1 / 32

320 likes | 765 Views

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

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

**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

**Comparison of Cn2 Estimations Using Ship, Rawinsonde, and**Model Data LCDR Richard M. Murphy, USN 14 MAR ’05 Operational Oceanography/OC2570**Outline**• Review Cn2 (little bit of math) • Data Collection • Analysis/Results • Conclusions**Index of Refraction**• 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**Scintillation**300 200 Height (m) Propagating Waves 100 0**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’)**Data Collection**• 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])**Data Collection**• 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]**Data Collection**• 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**Data Collection**• 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**Data Collection**• 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**Data for2/8/05at 11 Z**MM5 18hr fcst, T0 high, T high, Td high COAMPS Analysis, T0 high, Td high**Data for2/8/05at 21 Z**COAMPS 9hr fcst, T high, Td high MM5 15hr fcst, T0 OK but T high, Td high**Data Trends**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**Data Trends**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.

More Related