Loading in 5 sec....

Comparison of C n 2 Estimations Using Ship, Rawinsonde, and Model DataPowerPoint Presentation

Comparison of C n 2 Estimations Using Ship, Rawinsonde, and Model Data

- By
**oshin** - Follow User

- 389 Views
- Updated On :

Comparison of C n 2 Estimations Using Ship, Rawinsonde, and Model Data LCDR Richard M. Murphy, USN 14 MAR ’05 Operational Oceanography/OC2570 Outline Review C n 2 (little bit of math) Data Collection Analysis/Results Conclusions Index of Refraction

Related searches for

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - oshin

**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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Comparison of Cn2 Estimations Using Ship, Rawinsonde, and Model Data

LCDR Richard M. Murphy, USN

14 MAR ’05

Operational Oceanography/OC2570

- Review Cn2 (little bit of math)
- Data Collection
- Analysis/Results
- Conclusions

- index of refraction (n), f(p,T,q)
- for optics n more dependent on T fluctuations, for RF propagation more dependent on q fluctuations
- importance of gradient wrt height

Cn2

- Monin-Obukhov Similarity Theory (physical quantities scaled w/ turbulent fluxes of heat & momentum, sfc layer assumed horizontally homogeneous & stationary, fluxes assumed constant, can specify at single height)
- Cn2 = A2 CT2 + AB CTq + B2 Cq2 (where A & B are fcn’s of ∂n/∂T and ∂n/∂q, respectively)
- Cx2 = [x’(0) - x’(d)]2/d2/3
- scaled parameters u*, T* & q* are f(w’,u’,T’,q’)

- u* = uk/[ln(zu/L) – “stuff”] (“stuff” depends on atmospheric stability), similar eqn’s for T*&q*
- modified Matlab code from Prof. Guest to calculate optical Cn2 (runbulk.m, bulkland.m): changed zveg=0, CDn10 decrease by ½, iterative scheme to 0.5%
- one run w/ measured data (from rawinsonde z/u/Tair/press/RH, from UDAS SST/RHsfc)
- another run using combination of measured data & assumed 100% RHsfc (press from model or sat sounding [1000 or 1010 mbars])

- Rawinsondes: balloon-mounted RS80-15L’s recording time, wind dir/speed, temp, dew point, RH, pressure, height, ascent rate, refractivity, modified refractivity, & vapor pressure
- 10 launches over 4-day cruise logging lat/long
- used for simple plots of T&Td/ vs press & RH&NI/MI vs height
- data points for Prof. Guest’s Cn2 Matlab functions (zu, u, Tair, RH, press) [2nd data pt 15-23m]

- UDAS Ship data: continuous data feed from RV Pt Sur; recording date, GMT, lat/long, COG/SOG, T, press, RH, SST w/ IR & boom probe, and salinity
- used for SST & RHsfc data points for Prof. Guest’s Cn2 Matlab functions

- Model data: provided by Prof. Creasey; MM5 & 3km COAMPS(thanks Tara) soundings
- used lowest data points for Tair & press for Prof. Guest’s Cn2 Matlab functions

- Satellite data: GOES-15/16 Tair soundings (provided by Billy Roeting)
- used lowest data points for Tair & press for Prof. Guest’s Cn2 Matlab functions

Data for2/5/05at 19 Z

COAMPS 6hr fcst, T0 OK, T should incr at 950mb, Td high

MM5 12hr fcst, high T0, no sfc inversion, opposite Td trend at sfc

Data for2/6/05at 00 Z

COAMPS Analysis, T & T0 OK, Td low

MM5 6hr fcst, slight elev. inversion not on balloon, Td OK

Data for2/6/05at 10 Z

MM5 6hr fcst, T high, Td starts OK but high

COAMPS Analysis, good T0, moist layer at 950mb at 910mb on balloon

Data for2/6/05at 17 Z

MM5 12hr fcst, high T0, Td trend OK to 950mb

COAMPS 6hr fcst, T0 OK, T high, Td only good to 950mb

Data for2/6/05at 23 Z

COAMPS Analysis, T0 OK, T OK to 920 mb, Td OK to same

MM5 6hr fcst, T0 good, Td good trend but high initial value

Data for2/7/05at 12 Z

MM5 18hr fcst, T0 good trend but high, Td follows

COAMPS Analysis, similar to MM5

Data for2/7/05at 21 Z

MM5 15hr fcst, T0 good but high T, Td same

COAMPS 9hr fcst, T0 good, high T values, Td high

Data for2/8/05at 03 Z

MM5 21hr fcst, T0 good, T high, Td good trend but high

COAMPS 3hr fcst, T high, dry layer at 950mb not on balloon

Balloon/Ship Data

2/5 at 19Z

2/6 at 00Z

2/7 at 21Z

2/6 at 23Z

2/6 at 10Z

2/7 at 12Z

2/8 at 03Z

2/6 at 17Z

2/8 at 21Z

2/8 at 11Z

Balloon/Ship Data

2/6 at 17Z

2/8 at 11Z

2/5 at 19Z

2/7 at 21Z

2/7 at 12Z

2/8 at 03Z

2/6 at 10Z

2/6 at 23Z

2/8 at 21Z

2/6 at 00Z

Data Analysis

- MOS theory uses sfc layer bulk/avg. parameters, sfc layer should be approx. 10% of MBL (≈ 40-50m)
- trend in RH difference most closely approximated Cn2 trend
- lowest MM5 data points too high in atmosphere (1000 mbars [≈ 100-150m], i.e. outside sfc layer)
- some COAMPS data points probably within sfc layer (lowest reading 1010 mbars, [≈ 17-82m])
- lowest satellite data points too high in atmosphere (1000 mbars)
- good agreement between balloon/ship+measured sfc RH and balloon/ship+assumed sfc RH of 100%

Data Analysis

- somewhat good agreement (discounting outlier) of balloon/ship data & balloon/ship/sat data (measured sfc RH)
- MM% & COAMPS model runs not same fcst times, should parallel as closely as possible
- spatial comparison skewed due to different dates/times, need line of buoys/balloons for time series, would also show Cn2 spatial trends toward shore (cross-coast?)

- could utilize ship-mounted scintillometer as baseline instead of measuring specific parameters and then calculating in an equation (along a linear path to/from shore - ship limited to visual range though)

Applications

- communications to units inland (ranges, interference)
- coastal radar coverage on small boats
- lasing targets inland (SpecOps)

References

Abahamid, A., Jabiri, A. et al, 2003: Optical Turbulence Modeling in the Boundary Layer

and Free Atmosphere Using Instrumented Meteorological Balloons. Astronomy

and Astrophysics, 416, 1193-1200.

Davidson, K.L., Schacher, G.E., Fairall, C.W. and A.K. Goroch, 1981: Verification of the

Bulk Method for Calculating Overwater Optical Turbulence. Applied Optics, 20,

no. 17, 2919-2923.

Davidson, K.L. and C. H. Wash, 1998: Describing Coastal Optical Properties with In Situ

and Remote Measurements. Naval Research Reviews, Two, 2-7.

Frederickson, P.A. and K.L. Davidson, 1999: Estimating the Refractive Index Structure

Parameter (Cn2) Over the Ocean Using Bulk Methods. Journal of Applied

Meteorology, 39, 1770-1783.

Hutt, D.L., 1999: Modeling and Measurements of Atmospheric Optical Turbulence Over

Land. Optical Engineering, 38, no. 8, 1288-1295.

Porch, W.M., Neff, W.D. and C.W. King, 1987: Comparisons of Meteorological

Structure Parameters in Complex Terrain Using Optical and Acoustical

Techniques. Applied Optics, 27, no. 11, 2222-2228.

Rachele, H. and A. Tunick, 1993: Energy Balance Model for Imagery and

Electromagnetic Propagation. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 33, 964-975.

Raj, P.E., Sharma, S., Devara, P.C.S. and G. Pandithurai, 1992: Study of Laser

Scintillation in Different Atmospheric Conditions. Journal of Applied

Meteorology, 3, 1161- 1167.

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..