1 / 18

GroundWinds Demonstration Campaign Analysis Update

GroundWinds Demonstration Campaign Analysis Update. MK RAMA VARMA RAJA, CIRA & ORA rama.mundakkara@noaa.gov Jim Yoe, NOAA/NESDIS/ORA James.G.Yoe@noaa.gov. Many Key Demo Campaign Participants. University of New Hampshire (UNH) B. Moore, J.Ryan, S.Turco, L.Rosentrater, M.Vosbury, P.Dunphy

mlaverne
Download Presentation

GroundWinds Demonstration Campaign Analysis Update

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. GroundWinds Demonstration Campaign Analysis Update MK RAMA VARMA RAJA, CIRA & ORA rama.mundakkara@noaa.gov Jim Yoe, NOAA/NESDIS/ORA James.G.Yoe@noaa.gov

  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 • Demonstrate ability to measure LOS winds • Demonstrate effectiveness of new technologies • Science as “target of opportunity” • Duration • September 19 – 28, 2000 (Sep 25-28 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

  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

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

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

  13. 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?)

More Related