Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKale Lowery Modified over 4 years ago

1
Verification of RA-2 Wind and Wave and MWR Water Content Products Peter Janssen and Saleh Abdalla ECMWF, Reading, UK

2
Time series of Means and Standard Deviations for the period 18 July – 22 Nov. 2002

3
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov Number of Entries

4
Ku-Band Altimeter Note the drop in Backscatter on the 23 rd of October and the consequences for mean wind speed.

5
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov Ku-Band Backscatter (dB) Mean Std. Deviation

6
Mean Std. Deviation

7
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov Ku-Band SWH (m) Mean Std. Deviation

8
S-Band Altimeter In the early period S-band was erratic but since the 2nd of November appears to be stable.

9
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov S-Band Backscatter (dB) Mean Std. Deviation

10
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov S-Band SWH (m) Mean Std. Deviation

11
MWR Total Column Water Vapour There is a large variability on a daily time scale

12
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 15-Jul25-Jul4-Aug14-Aug24-Aug3-Sep13-Sep23-Sep3-Oct13-Oct23-Oct2-Nov12-Nov22-Nov Total Column Water Vapour (kg/m2) Mean Std. Deviation

13
Statistics for October 2002. Ku-band winds against model and against buoys. Ku-band waves. S-band waves. TCWV from MWR against model

25
Atmospheric model shows saturation in TCWV but MWR observations not. Thermodynamics of the moist adiabat tells you, however, that for given SST there is an upper limit to the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can contain.

27
RA2 – ERS-2 – Buoy - Model Collocations (18 July - 17 Nov. 2002)

28
Results of Triple Collocation of H S > 1 m and a collocation error of 1.5% are: # of collocations: 723 Envisat error: 6.3% ERS-2 error: 7.1% Buoy error: 9.3% Analysis error: 4.6%

30
The collocation method also provides corrections with respect to an arbitrarily chosen standard, say the buoys. The results are: Envisat is too high by 3.0% ERS-2 is too low by 4.4% Analysis is too low by 5.5%

Similar presentations

OK

2. The WAM Model: Solves energy balance equation, including Snonlin

2. The WAM Model: Solves energy balance equation, including Snonlin

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google