Airborne/ground-based sensor intercomparison: SRL/LASE Paolo Di Girolamo, Domenico Sabatino, David Whiteman, Belay Demoz, Edward Browell, Richard Ferrare.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre High Resolution Airborne DIAL Measurements of Water Vapor and Vertical Humidity Fluxes.

Advertisements

Meteorological Observatory Lindenberg – Richard Assmann Observatory The GCOS Reference Upper Air Network.

C. Flamant (1), C. Champollion (1,2), S. Bastin (1) and E. Richard (3) (1) Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, UPMC/CNRS/UVSQ (2) Géosciences Montpellier UM2/CNRS,

Upper Tropospheric Humidity: A Comparison of Satellite, Radiosonde, Lidar and Aircraft Measurements Satellite Lidar Aircraft Radiosonde.

A thermodynamic model for estimating sea and lake ice thickness with optical satellite data Student presentation for GGS656 Sanmei Li April 17, 2012.

SABER Instrument Performance and Measurement Requirements.

Calibration Scenarios for PICASSO-CENA J. A. REAGAN, X. WANG, H. FANG University of Arizona, ECE Dept., Bldg. 104, Tucson, AZ MARY T. OSBORN SAIC,

Measured parameters: particle backscatter at 355 and 532 nm, particle extinction at 355 nm, lidar ratio at 355 nm, particle depolarization at 355 nm, atmospheric.

The Averaging Kernel of CO2 Column Measurements by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), Its Use in Inverse Modeling, and Comparisons to AIRS, SCIAMACHY,

NDACC Working Group on Water Vapor NDACC Working Group on Water Vapor Bern, July 5 -7, 2006 Raman Lidar activities at Rome - Tor Vergata F.Congeduti, F.Cardillo,

Water vapour intercomparison effort in the frame of the Convective and Orographically-induced Precipitation Study 6th COPS Workshop 27 – 29 February 2008.

On average TES exhibits a small positive bias in the middle and lower troposphere of less than 15% and a larger negative bias of up to 30% in the upper.

Validating the moisture predictions of AMPS at McMurdo using ground- based GPS measurements of precipitable water Julien P. Nicolas 1, David H. Bromwich.

Climate applications of Ground-Based GPS KNMI Professor Lennart Bengtsson ESSC, University of Reading MPI for Meteorology, Hamburg.

4 th COPS Workshop, Hohenheim, 25 – 26 September 2006 Modeling and assimilation efforts at IPM in preparation of COPS Hans-Stefan Bauer, Matthias Grzeschik,

Water Vapor and Cloud Detection Validation for Aqua Using Raman Lidars and AERI David Whiteman, Belay Demoz NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Zhien Wang,

Scanning Raman Lidar Error Characteristics and Calibration For IHOP David N. Whiteman/NASA-GSFC, Belay Demoz/UMBC Paolo Di Girolamo/Univ. of Basilicata,

1 Review of WMO test results on the accuracy of radiosonde relative humidity sensors John Nash Observing Methods Technology Centre, Development, Met Office.

1 Satellite Remote Sensing of Particulate Matter Air Quality ARSET Applied Remote Sensing Education and Training A project of NASA Applied Sciences Pawan.

621 project Spring project 1. The heating rate is defined as :- Let us assume that the effect of scattering is small, and that in the ultraviolet.

David N. Whiteman/NASA-GSFC, Belay Demoz/UMBC

GCOS Meeting Seattle, May 06 Using GPS for Climate Monitoring Christian Rocken UCAR/COSMIC Program Office.

ROUGH SENSITIVITY ESTIMATES USING DIRECT SUN BETWEEN 1.5 AND 2 AIRMASSES AIRMASS CHANGE = 0.5 CO 2 RATIO CHANGE=.024 SINCE 1 AIRMASS IS ~ 380 PPM WE GET.

Geneva, September 2010 EARLINET-ASOS Symposium Second GALION Workshop Uncertainties evaluation for aerosol optical properties Aldo Amodeo CNR-IMAA.

Experiments with the microwave emissivity model concerning the brightness temperature observation error & SSM/I evaluation Henning Wilker, MIUB Matthias.

Introduction A new methodology is developed for integrating complementary ground-based data sources to provide consistent ozone vertical distribution time.

Water Vapour Intercomparison Effort in the Frame of the Convective and Orographically-Induced Precipitation Study: Airborne-to-Ground-based and airborne-to-airborne.

GEWEX/GlobVapour Workshop, Mar 8-10, 2011, ESRIN, Frascati, Italy WATER VAPOUR RAMAN LIDARS IN THE UTLS: Where Are We Now? or “The JPL-Table Mountain Experience”

G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R Goddard Lidar Observatory for Winds (GLOW) Wind Profiling from the Howard University Beltsville Research.

Deutscher Wetterdienst Measurement Technology Humidity Measurements by Aircraft of the E-AMDAR Fleet TECO 2008 Axel Hoff Deutscher Wetterdienst Observing.

Kick-Off-Treffen SPP, Bonn October 2006 Improved Water Vapour and Wind Initialisation for Precipitation Forecasts: Impact Studies with the ECMWF.

Raman lidar characterization of PBL structure during COPS Donato Summa a, Paolo Di Girolamo a, Dario Stelitano a, Tatiana Di Iorio b a DIFA, Univ. della.

June, 2003EUMETSAT GRAS SAF 2nd User Workshop. 2 The EPS/METOP Satellite.

Boundary layer temperature profile observations using ground-based microwave radiometers Bernhard Pospichal, ISARS 2006 Garmisch-Partenkirchen AMMA - Benin.

Raman Lidar measurements of atmospheric temperature during the International H 2 O Project Paolo Di Girolamo a, Rocco Marchese a, David N. Whiteman b,

IHOP Workshop, Boulder, CO, March, 2003 DLR-DIAL Observations Instrument PI: Gerhard Ehret Instrument operation: Gorazd Poberaj, Andreas Fix, Martin.

11 Ice Cover and Sea and Lake Ice Concentration with GOES-R ABI Presented by Yinghui Liu Presented by Yinghui Liu 1 Team Members: Yinghui Liu, Jeffrey.

Evaluation of the WVSS-II Sensor Using Co-located In-situ and Remotely Sensed Observations Sarah Bedka, Ralph Petersen, Wayne Feltz, and Erik Olson CIMSS.

IHOP Operations Plan, Chapter 7: Other Special Ground-Based Instrumentation Operation Frédéric Fabry et al. General overview Instrument deployment and.

MMS - Ozonesonde Wind and Temperature Comparison during CR-AVE T.P. Bui, J. Dean-Day, C. Chang, R. Castaneda NASA-Ames Research Center H. Voemel University.

LASE Measurements During IHOP Edward V. Browell, Syed Ismail, Richard A. Ferrare, Susan A Kooi, Anthony Notari, and Carolyn F. Butler NASA Langley Research.

Intercomparisons of Water Vapor Measurements during IHOP_2002 – Radiosonde and Dropsonde Junhong (June) Wang NCAR Atmospheric Technology Division Acknowledgement:

INFRARED-DERIVED ATMOSPHERIC PROPERTY VALIDATION W. Feltz, T. Schmit, J. Nelson, S. Wetzel-Seeman, J. Mecikalski and J. Hawkinson 3 rd Annual MURI Workshop.

SRL/Reference sonde P. Di Girolamo, D. Whiteman, B. Demoz, J. Wang, K. Beierle, T. Weckwerth The Reference sonde (C34) consists of a Snow White (SW) chilled-mirror.

CLN QA/QC efforts CCNY – (Barry Gross) UMBC- (Ray Hoff) Hampton U. (Pat McCormick) UPRM- (Hamed Parsiani)

October 02, st IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop Status of intercomparisons and the next steps  Characterize moisture measuring techniques.

Andreas Behrendt 25 March 2003IHOP Workshop IHOP Intercomparisons Selection of Case Studies & First Quicklooks Andreas Behrendt, Thorsten Schaberl, Hans-Stefan.

Layered Water Vapor Quick Guide by NASA / SPoRT and CIRA Why is the Layered Water Vapor Product important? Water vapor is essential for creating clouds,

A new method for first-principles calibration

Page 1 Envisat Validation Workshop, ACVT-GBMCD, GOMOS O 3 (r) 12/12/2002 ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets.

AMSR-E Vapor and Cloud Validation Atmospheric Water Vapor –In Situ Data Radiosondes –Calibration differences between different radiosonde manufactures.

Page 1 Envisat Validation Workshop, ACVT-GBMCD, MIPAS p&T&H20 12/12/2002 Envisat Validation Workshop Atmospheric Chemistry Validation Team Ground-Based.

Improving GPS RO Stratospheric Retrieval for Climate Benchmarking Chi O. Ao 1, Anthony J. Mannucci 1, E. Robert Kursinski 2 1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

Formosat3/COSMIC Workshop, Taipei, Oct. 1-3, 2008 The Ionosphere as Signal and Noise in Radio Occultation Christian Rocken, Sergey Sokolovskiy, Bill Schreiner,

Evaluations of AMDAR Observations using Co-Located Radiosonde and Inter-Aircraft Comparisons Lee Cronce 1, Ralph Petersen 1, Erik Olson 1, Wayne Feltz.

Diurnal Variations in Southern Great Plain during IHOP -- data and NCAR/CAM Junhong (June) Wang Dave Parsons, Julie Caron and Jim Hack NCAR ATD and CGD.

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.

Atmospheric profile and precipitation properties derived from radar and radiosondes during RICO Louise Nuijens With thanks to: Bjorn Stevens (UCLA) Margreet.

A global, 2-hourly atmospheric precipitable water dataset from ground-based GPS measurements and its scientific applications Junhong (June) Wang NCAR/EOL/T.

UNIVERSITY OF BASILICATA CNR-IMAA (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale) Tito Scalo (PZ) Analysis and interpretation.

Flight Tests of the Novel TechSat Satellite Ozone Meter Algorithms and Measurement Processing Results M. Guelman, F. Ortenberg, B. Wolfson Asher Space.

Cloud Detection: Optical Depth Thresholds and FOV Considerations Steven A. Ackerman, Richard A. Frey, Edwin Eloranta, and Robert Holz Cloud Detection Issues.

Comparison of lidar water vapor measurements at Fixed PISA 2

Aerosol extinction coefficient (Raman method)

Huailin Chen, Bruce Gentry, Tulu Bacha, Belay Demoz, Demetrius Venable

LASE Measurements of Water Vapor During IHOP

PGE06 TPW Total Precipitable Water

Refractivity During IHOP_2002

Alexandre Baron, Patrick Chazette, Julien Totems

Assimilation of high-resolution DIAL water vapor data into the MM5 modeling system – Comparison of the performance of different assimilation methods Content:

Presentation transcript:

Airborne/ground-based sensor intercomparison: SRL/LASE Paolo Di Girolamo, Domenico Sabatino, David Whiteman, Belay Demoz, Edward Browell, Richard Ferrare IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO

SRL operated for approximately 35 days during IHOP Most of the measurements were carried out in vertically pointing mode Present availability of analyzed data: 11 days 29 May 2002, 30 May 2002, 31 May 2002, 3June 2002, 4June 2002, 9June 2002, 10June 2002, 12June 2002, 14June 2002, 19June 2002, 20 June 2002 both daytime and night-time cases. Water vapor data have been processed using a single, height independent calibration constant determined from 20 nighttime datasets of SRL water vapor and SuomiNet GPS measurements of total precipitable water both taken at Greenbelt, MD in the September November, 2002 period for Aqua validation purposes. IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO NASA Scanning Raman Lidar, SRL

Time resolution: 1 minute intervals Vertical resolution: 0-1 km : 60m, 1-2 km : 100m, 2-3 km : 150m, 3-4 km : 200m, >4 km : 300m Vertical extent (for the present data release): 0-6 km. IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO

Statistical error associated with the Raman lidar signals and Measurement uncertainty Systematic error associated with the determination of the calibration constant K(z). Random error is a function time of day, altitude and amount of water vapour. During IHOP: day <10% in BL night <2% in BL, <10% to 6km Water vapor data have been processed using a single, height independent calibration constant determined from 20 nighttime datasets of SRL water vapor and SuomiNet GPS measurements of total precipitable water both taken at Greenbelt, MD in the September November, 2002 period for Aqua validation purposes.

Vertical data interval: 30 m Horizontal interval: 6 sec or 1.4 km Vertical resolution: 330 m Horizontal resolution: 1 min or 14 km LASE measurement accuracy: better than 6 % or 0.01 g/kg, across the troposphere Water vapor mixing ratio: calculated using molecular density profiles derived from the Homestead radiosondes. NASA LASE

Comparison between SRL and LASE Comparison between SRL and LASE data are possible on 30 May, 3 June, 9 June and 14 June. 24 comparisons available Date: May 30, 2002 time[UTC] distance[km] 18:28: :28: :44: :34: :49: Date: June 03, 2002 time[UTC] distance[km] 19:29: :30: :32: Date: June 09, 2002 time[UTC] distance[km] 18:06: :17: :31: Date: June 14, 2002 time[UTC] distance[km] 14:03: :03: :44: :14: :14: :56: :27: :27: :10: :10: :38: :19: :49: Comparisons are based on 10 minute data averaging for SRL and 1 minute data averaging for LASE. Based on 10 minute data averaging, 10 % random uncertainty for SRL is reached between km. In order to compute deviations, SRL data have been interpolated at LASE heights. IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO

Agreement is very good when distance between LASE footprint and SRL does not exceed 2.5 km. Average RMS deviation: 2.2 % in the height interval km Average BIAS: 0.3 % in the height interval km IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO Distance between LASE footprint and SRL = 0.9 km statistical error gets lower than 10 % around 5 km Sun zenith angle=30-40 deg Background signal is 50 % smaller than Sun at zenith When distances are larger than 2.5 km, differences in air masses properties are appreciable  deviations between LASE and SRL are larger.

RMS deviations and BIAS Total RMS deviations and BIAS in the altitude region km and km, together with contributions from different height intervals: km, km, km, km, km Error exceeding 100 % have been excluded from the average

RMS deviations and BIAS between SRL and mean value IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO expected to be the best estimate of truth (g/kg)

RMS deviations and BIAS between LASE and mean value IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO expected to be the best estimate of truth (g/kg)

RMS deviations and BIAS between the sensors IHOP_2002 Water Vapor Intercomparison Workshop, 2-3 October 2003, NCAR, Boulder, CO

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

RMS deviations and BIAS between the sensors

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

DateTime km km km km km km km km 30 May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Average

Average (over 24 comparisons) RMS deviation and BIAS Between SRL and mean Average RMS deviation < 4.19 % 1.3 < z < 2.8 km, Average BIAS < 0.34 % 1.3 < z < 3.3 km Between LASE and mean Error exceeding 100 % have been excluded from the average. Average RMS deviation < 4.23 % 1.3 < z < 2.8 km, Average BIAS < 0.4 % 1.3 < z < 3.3 km Between SRL and LASE Error exceeding 100 % have been excluded from the average. Average RMS deviation < 8.4 % 1.3 < z < 2.8 km, Average BIAS < 0.68 % 1.3 < z < 3.3 km AVERAGE RMS Deviation ( in the height region km ) between SRL/LASE and the mean value does not exceed 4.2 % AVERAGE BIAS (height region km) between SRL/LASE and the mean value does not exceed 0.4 %