Characterizing and comparison of uncertainty in the AVHRR Pathfinder Versions 5 & 6 SST field to various reference fields Robert Evans Guilllermo Podesta’

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
15 May 2009ACSPO v1.10 GAC1 ACSPO upgrade to v1.10 Effective Date: 04 March 2009 Sasha Ignatov, XingMing Liang, Yury Kihai, Boris Petrenko, John Stroup.
Advertisements

Pathfinder –> MODIS -> VIIRS Evolution of a CDR Robert Evans, Peter Minnett, Guillermo Podesta Kay Kilpatrick (retired), Sue Walsh, Vicki Halliwell, Liz.
GHRSST XI Science Team Meeting, ST-VAL, June 2010, Lima, Peru Recent developments to the SST Quality Monitor (SQUAM) and SST validation with In situ.
1 High resolution SST products for 2001 Satellite SST products and coverage In situ observations, coverage Quality control procedures Satellite error statistics.
Satellite SST Radiance Assimilation and SST Data Impacts James Cummings Naval Research Laboratory Monterey, CA Sea Surface Temperature Science.
Medspiration user meeting, dec 4-6 Use of Medspiration and GHRSST data in the Northern Seas Jacob L. Høyer & Søren Andersen Center for Ocean and Ice, Danish.
Characterizing and comparison of uncertainty in the AVHRR Pathfinder SST field, Versions 5 & 6 Robert Evans Guilllermo Podesta’ RSMAS Nov 8, 2010 with.
1 High Resolution Daily Sea Surface Temperature Analysis Errors Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, CICS) Dudley B. Chelton (Oregon State University)
Climate Variability and Prediction in the Little Colorado River Basin Matt Switanek 1 1 Department of Hydrology and Water Resources University of Arizona.
Analysis and Mitigation of Atmospheric Crosstalk Kyle Hilburn Remote Sensing Systems May 21, 2015.
NOAA Climate Obs 4th Annual Review Silver Spring, MD May 10-12, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 1.SSTs for Daily SST OI NOAA’s National.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 NOAA Operational Geostationary Sea Surface Temperature Products from NOAA.
1 Improved Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analyses for Climate NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Thomas M. Smith Richard W. Reynolds Kenneth.
1 NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center April 2005 Climate Observation Program Blended SST Analysis Changes and Implications for the Buoy Network 1.Plans.
1 Sea Surface Temperature Analyses NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds.
AATSR SST Validation using the M-AERI Peter J. Minnett Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Florida, USA Marianne.
Arctic SST retrieval in the CCI project Owen Embury Chris Merchant University of Reading.
Determining the accuracy of MODIS Sea- Surface Temperatures – an Essential Climate Variable Peter J. Minnett & Robert H. Evans Meteorology and Physical.
1 Comparisons of Daily SST Analyses for NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, NCDC) Dudley B. Chelton.
Ongoing calibration and extension of SST 4 and 11 μm waveband algorithms for AQUA and TERRA MODIS using the in situ buoy, radiometer matchup database Robert.
4 June 2009GHRSST-X STM - SQUAM1 The SST Quality Monitor (SQUAM) 10 th GHRSST Science Team Meeting 1-5 June 2009, Santa Rosa, CA Alexander “Sasha” Ignatov*,
MISST FY1 team meeting April 5-6, Miami, FL NOAA: Gary Wick, Eric Bayler, Ken Casey, Andy Harris, Tim Mavor Navy: Bruce Mckenzie, Charlie Barron NASA:
MODIS Sea-Surface Temperatures for GHRSST-PP Robert H. Evans & Peter J. Minnett Otis Brown, Erica Key, Goshka Szczodrak, Kay Kilpatrick, Warner Baringer,
8th IOCCG Meeting in Florence, Italy (24-26 Feb 03) Current Status of MODIS (Terra and Aqua) by Chuck Trees for the MODIS Team Members.
General Objective: Conduct R&D activities to improve the quality of SST products used by MERSEA modeling and assimilation centers and produce global, Atlantic.
Initial Trends in Cloud Amount from the AVHRR Pathfinder Atmospheres Extended (PATMOS-x) Data Set Andrew K Heidinger, Michael J Pavolonis**, Aleksandar.
DMI-OI analysis in the Arctic DMI-OI processing scheme or Arctic Arctic bias correction method Arctic L4 Reanalysis Biases (AATSR – Pathfinder) Validation.
Application of in situ Observations to Current Satellite-Derived Sea Surface Temperature Products Gary A. Wick NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory With.
1 Motivation Motivation SST analysis products at NCDC SST analysis products at NCDC  Extended Reconstruction SST (ERSST) v.3b  Daily Optimum Interpolation.
Introduction to CMUG assessments, SST and plans for phase 2 Roger Saunders 4 th Integration Meeting.
Andrew Heidinger and Michael Pavolonis
Trends & Variability of Liquid Water Clouds from Eighteen Years of Microwave Satellite Data: Initial Results 6 July 2006 Chris O’Dell & Ralf Bennartz University.
Chelle L. Gentemann & Peter J. Minnett Introduction to the upper ocean thermal structure Diurnal models M-AERI data Examples of diurnal warming Conclusions.
Sea-surface Temperature from GHRSST/MODIS – recent progress in improving accuracy Peter J. Minnett & Robert H. Evans with Kay Kilpatrick, Ajoy Kumar, Warner.
VIIRS/MODIS Science Teams Meeting May 14-16, 2008 MODIS Sea Surface Temperatures Robert H. Evans & Peter J. Minnett Meteorology & Physical Oceanography.
ISAC Contribution to Ocean Color activity Mediterranean high resolution surface chlorophyll mapping Use available bio-optical data sets to estimate the.
GHRSST XI Meeting, IC-TAG Breakout Session, 22 June 2010, Lima, Peru Cross-monitoring of L4 SST fields in the SST Quality Monitor (SQUAM)
1 Daily OI Analysis for Sea Surface Temperature NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, NCDC) Thomas M. Smith (NOAA,
Retrieval Algorithms The derivations for each satellite consist of two steps: 1) cloud detection using a Bayesian Probabilistic Cloud Mask; and 2) application.
Transfer of AVHRR SST Pathfinder to NODC to sustain long term production, distribution and archiving Sept 8, 2010 CICS PI Robert Evans, RSMAS/U Miami ,
Validation of Satellite-derived Clear-sky Atmospheric Temperature Inversions in the Arctic Yinghui Liu 1, Jeffrey R. Key 2, Axel Schweiger 3, Jennifer.
General Objective: to improve the quality of SST products used by EU-MERSEA modeling and assimilation centres and produce Mediterranean Sea analyzed SST.
Infrared and Microwave Remote Sensing of Sea Surface Temperature Gary A. Wick NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory January 14, 2004.
November 28, 2006 Derivation and Evaluation of Multi- Sensor SST Error Characteristics Gary Wick 1 and Sandra Castro 2 1 NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Monitoring of IR Clear-sky Radiances over Oceans for SST (MICROS) Alexander.
STATUS of MODIS AQUA and TERRA SST Transition from V5 to V6
NOAA Climate Observation Annual Review Silver, Spring, MD Sept. 3-5, Intercomparisons Among Global Daily SST Analyses NOAA’s National Climatic Data.
Preliminary results from the new AVHRR Pathfinder Atmospheres Extended (PATMOS-x) Data Set Andrew Heidinger a, Michael Pavolonis b and Mitch Goldberg a.
TS 15 The Great Salt Lake System ASLO 2005 Aquatic Sciences Meeting Climatology and Variability of Satellite-derived Temperature of the Great Salt Lake.
CLIMAR-III, Gdynia, Poland, May 2008 Advances in the AVHRR Pathfinder Sea Surface Temperature Climate Data Record and its Connections with GHRSST Reanalysis.
GHRSST HL_TAG meeting Copenhagen, March 2010 Validation of L2P products in the Arctic Motivation: Consistent inter-satellite validation of L2p SST observations.
The MODIS SST hypercube is a multi-dimensional look up table of SST retrieval uncertainty, bias and standard deviation, determined from comprehensive analysis.
AQUA AMSR-E MODIS POES AVHRR TRMM TMI ENVISAT AATSR Multi-satellite, multi-sensor data fusion: global daily 9 km SSTs from MODIS, AMSR-E, and TMI
1 Two- Stage High Resolution Daily SST Analysis Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA’s CICS) Dudley B. Chelton (Oregon State University) Thomas M. Smith (NOAA, STAR)
A comparison of AMSR-E and AATSR SST time-series A preliminary investigation into the effects of using cloud-cleared SST data as opposed to all-sky SST.
Use of high resolution global SST data in operational analysis and assimilation systems at the UK Met Office. Matt Martin, John Stark,
International GHRSST User Symposium Santa Rosa, California, USA 28-29th May 2009 MODIS Sea-Surface Temperatures Peter J Minnett & Robert H. Evans With.
2 Jun 09 UNCLASSIFIED 10th GHRSST Science Team Meeting Santa Rosa, CA 1 – 5 June Presented by Bruce McKenzie Charlie N. Barron, A.B. Kara, C. Rowley.
Uncertainty estimation from first principles: The future of SSES? Gary Corlett (University of Leicester) Chris Merchant (University of Edinburgh)
Edward Armstrong Jorge Vazquez Mike Chin Mike Davis James Pogue JPL PO.DAAC California Institute of Technology 28 May 2009 GHRSST Symposium, Santa Rosa,
Validation in Arctic conditions Steinar Eastwood (met.no) David Poulter (NOCS) GHRSST9, Perros-Guirec OSI SAF METOP SST, days mean.
Sandra Castro and Gary Wick.  Does direct regression of satellite infrared brightness temperatures to observed in situ skin temperatures result in.
SST from MODIS AQUA and TERRA Kay Kilpatrick, Ed Kearns, Bob Evans, and Peter Minnett Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of.
GHRSST-9 Perros-Guirec, France 9-13 June Intercomparisons Among Global Daily SST Analyses NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Asheville, NC, USA.
29 May 2009GHRSST User's Symp - SQUAM1 The SST Quality Monitor (SQUAM) 1 st GHRSST Int’l User’s Symposium May 2009, Santa Rosa, CA Alexander “Sasha”
1 Objective Determination of Feature Resolution in an SST Analysis Dudley B. Chelton (Oregon State University) Richard W. Reynolds (NOAA, CICS) Dimitris.
Pathfinder –> MODIS -> VIIRS Evolution of a CDR Robert Evans, Peter Minnett, Guillermo Podesta Kay Kilpatrick (retired), Sue Walsh, Vicki Halliwell, Liz.
Joint GRWG and GDWG Meeting February 2010, Toulouse, France
Comparison of AATSR SST with other sensors
The SST CCI: Scientific Approaches
Presentation transcript:

Characterizing and comparison of uncertainty in the AVHRR Pathfinder Versions 5 & 6 SST field to various reference fields Robert Evans Guilllermo Podesta’ RSMAS Mar 1, 2011 with special thanks to R. Reynolds for the provision of AVHRR OI reference fields and Chelle Gentemann for provision of AMSR fields

Description of LATBAND formulation and Matchup criteria LATBAND Latitude increments Pathfinder Version 6 (PF6) based on LATBAND formulation – 6 zonal bands 20 degrees wide centered on the Equator 2.5 degree wide transition band, linearly interpolated Coefficients estimated monthly, e.g. all January sat-in situ observations grouped, for each month of a year for a given sensor Matchup criteria – within 2km and ±30 minutes for buoy-satellite observation Skin temperature product SST retrievals validated against radiometer matchups (MAERI)

Use of homogeneity and channel difference to develop a probability tree to assign quality level – PF6 Q=0Q=1Q=4Q=3 Example of using a probability distribution approach to assign quality. Implementation of this approach will require exploration of multiple categories, e.g. small; large residuals

Rejection of cold retrievals by quality level Green=sat, Orange buoy Need to be able to identify buoys with small offset

Pathfinder Progress Pathfinder validated through comparison with buoys, Reynolds OI, AMSR Pathfinder Version 6 will be generated using LATBAND approach (six 20 degree wide zonal bands) and referenced to Reynolds daily, ¼ degree OI Quality tests have been improved over Version 5.0 Files will be in GHRSST format A Version 5.2 will be released in the near future using the Version 6 code base and the Version 5 SST retrieval equation coefficients Satellites to be processed: N7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18 Excluded Satellites: N12 (bad scanner), N13 (boom), N15 (out of family) Future added Satellites for Pathfinder V6: N19, Metop

Buoy Comparison of Pathfinder Versions 5 & 6

Pathfinder V6 compared to Buoys Nighttime only, , N18 ± < 180 matches/mo < Median Residual Number of Residuals Std. Dev. Residual

Examples of Pathfinder 5 & 6 vs. reference fields Path V6 in red, Path V5 in blue N16 – Buoy N16 began to degrade in late Ability to process multi-year time series will support alternate calibration approaches (Mittaz-Harris) N18 – Reynolds OI (AVHRR only) N18 consistent with time until late 2009 Pathfinder 6 reduces seasonal anomalies wrt the reference field

Pathfinder Version 5.2 progress, N7-> N18 N15, Not used, out of family NIGHT N16 N18 N7 N9 N11 N14 Reload Missing orbits N7 & N9 for 1985 N11 to N14 gap 3 month N17 Start N

Comparison Products Processed ~5.4 years of NOAA-18, ¼ degree daily Pathfinder – Reference field (DT) Comparison with each of 5 reference fields Three types of comparison Pathfinder – Buoys, using buoys not included in coefficient estimation Daily DT fields, to show coherent regions of large difference (order 0.5K) Latitude vs. Time plots, based on best quality zonal average of each DT field, to show persistent zonal differences and temporal trends

SST Reference File – 5 versions Richard Reynolds provided 3 versions of the ¼ degree, daily V2 OI OI + AVHRR (from NAVO, day + night satellite data) OI + AVHRR + AMSR (day + night satellite data) OI + AVHRR + AMSR (night only satellite data, minimize possible impact of residual diurnal warming) 3 Day AMSR composite (day + night), daily, ¼ degree field (RSS) AATSR (night only), based on 0.1 degree night only, 3 channel, dual view product (processing version: May, 2010) R. Reynolds processed AATSR daily fields into monthly, ¼ degree maps to fill gaps due to combination of narrow swath and cloudy observing conditions

6 Year Night Pathfinder V6-Reference Comparisons 3day AMSR (day+night) Little difference at high lat, minimal zonal and temporal oscillation OISST: NAVO AVHRR High north lat summer, mid lat zonal oscillation (N) OISST: NAVO AVHRR+ AMSR Similar comparison for all OI versions Middle grey band ± 0.1K AATSR : Monthly Average Night – Dual view, 3 channel High lat not available in summer Pronounced seasonal zonal oscillation (N+S) N equatorial aerosol more pronounced

Impact of diurnal warming on comparison to reference fields Anomaly fields show significant difference when a single reference field is used for both day and night satellite fields Anomaly fields are very similar when reference field is temporally matched to satellite observation time Path V6 – 3day AMSR composite (single field for 24 hours) Path V6- Reynolds OI (single field for 24 hours) Path V6 – AMSR 3 day composite, separate day and night Day Night

Comparison of 1 day Pathfinder vs ref fields 3day AMSR reference OISST (NAVO AVHRR ) reference Monthly AATSR reference Night, Dual view, 3 channel July 19, 2009 N18 night Note differences, Med, high lat

Anomalies reasonably consistent across satellites although diurnal variability is present Monthly DT field, Pathfinder V6 – 3 day AMSR (separate Day and Night reference) for January 2006 N18-AMSR N Night N18-AMSR D Day N17-AMSR D Morning N17-AMSR N Evening Color step = 0.2K

N18 PF6-AMSR (night only) monthly, best quality, 2006 Residual patterns evolve month to month MarJan MayJul SepNov

Conclusions Comparison with 1 field/day 3day AMSR fields shows smallest residuals, OI and AATSR show larger seasonal, zonal oscillation Use of reference fields temporally matched to the satellites minimizes the magnitude of residual patterns A reference field reflecting the diurnal cycle possibly the preferred approach Comparison with July night field shows differences between reference fields (High Lat, western N Pacific, Mediterranean Sea) Improved quality test reduced cloud and aerosol impact However, dust aerosol impact remains an issue

END

n test. The left is avhrr-only-v2, the center is atsr, and the right is the sst.The northern coast and lakes, near the bottom, are there, but too cold to show them and the warmer water at the top at the same time. AVHRR ATSRReynolds OI