1. GroundWinds Demonstration Campaign Analysis Update
MK RAMA VARMA RAJA, CIRA & ORA
Jim Yoe, NOAA/NESDIS/ORA

2. Many Key Demo Campaign Participants
University of New Hampshire (UNH)
B. Moore, J.Ryan, S.Turco, L.Rosentrater, M.Vosbury, P.Dunphy
Michigan Aerospace Corporation (MAC)
C. Nardell, P. Hays, K. Moncur, J. Pavlik, M. Dehring
Mount Washington Observatory
M. Day, K. Rancourt
NASA/GSFC
B. Gentry, H. Chen
NOAA/NESDIS
J. Ellickson, R. Mundakkara, J. Pereira, J. Yoe
NOAA/OAR
M.Hardesty, A. Brewer, B. Rye

3. Campaign Summary Goals Duration Instrumentation
Demonstrate ability to measure LOS winds
Demonstrate effectiveness of new technologies
Science as “target of opportunity”
Duration
September 19 – 28, 2000 (Sep prime)
Instrumentation
Three DWL – GW, GLOW, mini-MOPA
Locally-launched GPS radiosondes
Assorted surface instruments

4. Campaign Summary (con’d)
Operations and Data Collection
Subject to FAA restrictions as well as weather
Common orientation (AZ/ELEV) for DWL’s
Attempted clear/cloudy, calm/active, day/night
Data Processing and Posting
DWL LOS posted at 1-min, 1-km (or 250m)
Analysis
Project LOS to LOS Horizontal, average as appropriate
Project Radiosonde wind to LOS H

5. Status as of July 2001
This shows good results for GroundWinds – for higher Photon Count (PC) or brightness values, one would expect a lower standard deviation (STD) in velocity differences. We now realize that “brightness values of GW are most likely photon counts. The reason they are lower is due to misalignment and other problems with the instrument. MAC says that some of the components are of “lesser than expected” quality. Because of misalignment problems, MAC claimed that they were not able to use their patented photon-recycling to process the data to obtain higher counts.
Edge1 is the ‘first edge’ of the double edge etalon detector of GLOW.

6. Status as of July 01 (con’d)
Relationship between photon counts and std dev of mean LOS velocity appeared consistent for both GLOW and GroundWinds
Same relationship was consistent with model performance for DD DWL
GW photon counts lower than expected

7. Status as of July 2001

8. Status as of July, 2001
General Agreement between corresponding pairs of wind measurements
Lidar-radiosonde differences often large
Especially at upper heights
Attributable to sampling differences?
Other teams had detected DWL retrieval biases, discussed plans to correct them
GLOW T dependence, for example
GW Correction entailed decoupling Aerosol, molecular retrievals

9. Spatial Sampling Dependence?
Note: GW velocities NOT re-processed

10. Spatial Sampling Dependence?
Re-processed GW velocities

14. Clear sky, no jet
0.5 – 11 km
“Good Signal”
Reprocessed
GroundWinds

16. Jet Stream, Clouds
0.5 –10 km
Re-processed
GroundWinds

18. Clouds impact wind sensing capability of both GW and GLOW
SUMMARY
GroundWinds Data re-processing shows improved agreement w/radiosondes when GW signal level is sufficient
Clouds impact wind sensing capability of both GW and GLOW
Shift in re-processed GW Signal levels needs to be understood (conversion from electrons on detector to photons?)