5.3 NETHERLANDS
It does not seem possible to provide a selected ship with a bucket and
a thermometer which are fool-proof~ The instructions to the observers seem
the best way to improve the observations. Dr. Brooks cites a case aboard
the Netherlands selected ship "V6lendamu in which the measured temperature
was 4°e above the actual temperature as a result of the heating of sample
and thermometer case by sunshine~ Of course, 'a thoughtless observer 'may
attain such results but it is not sure that the same observer will do much
better with the best instruments It seems that Dr. Brooks was very unlucky
0
The table contains for each square, for each month and for the local'
hours 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20(),}) the mean sea. surface temperature, the stand-
arddeviation of a single observation with respect to the mean and the number
of observations. 'In the Atlantic the maximum difference between the mean
temperature by day and at night amolL."1.ts to 1.1°0 in the month of August,
while in the Indian Ocean it is about 0.6°e in all months. The standard devi-
ation does not show any 'appreciable daily range in the Indian Ocean but in
the Atlantic in the summer months, especially in August, it is, indeed,
(*) Only the data for Oh and 12h are reproduced in Table 7.
- 19 -
.30
20
--t
-
-
- 10
I
t
-
- --
-
- r-. I I I.
i
Figure 1
... 20 -
about 0.3°C larger by day than during the night. The largest standard
deviation amounts to 0.9°0 in the Indian Ocean and to 1~7°C in the Atlantic.
I
I Mean °c
Number__.l_
10.7 Ib.3
St.Dev.oC, 1.1
\439..__ __
_~
469
~~
1.0
~_.
10.2 '10.8 12~1 14.1 15.0 16 .. 4 15e8 14~2 12.4 11.3
1.0 1.1
535 . 540.
1.3
566
1.4 1.3
468 . 422
1.2
.431
1.2 1.3
399._ _, 367
1.1 1.1
334 375 ......
In the same test-square on the Rotterdam ~ New York route the correl-
ation-coefficient between sea temperature and wind force Beaufort was comp-
uted for all available observations in the months December, January and Feb-
ruary. It was fou-'1d to be -0.05 .!O. 03 so this' does not confirm the suppos-
itione If, however, only the occasions were taken with NW, mfW and N wind,
the correlation~coefficientwas found to be· ...0.18.:±'0.07 with 194 observ-
ations. These are ·the cases in which the air temperature c·an· be expected to
be lower than the sea temperature, so indeed there is reason to conclude that
the sea temperature has been measured too low as a result of cooling and
evaporation in unfavourable cases. In cases with S-SW winds and with NE-E
winds no significant correlation-coefficient was found.
Before the war a large number of combined bucket and intak~ 9bservat-
ions were carried out on bOQ.rd Netherlands selected ship,s These observations
0
were compiled by T?H~ Kir0 100n an average the intake tempe,rature was 1°F
higher than the bucket temperature. In the same article A.H •. Gordon published
the results of a compilation of simultaneous intake and bucket observations
on board British weather ships. Gordon found also the intake temperat~e
higher than ·the temperature measured in the bucketo "On the stati·onlJ he·found
a significant average'd~fference of O.4l o F.
H. u. Rol12~ublished also r'esults of German comparative b~~ket and .in~
take temperatures. A specially designed bucket (Marine-P:Ci',tz) was used and
in the engine-room a special apparatus was installed to ensure the intake
temperature not being influenced by the engine-room heat. In 7305% of the
cases the difference found between the two temperatures did not exceed 0.3°0.
However, high wind veloci:ties (above 4 Beaufort) caused larger differences,
the bucket temperatu;re b~ing belm'" the intake.
In the same issue (p~ 48l) Roll gives a table 'Vlith the change in temp-
erature of the water sample in a "Marine-Putz H during the first minute after
the sampling, according to wind-velocity and air-sea temperature difference.
This table is the outcome of experin~nts carried out in a wind-turu~el. The
table is copied here:
-22 -
..Ii . . •
:
.• ~ mop.s 2 4 6 8 10 13 16 19
In view of this table it seems desirable to stress once more the in-
struction for the observers to take the sea temperature very quickly and not
to expose the water sample to the wind.
Remembering vThat has been said about the accuracy of the intake temper-
atures and paying attention to the diverging results of the above-mentioned
compilations, it does not yet seem justified to change over from the bucket
to the intake' method. However, it will be recommendable to replace the simple
canvas bucket by an insulated one as soon as a satisfactory model becomes
available at a moderate price.
---_.-
TABLE 7 ~ MEAN SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES
Local time Oh 12 h
, ,
Square Month, Mean St. Dev. Number Mean St.. 'Dev. Number
°C °C °C °C
5.4, CANADA
(ii) Air and sea temperature differences are often small; and, .since we
are interested in knowing which is the warmer, even by small amounts,
both temperatures-should be obtained as accurately as possible. The
Conference of Directors in 1947 voted for readings of sea and air
temperatures to O.2°F or D.loC, but indicated that the requirement
was lito encournge accurate observingrl • Investigation indicates that
it is unlikely that accuracy to this degree is possible. Are we
justified then in setting our requirements beyond the abilities of
the observers and instruments; and, if so, is a chnnge in requirement
desirable ? .
The relation between' seas~ns ~rid the positive and negative air-sea
differences and the resurta~t likelihood of related positive and
negative gradients in the wate~.near the surface,
The diurna:).. effect of sola~ radiation on sea surface temperatures,
particularly with calm or. near-calm conditions,
The possibility of errors due to the equipment used.
(iv) The bucket method is in general use by most selected ships, whereas
the condenser intake method is used by large ,. ,fast. sh.ips,. since the
use of the bucket would be difficult and at times impossible.. Some of
the factors to be studied 'concerning these two methods are:
26 -
Bucket method;
The style of b~cket - whether single, double or triple valled,. with
'attached or removable lid; whether the second sample should be
taken and used or not; the size of the bucket and its place of
storage when not in use; all indicate a need for continuing attent~
ion to.' improve bucket design and standardization of, procedure;
The' thermometer - IMO recommends that they "have small heat capac~
ity, quick response, and be robust and easy too read rt , and ttif they
are provided with a cistern for holding a water sample this should
have a large heat capacityn~ Errors are certain to arise unless
the thermometer quiCkly takes up the temperature of the sample,
before it becomes non-representative of the sea temperature. The
type of graduations, ruggedness, the design of thermometers, dif-
fer from Service' to Service. There is e\"idence to indicate that
the use of a cistern may induce an error of several degrees when
adequate care is not taken to allow for the heat content of the
cistern;
The procedure - there is considerable variety in procedures used
but some agreement that:
The sample should be obtained sufficiently~forward to be out of
th~ effect of the ship as much as possible,
The bucket should be trailed a sufficient length of time to allow
it to come to the water temperature,
The thermometer should be inserted as quickly as possible, be
watched and read while in the water as soon as it has taken on
the ~ater temperature (time depending on the type of thermometer),
The sample should be stirred to ensure uniform temperature,
The reading, should be observed to a reasonable accuracy (rno rec-
ommended O.2°F or O.loC), but there are comments that scales in
half degrees ,are sufficient and that too fine a scale discourages
care and induces reading errors 9
Intake method:
The position of the thermometer. The closer the thermometer is
placed to the free outside water, the less possibility of warming
of the intake water by the ship. ,The type of thermometer well
varies, and there is a requirement for research and standardization
of mounting. Investigation is needed into whether the well should
be shallow or deep, the thermometer fixed or removable, standard
type or mercury-in-steel distant reading, and whether the well
should be enclosed, open to sea water or mercury filled;
The procedure used. It is evident that the reading and reporting
of the intake temperature are subject to human and technical limit-
ations. The acc~acy of the report depends on,the time taken in
reading the thermometer, if it is removed; on the calibration of
the thermometer; on the accessibility of the thermometer and like-
lihood of parallax errors in reading; on the timing and regularity
27 -
In British selected ships the "bucket" method for observing sen surface
temperature is normally used in preference to the condenser intake method. In
large fast· ships, 'however, it is. difficult and sometime's hazardous, to obtain
a sample of sea water with a bucket, and for that reason in ships of this
nature the: condenser intake method is frequently used •. A note ·is made' in the;
meteorological logbook as to which method is used, and the Port Meteorolo-
gical Officer, when recruiting or inspecting a ship, makes a note'about det-
ail of the method of reading condenser intake temperatures and checks" the ....
accuracy of the thermometer.
(ii) Not to collect the sample too quickly, but to keep the bucket in the
sea for about a minute;
(i) Because of the varying depth of the intake according to the draught
of the ship;
(ii) The unknown nature of the gradient between surface and intake, which
may be as deep as 30 feet in a big ship9
(iii) The inexact accuracy of the instrument used for recording intake temp-
erature;
(iv) The varying position of the intake thermometer in various ships;
(v) The frequently inaccessible.position of the intake thermometer making
parallax errors in reading very liable;
(vi) The reading of the intake temperature has to be taken by the Engineer
Officer on watch and telephoneq to the bridge.
The Meteorological Office is trying to develop an "insulated't- bucket
which is inexpensive, robust and easy to use, and investigations are being
made in both selected ~hips and ocean weather ships.
The following is an extract from a note on "Comparison of Intake and
Bucket Methods for Measuring Sea Temperature" appearing in the Marine Observ-
er, January, 1952.
"Two reports (A) a comparison, based on Netherlands data, of intake
and bucket temperature aboard merchant· ships and (B) a comparison of intake
thermograph and canvas bucket methods of measuring sea tempera.ture aboard
British Ocean Weather Ships have been prepared in consequence of Commission
of. Maritime Meteorology Resolution 37, Toronto, 1947, which recommended that
the problem of the accurate measurement of sea surface temperature should be
referred to the various meteorological services"
The results of report (A) suggest that the intake temperature is of
the order of lOF higher than the bucket temperature. The results of report (B)
29
suggest that the intake temperature is of the order of Oc-2°F higher than
the bucket temperature"while the ship is under way and 0~4°F higher than the
bucket "temperature while the ship is on stationd
(A) ~_~~~pa~~?o~_~~~~~_~~_~~~~~E!~~~~_~~~~b_~f_~~!~~~_~~~_~~£!~~
~~~~~~~_~~_~~~~~~~~~_~~~._~~~E~E~~~~_~~~~r~_~~E~~~~~_~!:ip~ "'
1ntroductio.n
An investigation has already been made into the recorded differences
between bucket and intake measurements of sea temperature made in certain
,British ships during the war years. 'I'he results are limited by the fact
that no index correction had been applied to the ships' intake thermometers.
Additional material in the form of Hollerith cards has been made avail-
able by the courtesy of the Netherlands Meteorological Service. These data
include sea temperature measurements by the bucket method and by the intake
method, the intake temperatures being corrected for index error. No inform-
ation is available as to how the intake temperature was measured and whether
precautions were taken to avoid engine-room heating~
",..
Squares 003 004 039 074 "075 110 145 146
No. of observations 1182 323 1469 624 742 1556 957 ""458
§.eas"onal var:l~
~ffect of wind
New seasonal means were evaluated for the period of daylight hours •.
The smaller values of these means when compared with those previously given
- 31 -
show that the factors which make for differences between the bucket and in-
take measurements are of miniInum effect during the daytime. These figures
give evidence of seasonal variationsiffiilar to that already afforded by the
full data.
If any part of the observed difference bet'Ween the bucket and intake
measurements be .due to heat exchange between bucket and atmosphere, then the
difference between air and sea temperatures should be significant. A classif-
ication in' terms of this difference showed that the largest negative values
of. B-1 arE? associated with negative values, while small negative values of
B-I occur when the difference betweeJ:). air and sea temperature is large and
. positive.
Mean values of B-1 were taken out for different depths of engine intake.
Statistical tests showed:
(a) That in squares 003, 004, the variations of the mean with depth
need not ne.cessarily be regarded as real but can b? accounted for
by the scatter of the observations;
(b) That for squares 039, 074,.075, 110, and also for squares 145,
146, mean at 3 metres depth is significantly different from the
general mean but the variations at greater depths need not neces-
sarily·be regarded as significanto
This result in itself does not demonstrate a real variation of temper-
ature with depthG All that can be deduced is that the discrepancy between
bucket and intake temperat'ures is significantly less when the intake wate~
is drawn from a shallow depth (3 metres)~ This ,difference may arise from
variations in the technique of observations. It. 'may also 'be due to the 'fact.
that in this case both bucket and. intake methods are attempting to measure.
t~e same thing, this no longer being so with gre~ter depths of intake.
Conclusion
There are three real factors which might account in some way for the
above results. They are:
(b) Defects in the lfbtlCket fl method of· taking sea surface temperature
when using an ordinary canvas bucket, e.g. errors due to loss.of
heat from the bucket during the process of measurement, this loss
of heat being due to the combined effect of heat exchange and
evapo.rationc .
32
The -results are most readily interpreted in terms of (b)c The differ-
ence between air and sea temperature is obviously of great importance in the
process of cooling which affect.s the' bucket water after be~ng d~awn from
the sea. The effect of wind is of jJnportance in the same connection. Factor
(c) would presumably be independent of wind)' and factor (a) wouJ.,d give. a
resu~t in the wrong direction, for increased wind would entail increased sea
distitT.'bance and hence smaller di.f:rere~1ces of· temperature with depth. Season-
al variations may be due to both factors (a) and (b)~ Cloud amount is o~
significance in two ways; first because absence of cloud implies heating of
j
the bucket by the sun, and secondly, because an increase of cloud a.mount is
usually associated with an increase of wind,
The results support previous opinions that the bucket method is sub-
ject to appreciable error due to cooling, unless the bucket itself is suit-
ably insulated. No definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the accuracy
of the intake method"
(B ) ~._~~~~E~E~~~~_~f_!~~~!~,_~!!~E~~~E~J?!2~!2~_~~!::Y:~~._~~~~~~_E~~~!!!~~
~f. . ,se~._~~~E~~~~~~_~?~;:~~._~~~~.~~~_9s:~~~}i~~~!:~~_~~2:E~
Int:r.Q.dp.ctjg,n
In a preliminary report prepared in the Marine Branch in 1946 ~ntitled
UReport on Methods of taking Bea -temperaturell~ a large number of differences
between observations of sea temperature measured by bucket and intake methods
. aboard British m~rchant ships were analysed~ Frequency distribution curves
suggested that the intake method gave results approximately half a degree
Fahrenheit higher than the bucket method., Hm-Jever, it appeared from the irlide
scatter of the values that errors not necessarily connected with any method
of observation were inherent in the obser~Tations It emerged that tLE:s'e'
I)
errors might occur, firstly, in the mE?thodof measuring the intake temperat-
liTe, exact· details of which were often lacking but irThich clearly vari.nd from
ship to ship, and secondly, as a result of cooling of the water ~n tll) buck-
'et by evaporation, and by conductive transfer of heat when the air was appre-
ciably colder than the sea (See report (A))~
!he c:les1g~~~~eri1ll-ep.t
(a) The new Mark III canvas bucket was used~ This bucket has been
constructed with a double-walled copper vessel inside, the. space
- 33
between the walls b~ing f~lled with wat~r. The water passes
through the holes in the-bottom of the inner container, back up
between the walls and out through the annular space under the lid.
With this bucket, the error caused by the temperature of the wat-
er in the bucket changing before the reading is taken, owing to
the processes of heat exchange and evaporation, is quite small.
The error caused by the initial temperature of the bucket being
different from that of the sea can be eliminated by towing for
about 30 seconds.
(b) The exact position of the thermograph element in the inta.ke pipe
is known.
(c) The Inean depth of the intake where the water enters the ship is
9 ft below the surface. ' -
(d) All observations have been corrected for index error and the
thermograph has been corrected once every 24 hours by an inspect-
or's thermometer placed in the "intake.
(e) All observatioris were made by the meteorologists aboard the ships,
whose duties are entir~ly of a meteorological nature.
Analysis of observations
The differences between the values of sea temperature recorded by the
intake thermograph and Mark III canvas bucket (first haUl) were tabulated
from the records of three Ocean Weather Ships during the period March-October
1949.
The observations from each ship were analysed separately according to
whether they were made while the ship was on station or under way. The
canvas bucket values were taken from the fil'"st haul, since mean-differences
between first and second hauls were slight.
(a) The mean difference between bucket and intake while on station
is significant to the 5.per cent level;
(b) The mean difference between· bucket and intake while under way is
not signific?-nt~
MEAN DIFFERENCE
BUCKET MINUS INTAKE RATE OF FLOW
VOYAGE INTAKE (oF.)
The results suggest that the intake method gives readings about half
a degree higher than the bucket while on station and about a quarter of a
degree higher while under way, although the latter difference is not a
significant one.
LIST OF REFERENCES
2) H.li. Roll
Annalen der Meteorologie, Volume 4, 1951, .pages 439-443.
3) g.M. Houghton
Marine Observer, Volume XXII, 1952, page 43.
4) T.H. Kit,k
Marine Observer, Volume XXII, 1952, page 53.
I