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

Two-Scale with foam Two-Scale without foam SSS comparisons

Wind Speed Two-Scale without foam SSS differences Two-Scale with foam

Two-Scale without foam SSS profiles Monthly 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!)

SSSargo-SSSsmos Wind speed (m/s) Colocations with ARGO (New model 1)

Colocations with ARGO Center of track (<300km) New modelOld model Wind speed (m/s) Wind speed (m/s) -4 4 SSSsmos-SSSargo South Pacific: N=9505  all=0.12+/-1.26 ITCZ : N=15674  all=-0.31+/-0.67 South Pacific: N=9615  all=0.15+/-1.29 ITCZ : N=16291  all=-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 modelOld model Wind speed (m/s) Wind speed (m/s) -4 4 SSSsmos-SSSargo South Pacific: N=19032  all=0.02+/-1.70 ITCZ : N=26313  all=-0.23+/-0.87 South Pacific: N=17493  all=0.31+/-1.60 ITCZ : N=31970  all=-0.05+/-1.03