1 / 39

Satellite Cloud Data for Model Verification and Assimilation

Satellite Cloud Data for Model Verification and Assimilation. P. Minnis 1 , W. L. Smith, Jr. 1 , L. Nguyen 1 , R. Palikonda 2 , D. A. Spangenberg 2 , T. L. Chee 2 , K. M. Bedka 2 , F.-L. Chang 2 , J. K. Ayers 2 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 USA 2 SSAI, Hampton, VA 23666 USA.

yardley-pittman
Download Presentation

Satellite Cloud Data for Model Verification and Assimilation

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. Satellite Cloud Data for Model Verification and Assimilation P. Minnis1, W. L. Smith, Jr.1, L. Nguyen1, R. Palikonda2, D. A. Spangenberg2, T. L. Chee2, K. M. Bedka2, F.-L. Chang2, J. K. Ayers2 1NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 USA 2SSAI, Hampton, VA 23666 USA

  2. Background • For many aspects of hazardous weather, clouds are involved - if a model or nowcasting system has an accurate depiction of the cloud field, vertically and horizontally, then prediction or diagnosis of a given hazard should improve • Cloud property retrieval systems have been developed for climate research - if they are used in real time, they can provide parameters that can be used to numerically characterize cloud fields they could help the accuracy of forecasting and nowcasting

  3. Objectives • Provide accurate cloud and radiation properties from meteorological satellites for use by the meteorological, climate, energy, transportation, and other communities, e.g., - aircraft icing conditions (Bill Smith presentation) - surface radiation budget - NWP assimilation - fog, ceiling, etc. - Research: model validation • Make them timely and widespread for real-time applications - nowcasting & assimilation (Stan Benjamin presentation) - near-global at high temporal resolution - 3-D characterization of clouds

  4. Data • Available geostationary satellites provide up to 1-hour monitoring between ~60°S and ~60°N (currently 3 hourly) • Sun-synchronous satellites (POES) provide coverage over polar regions and gaps in geostationary coverage • AVHRR on NOAA/Envisat can also be used for POES coverage

  5. Approach • Normalize all imagers to well-calibrated" reference POES imager - Terra & Aqua MODIS • System to ingest, analyze, and store satellite & auxiliary data - U Wisc McIDAS, NASA, & NOAA NESDIS for data - apply 4/5-channel algorithms used for CERES • System to disseminate derived products - digital files available online - online gif imagery & loops - North American domain to NCEP - Global domain to NASA GSFC GMAO Minnis et al., JTech, 2002, 2008 Minnis et al., TGRS, 2008, 2011 http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov

  6. NASA Langley Cloud Products Standard, Single-Layer VISST/SIST 0.65, 1.6 µm Reflectances 3.7, 6.7, 10.8 µm Temp 12 or 13.3 µm Temp Broadband Albedo Broadband OLR Clear-sky Skin Temperature Icing Potential** Pixel Lat, Lon Pixel SZA, VZA, RAZ Cloud Mask,Phase Optical Depth, IR emissivity Droplet effective Radius or ice crystal Diameter Liquid/Ice Water Path Effective Temp, height, pressure Top/ Bottom Pressure Top/ Bottom Height Multi-Layer, CIRT, CO2 channel only (GOES-12 & later) Multilayer ID (single or 2-layer) effective temperature optical depth, thickness effective particle size ice or liquid water path height, top/base height pressure Upper & lower cloud

  7. http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov

  8. Small Domain Cloud Products ARM SGP Domain 1815 UTC, 30 Nov 2010 • Transfer of cloud code for CERES first sponsored by ARM program in late 1990’s (climate-to-weather transfer) • Longest record is for SGP - use both GOES-E&W • Excellent testbed area - ARM surface sites - NEXRAD

  9. Field Experiment Satellite Support Products Example: ARM STORM-VEx Domain 1815 UTC, 30 Nov 2010

  10. CONUS Domain Cloud Products:1815 UTC, 30 Nov 2010 Icing-related parameters Light Blue - Supercooled Phase RGB LWP gm-2 re (µm) 10

  11. CONUS Domain Cloud Products:1815 UTC, 30 Nov 2010 Other aviation-related parameters: top & bottom heights, skin temperature Skin temperature RGB Ztop (km) Zbot (km) 11

  12. North American Domain 1915 UTC, 1 December 2010 Pseudocolor RGB Scene ID • This combination of GOES-E&W data matches the Rapid Refresh domain • These data are ported to NCEP and available operationally (~ 30 min lag)

  13. Global GEOSat Retrievals, 18 UTC, 30 Nov 2010 Cloud-top Height (km) • Results averaged on 0.25° x 0.3125° grid for GMAO • Nighttime information is limited because of lack of visible channel - e.g., optical depth • FY-2D lacks sufficient quality, requiring use of polar satellites • Results currently produced every 3 hours, 1 hour possible Clear Area Surface Skin Temperature (K)

  14. Error Assessments of Cloud Products Cloud Top Height Single-layer cloud-top heights over ARM SGP, 2000-2004 Errors in GOES Single-layer Ztop, ARM SGP, 2000-04 All clouds • Low cloud-top height rms error only 0.8 km Smith et al., GRL, 2008

  15. Cloud Thickness from CloudSat, CALIPSO & GOES CALIPSO/CloudSat ice cloud thickness (DZ_OBS) vs GOES thickness, April 2007 Cloud boundaries from GOES-12 over ARM SGP radar, 10 June 2009 • Triangle – physical top • diamond – effective top • square - base DZ_FIT based on empirical fit to CALIPSO/CloudSat data from different month

  16. Cloud Base Heights Cloud thickness estimated as function of optical depth, temperature, water-path, Reff & phase: cloud base height = top - thickness Histogram, GOES-ASOS VISST Cloud Base vs. National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) Central USA: June-July 2009 • Base height error only slightly greater than top error for water clouds • Base height error large for ice clouds (precip clouds included)

  17. Comparison of ARM SGP radar-radiometer, in situ, & GOES Cloud Retrievals March 2000 Overcast stratus clouds only • GOES compares well with both in situ and surface-based MWR LWP • Effective radius, reff, too large, but expected because it is for the cloud top Dong et al., JAS, 2002

  18. Comparison of ARM SGP radar-radiometer and GOES Cloud Retrievals March 2000 • GOES reff is overestimated (based on 3.9 µm) • GOES optical depth slightly low • GOES LWP a little high (4%) • SD(reff) = 38% • SD(OD) = 40% • SD(LWP) = 32% Dong et al., JAS, 2002

  19. LWP (MODIS) Liquid Water Path Validation with Microwave Radiometer Data ARM SGP vs CERES MODIS, 2001 – 2004, Stratus • Unbiased over wide range of LWP (up to 500 g/m2) • Excellent correlation • Instantaneous Uncertainty ~30% • Note mean value ~150 g/m2 Dong et al., JGR, 2008

  20. Ice Cloud Water Path (IWP) Validation with CloudSat GOES Cloud Water Path Comparisons with Cloudsat CWC-RO Dec 2006 – May 2007 • Excellent agreement between GOES & Cloudsat monthly mean total water path (TWP) for high thick ice clouds - GOES too high for snow scenes • Thin ice cloud IWP agrees well - large SD, matching? Summary for all months

  21. Cloud Water Path Comparison July 11, 2010 (20 UTC) GOES RUC-OPS RUC-DEV RUC-OPS: • Operational RUC-13 at NCEP • Assimilates NESDIS CTP • ΔPcld = 40 mb in cloud building RUC-DEV: • Development RUC-13 at ESRL • Assimilates LaRC CTP, CWP • ΔPcld = adjusted in cloud building • based on LaRC CWP …not the only differences

  22. Cloud Water Path Comparison April-June 2008, 2009 Domain Averages (gm-2) GOES Cloud Water Path over RUC Domain CloudSat Tracks Matched along CloudSat track (gm-2) • Model and observations in the same ballpark on average

  23. North American Domain 1845 UTC, 21 March 2010 Cloud-top Heights (Kft, AGL) GOES Rapid Refresh Cloud data assimilated into NOAA Rapid Refresh NWP produce more realistic clouds

  24. Rapid Refresh 1-hr Forecast vs. GOES Clouds 1915 UTC, 1 December 2010 Cloud-top Height (Kft, AGL) RR LaRC GOES • Heights generally compare well over continental North America • Some differences due to model, e.g., Pacific tropical convection • Others due to GOES analysis, e.g., NE Ontario twilight 24

  25. Improving RUC Forecasts With LaRC Products IFR 1000’ ceiling - 1h forecasts - PODy - November 2008 Dev13 – RUC w/ NASA cloud RUC - NESDIS cloud % Positive Detection of 1 Kft Ceiling • Dev13 forecasts correctly predict ceilings below 1000’ ~9% more often than operational RUC 25

  26. Assimilation – Aircraft Icing LaRC Satellite CONUS: FAA-NCAR Current Icing Potential (CIP) Product Radar RUC/RR Model Pilot Reports Surface Obs Lightning NCEP Match data to each 3-D model grid box ICING=0.0 SLD=0.0 Cloudy? NO YES Determine Vertical Cloud Structure and Weather Scenario Apply interest maps. Calculate icing probability and potential for supercooled large drop (SLD). ICING PROBABILITY and SLD POTENTIAL FIELDS 26

  27. Developing 3-D Cloud Fields • Clouds typically interpreted as being a single uniform layer - vary vertically in LWC/IWC, T, re - finite thicknesses - often occur in separate layers • One challenge is how to distribute cloud water vertically - IWC/IWC affect precipitation - LWC, Temperature affect icing - need estimates of “safe” levels within clouds • Other is interpreting the clouds as being single or multilayered - need estimates of cloud properties of both layers - no hope for retrieving more than one layer

  28. Method for Profiling Ice/Liq Water Contents • Develop avg normalized profiles of IWC/LWC from GOES-CloudSat data - Use variety of categories based on cloud water path CWP, Teff, DZ T3, DZ 2-4 Altitude Factor • Reverse process provides profile for a given pixel Mean Shape Factor RMS Error, %

  29. Testing with CloudSat, 20 UTC, 7 Oct. 2009 GOES Cloud Water Path, CWP CloudSat Track

  30. Following water content profiles for selected fixed transect 7 October, 2009 1845 – 2245 UTC

  31. Testing with CloudSat, 19 UTC, 6 May 2008 GOES Cloud Water Path RUC Cloud Water Path CloudSat Overpasses • No LaRC cloud data assimilated in RUC

  32. Validating with CloudSat, 19 UTC, 6 May 2008

  33. Multilayer Clouds Over Southern Great Plains GOES-12, 25 Nov 2010, 1845 UTC Multilayer Cloud Heights (km) over ARM SGP Domain Ztop (km) interpreted as SL cloud RGB Multilayer ID Lower-layer Ztop (km)

  34. North American Domain 1515 UTC, 2 December 2010 Multilayer Cloud Detection Pseudocolor RGB Multi-layer Cloud ID Detecting & retrieving multilayered clouds improves characterization of 3-D fields 34

  35. Covering the Poles Using New Spectra, 11 UTC, 6 July 2006 Terra MODIS Retrievals: Arctic Ocean, Svalbard RGB Phase opt depth droplet reff(µm)Zeff (km)

  36. Summary and Conclusions • Cloud properties are valuable on their own for nowcasting - can be used to detect potential icing conditions - see W. Smith talk - provide approximate 3-D view of clouds - estimates of cloud base heights (ceiling) - most useful in remote areas with no other information - available for all GEOSats, soon in polar regions • Cloud properties more valuable for assimilation & verification - NOAA Rapid Update Cycle (RUC & Rapid Refresh) NWP model used for aviation - NCAR/FAA Current/Future Icing Potential (CIP/FIP) Products - NASA GMAO GEOS-5 • Research begun with CERES & ARM programs, developed under NASA ASAP & ROSES, future?

  37. Future Work • Improve nighttime retrievals - test theoretical optical depth limits for various emission channels • Develop new techniques to deal with terminator & snow backgrounds - CO2 / IR / SIR combinations? regional memory? • Enhance thickness & WC profiles using different categories & other spectral channels (e.g., 1.6, 2.1 µm) on other satellites • Continue improvement of CO2 and other ML techniques • Work on improving retrievals over snow surfaces • Replace FY-2D for improved Asian coverage - MODIS & AVHRR, FY-2E, Korean COMS? • Continue working with users to meet their needs For references: -http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/ data: http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov/

  38. http://www-angler.larc.nasa.gov

  39. Data Product Formats • Pixel-level Product:Binary data retrieved at instrument nominal resolution. • Gridded Product: 0.5º or 1.0º average separated by cloud height / phase. - includes surface radiative fluxes & skin temperature • Surface Site, Aircraft, & CALIPSO/ICESat Matched Products Means within 10 or 20-km radius centered of selected (ARM & Euro) surface sites; single or weighted 4 pixels average along aircraft/satellite flight path. • Current lag times - 0.5 to 1.5 hrs depending on domain - Meteosat results under 24-h delay per ESA • Spatial/temporal resolution - GOES domains, 0.5 hr; others 1.0 hr, nominal 3-5 or sampled 6-8 km - Full disk, 3 hr, 9-10 km sampled

More Related