1 / 18

Preliminary Analysis of New Operational SFMR During 2004

This study evaluates the performance of the new operational Stepped-Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR) in 2004, comparing its surface wind measurements with GPS dropwindsondes. It identifies sources of measurement differences, calibration corrections, and real-time processing issues. The study concludes with recommendations for future work and improvements.

mjamison
Download Presentation

Preliminary Analysis of New Operational SFMR During 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Preliminary Analysis of New Operational SFMR During 2004 Eric W. Uhlhorn University of Miami/RSMAS/CIMAS Peter G. Black NOAA/AOML/HRD Alan S. Goldstein NOAA/NMAO/AOC Validation efforts support through 2004 Hurricane Supplemental

  2. Purpose: Perform an initial performance evaluation of the new operational Stepped Frequency Microwave Radiometer (SFMR) during 2004 based on independent surface wind measurements from HRD SFMR and GPS dropwindsondes • Talk Outline • Season summary • Overall SFMR wind and rain inter-comparison (HRD vs. AOC) • Surface wind comparisons with GPS dropwindsondes • Identify sources of measurement differences • Calibration corrections and re-evaluation • Real time processing issues: Hurricane Jeanne at Landfall • Conclusions and future work

  3. Summary of 2004 Season • First full season with dual Stepped-Frequency Microwave Radiometers on single aircraft (NOAA-43) • New operational SFMR built by ProSensing, Inc. (AOC/SFMR-A) • Old research SFMR (HRD/SFMR-I) • Development history and performance validation of research SFMR reported in Uhlhorn and Black (2003) • SFMR winds biased high by ~2 m s-1 relative to GPS surface winds • No wind-speed dependence of bias was detected (10 -- 55 m s-1) • Overall uncertainty ~ 3.4 m s-1 • 15 NOAA-43 Flights • Frances (5), Ivan (5), Jeanne (3), Calibration (2) • 3 Landfall flights • Preliminary Analysis Data Resources • Winds, rain rate, Tb estimates from both systems • Over 200 GPS dropwindsonde wind measurements

  4. AOC vs. HRD SFMR Surface Wind Comparison – All flights • N=303543 • 10 s avg. (minimum resolution of HRD SFMR) • General AOC SFMR overestimate relative to HRD • Overestimate largest at low winds, decreases at higher winds

  5. AOC vs. HRD SFMR Surface Wind Comparison – Distribution of Differences • Mean difference m = +8.0 m s-1 (AOC minus HRD)

  6. AOC vs. HRD SFMR rain rates • Rain rates are generally underestimated (relative to HRD SFMR estimates) • HRD SFMR rain rate estimate validation reported in Jiang, H. et al. (upcoming JAS CAMEX issue)

  7. SFMR Winds vs GPS Dropwindsonde Surface Wind Estimates • AOC and HRD SFMR 60 s running avg. (for smoothing) • GPS Surface (10 m) estimated from reported MBL (lowest 500 m) • G10 = 0.798*GMBL (Uhlhorn and Black 2003)

  8. Distribution of differences from GPS dropwindsonde surface estimates • Differences are defined as SFMR minus sonde

  9. Why the difference in winds? • AOC SFMR Brightness temperature Tb measurements • Calibration flight (06/28) at G. of M. Buoy 42003 • Tb estimates relative to Klein-Swift model predicted values (SST=29.4 C, Sal=36.0 ppt, WS=5.5 m s-1) 2400’ Tb estimates within ~5 K of prediction 1200’

  10. Why the difference in winds? • AOC and HRD SFMR Brightness temperature measurements • Hurricane Frances (08/30) low winds (< 10 m s-1) HRD SFMR Differences <5 K from model AOC SFMR Differences 0 - 15 K from model

  11. Brightness Temperature behavior from low to high winds • Frances 08/30 • Tb differs at low winds, agrees better at high winds • Winds agree better at high winds

  12. AOC SFMR Calibration adjustment (offset coefficient) AOC vs. HRD SFMR AOC SFMR vs. GPS Winds

  13. Hurricane Jeanne Landfall (09/25) • HRD SFMR transmitting winds in real time • Questionable measurements in north eyewall (0216 – 0236 UTC)

  14. Jeanne 09/25 Landfall Tb measurements • Example of RFI contamination @ 5.6 GHz • Median filter (HRD SFMR), which checks Tb measurements against each other, has problems in high rain rates • Effect is to zero-out rain rate, thus attributing all emission to wind • Result is large over-estimate of wind

  15. AOC SFMR confirmed bad measurements • Examine “corrected” AOC SFMR surface winds • More intelligent filter (AOC, A. Goldstein) checks Tb measurements against model • Bad measurements are thrown out prior to solving for wind/rain (min 3 of 6 required)

  16. Conclusions • New AOC operational SFMR shows good consistency in measurements (exception is issue between calibration flight and first mission) • Lower noise, less uncertainty, than HRD SFMR • Tendency for overestimating winds relative the HRD SFMR (using original calibration coefficients) • Adjusting offset coefficients based on Klein-Swift model improves comparisons, but distributions still do not quite coincide • Both instruments show tendency to underestimate winds >55 m s-1, based on GPS measurements – appears to be real • Need surface measurements in high winds to accurately quantify this behavior • UBLOX GPS dropwindsondes will be essential

  17. Future work – What’s next? • Need to revisit calibration • SFMR coefficients may require “tweaking” based on low-wind Tb measurements vs. model predictions (with ProSensing) • Match distributions with HRD SFMR (winds and rain) and GPS sonde estimates • Implement improved error checking (with AOC) • Understand high-wind behavior (with NHC) • Does Tb response flatten at these wind speeds? • Is emissivity/wind model adequate? • Possible new model based on GPS surface wind estimates – need true surface (10 m) measurements • UBLOX GPS dropwindsondes will be invaluable • Examine response in abnormal conditions (“shallow” water, strong surface currents, etc.)

  18. Acknowlegements • Funding support from 2004 Hurricane Supplemental • ProSensing, Inc. (Dr. I. Popstefanija) • AOC (Dr. James McFadden) • TPC/NHC (M. Mayfield) • Poster session plugs: • Ivan Popstefanija (ProSensing) • Alan Goldstein (AOC)

More Related