MPI-Meteorology Hamburg, Germany Evaluation of year 2004 monthly GlobAER aerosol products Stefan Kinne.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
02/04/2009 University of Manchester ADIENT meeting 5 – Gareth Thomas, Maria Frontoso 1 WP 1.3: Satellite data in support of ADIENT aircraft flights Gareth.
Advertisements

Stefan Kinne MPI-Meteorology Hamburg, Germany ISCCP cloud effects on radiative fluxes Stefan Kinne MPI-Meteorology, Hamburg.
GEOS-5 Simulations of Aerosol Index and Aerosol Absorption Optical Depth with Comparison to OMI retrievals. V. Buchard, A. da Silva, P. Colarco, R. Spurr.
Evaluation of ECHAM5 General Circulation Model using ISCCP simulator Swati Gehlot & Johannes Quaas Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie Hamburg, Germany.
JERAL ESTUPINAN National Weather Service, Miami, Florida DAN GREGORIA National Weather Service, Miami, Florida ROBERTO ARIAS University of Puerto Rico.
Retrieval of smoke aerosol loading from remote sensing data Sean Raffuse and Rudolf Husar Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trends Analysis Washington.
Global Climatology of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations Estimated from Remote-Sensed Aerosol Optical Depth Aaron van Donkelaar 1, Randall Martin 1,2,
 Similar picture from MODIS and MISR aerosol optical depth (AOD)  Both biomass and dust emissions in the Sahel during the winter season  Emissions.
Menghua Wang NOAA/NESDIS/ORA E/RA3, Room 102, 5200 Auth Rd.
Quantifying aerosol direct radiative effect with MISR observations Yang Chen, Qinbin Li, Ralph Kahn Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology,
European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2006 Vienna, Austria, 02 – 07 April 2006 Paper’s objectives: 1. Contribute to the validation of MODIS aerosol.
Satellite-based Global Estimate of Ground-level Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations Aaron van Donkelaar1, Randall Martin1,2, Lok Lamsal1, Chulkyu Lee1.
Evaluation of GEOS-CHEM Aerosol Optical Thicknesses : comparisons to satellite data for 2003 S. Generoso & I. Bey LMCA, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland Acknowledgements.
GOES-R AWG Product Validation Tool Development Aerosol Optical Depth/Suspended Matter and Aerosol Particle Size Mi Zhou (IMSG) Pubu Ciren (DELL) Hongqing.
1 Satellite Remote Sensing of Particulate Matter Air Quality ARSET Applied Remote Sensing Education and Training A project of NASA Applied Sciences Pawan.
Direct aerosol radiative forcing based on combined A-Train observations – challenges in deriving all-sky estimates Jens Redemann, Y. Shinozuka, M.Kacenelenbogen,
AERONET in the context of aerosol remote sensing from space and aerosol global modeling Stefan Kinne MPI-Meteorology, Hamburg Germany.
Numerical diffusion in sectional aerosol modells Stefan Kinne, MPI-M, Hamburg DATA in global modeling aerosol climatologies & impact.
Evaluation aerosol CCI satellite retrievals MACC assimilations Reading 2012.
MPI-Meteorology Hamburg, Germany Evaluation of year 2004 monthly GlobAER aerosol products Stefan Kinne.
1 Satellite Remote Sensing of Particulate Matter Air Quality ARSET Applied Remote Sensing Education and Training A project of NASA Applied Sciences Pawan.
Institute of Environmental Physics and Remote Sensing IUP/IFE-UB Physics/Electrical Engineering Department 1 Measurements.
WP 8: Impact on Satellite Retrievals University of l’Aquila (DFUA [12]): Vincenzo Rizi Ecole Polytechnique (EPFL [13]): Bertrand Calpini Observatory of.
Satellite observations of AOD and fires for Air Quality applications Edward Hyer Naval Research Laboratory AQAST June, Madison, Wisconsin 15 June.
Aerosol Optical Depth during the Northern CA Fires of 2008 In situ aerosol light scattering and absorption measurements in Reno Nevada, 2008, indicated.
Evaluation aerosol CCI retrievals Reading the participants / the task AATSR F v142 AATSR O v202/v2q2 AATSR S v040/v031 MERIS A v21 MERIS B v11 MERIS.
Page 1© Crown copyright Aircraft observations of mineral dust.
Monitoring aerosols in China with AATSR Anu-Maija Sundström 2 Gerrit de Leeuw 1 Pekka Kolmonen 1, and Larisa Sogacheva 1 AMFIC , Barcelona 1:
NASA Ocean Color Research Team Meeting, Silver Spring, Maryland 5-7 May 2014 II. Objectives Establish a high-quality long-term observational time series.
The Second TEMPO Science Team Meeting Physical Basis of the Near-UV Aerosol Algorithm Omar Torres NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Atmospheric Chemistry.
QA filtering of individual pixels to enable a more accurate validation of aerosol products Maksym Petrenko Presented at MODIS Collection 7 and beyond Retreat.
Aerosol_cci ECV. Aerosol_cci > Thomas Holzer-Popp > ESA Living Planet Symposium, Bergen, 1 July 2010 slide 2 Major improvements over precursor AOD datasets.
Timothy Logan University of North Dakota Department of Atmospheric Science.
As components of the GOES-R ABI Air Quality products, a multi-channel algorithm similar to MODIS/VIIRS for NOAA’s next generation geostationary satellite.
Satellite Aerosol Validation Pawan Gupta NASA ARSET- AQ – GEPD & SESARM, Atlanta, GA September 1-3, 2015.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Estimating the radiative effect of mineral dust over ocean The radiance to flux problem Dust retrieval quality Applying.
Clouds & Radiation: Climate data vs. model results A tribute to ISCCP Ehrhard Raschke, University of Hamburg Stefan Kinne, MPI-Meteorology Hamburg 25 years.
Rong-Ming Hu and Randall Martin Inspiring Minds. Retrieval of Aerosol Single Scattering Albedo (SSA)  Determined with radiative transfer calculation.
S. Kinne (1) the AERONET-group (2) and the AeroCom modeling community (1) Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg (2) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
Improving MISR-retrieved Aerosol Properties Using GOCART Simulations Yang Liu, PhD June 3, 2015 St. Louis, MO.
Estimating PM 2.5 from MODIS and MISR AOD Aaron van Donkelaar and Randall Martin March 2009.
SCIAMACHY TOA Reflectance Correction Effects on Aerosol Optical Depth Retrieval W. Di Nicolantonio, A. Cacciari, S. Scarpanti, G. Ballista, E. Morisi,
Aerosol Characterization Using the SeaWiFS Sensor and Surface Data E. M. Robinson and R. B. Husar Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Chemical Data Assimilation: Aerosols - Data Sources, availability and needs Raymond Hoff Physics Department/JCET UMBC.
AEROCOM AODs are systematically smaller than MODIS, with slightly larger/smaller differences in winter/summer. Aerosol optical properties are difficult.
Intercomparison of satellite retrieved aerosol optical depth over ocean G. Myhre, F. Stordal, M. Johnsrud, A. Ignatov, M.I. Mishchenko, I.V. Geogdzhayev,
Barbuda Antigua MISR 250 m The Climatology of Small Tropical Oceanic Cumuli New Findings to Old Problems (Analysis of EOS-Terra data) Larry Di Girolamo,
Estimation of the contribution of mineral dust to the total aerosol depth: Particular focus on Atlantic Ocean G. Myhre, A. Grini, T.K. Berntsen, T.F. Berglen,
Interannual Variability and Decadal Change of Solar Reflectance Spectra Zhonghai Jin Costy Loukachine Bruce Wielicki (NASA Langley research Center / SSAI,
New Aerosol Models for Ocean Color Retrievals Zia Ahmad NASA-Ocean Biology Processing Group (OBPG) MODIS Meeting May 18-20, 2011.
Page 1 © Crown copyright 2004 Aircraft observations of Biomass burning aerosol Ben Johnson, Simon Osborne & Jim Haywood AMMA SOP0 Meeting, Exeter, 15 th.
Study on Dust Storms Climatological Trends, transportation paths and Sources Identification.
Fourth TEMPO Science Team Meeting
Extinction measurements
Daytime variations of AOD and PM2
Seung-Hee Ham and B.J. Sohn Seoul National University, Korea
SEVIRI Solar Channel Calibration system
Huiqun Wang1 Gonzalo Gonzalez Abad1, Xiong Liu1, Kelly Chance1
sun- (/sky-) photometer ground-networks
Absolute calibration of sky radiances, colour indices and O4 DSCDs obtained from MAX-DOAS measurements T. Wagner1, S. Beirle1, S. Dörner1, M. Penning de.
Comparison of AATSR SST with other sensors
Estimating PM2.5 using MODIS and GOES aerosol optical depth retrievals in IDEA Hai Zhang , Raymond M. Hoff1 , Shobha Kondragunta2.
Modelling the radiative impact of aerosols from biomass burning during SAFARI-2000   Gunnar Myhre, Terje K. Berntsen, James M. Haywood, Jostein K. Sundet,
A Multi-angle Aerosol Optical Depth Retrieval Algorithm for GOES
G. Myhre, F. Stordal, M. Johnsrud, A. Ignatov, M. I. Mishchenko, I. V
Global Climatology of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations Estimated from Remote-Sensed Aerosol Optical Depth Aaron van Donkelaar1, Randall Martin1,2,
VALIDATION OF DUAL-MODE METOP AMVs
Global Climatology of Aerosol Optical Depth
Hartmut Bösch and Sarah Dance
Studying the cloud radiative effect using a new, 35yr spanning dataset of cloud properties and radiative fluxes inferred from global satellite observations.
Presentation transcript:

MPI-Meteorology Hamburg, Germany Evaluation of year 2004 monthly GlobAER aerosol products Stefan Kinne

the task an evaluation of  GlobAER 2004 global maps for aerosol optical depth(info on amount) for Angstrom parameter(info on size)  by ASTR (dual view, global, at best 10 per month)  by MERIS (nadir view, global, at best 1 per day)  by SEVIRI (nadir view, regional, at best 30 per day)  by a merged (ATSR / MERIS / SEVIRI) composite

the questions  how well do the data compare to trusted data references (e.g. AERONET) ?  how well do the data compare to existing data sets – even for same sensor data ?  can the performance be quantified ? more specifically …  what are the scores of a new (outlier- resistant) method … examining bias, spatial and temporal variability ?

the investigated properties  aerosol optical depth (AOD) extinction along a (vertical) direction due to scattering and absorption by aerosol  here for the entire atmosphere  here for the mid-visible (0.55  m wavelength)  Angstrom parameter (Ang) spectral dependence of AOD in the visible spectrum  small dependence (Ang ~ 0)  aerosol > 1  m size  strong decrease (Ang > 1.2)  aerosol < 0.5  m size

monthly data-sets GlobAER 2004 maps  GAa - ATSR  GAs - SEVIRI  GAm - MERIS  GAx – merged other multi-ann. maps  med – model median  clim – med & aer(sun)  sky – med & aer(sky)  TO – TOMS other 2004 maps  ATs - ATSR Swansea  SEb- SEVIRI Bruxelles  Mdb - MODIS deep blu  MO - MODIS std coll.5  MI – MISR version 22  Ag – AVHRR, GACP  Ap – AVHRR, Patmos  Aer – AERONET 2004

AOD map comparisons  AOD annual maps all available data  AOD seasonal maps ATSR GlobAER vs Swansey SEVIRI GloabAER vs RUIB-Bruexelles  difference maps … to a remote sensing ‘best’ composite all available data-sets focus on the four GloabAER products

AOD – 2004 annual maps

ATSR / SEVIRI – seasonal AOD

AOD diff to ‘composite’  underestimates overestimates 

quick (annual) AOD check  ATSR underestimates in dust regions overestimate in biomass regions  SEVIRI severe biomass overestimates useful over-land estimates ?  MERIS apparent land snow cover issue  merged not the envisioned improvement  ‘-’ ’+’ 

Angstrom map comparisons  Angstrom annual maps all available data  Angstrom seasonal maps ATSR GlobAER vs Swansey SEVIRI GloabAER vs RUIB-Bruexelles  difference maps … to a climatology (model & AERONET) all available data-sets focus on the four GloabAER products

Angstrom – 2004 annual maps

ATSR / SEVIRI – seasonal Angstr.

Angstrom diff to ‘climatology’  underestimates overestimates ....

quick annual Angstrom check  ATSR underestimates in tropics overstimates in south. oceans  SEVIRI underestimates over oceans strong overestimates over land  MERIS overestimates over land  merged not the envisioned improvement  ‘-’ ’+’ 

the SCORING challenge  quantify data performance by one number  develop a score such that contributing errors to be traceable back to bias spatial correlation temporal correlation spatial sub-scale (e.g. region) temporal sub-scale (e.g. month, day)  make this score outlier resistant

one number !

info on overall bias sign of the bias

| 1 | is perfect …. 0 is poor sign of the bias the closer to absolute 1.0 … the better

product of sub-scores = 0.9 *- 0.7 * 0.8 the closer to absolute 1.0 … the better temporal correlation sub-score bias sub- score spatial correlation sub-score sign of the bias

spatial stratification = 0.9 * -0.7 * 0.8 time score bias score spatial score spatial sub-scale scores overall score regional surface area weights TRANSCOM regions

temporal stratification = 0.9 * -0.7 * 0.8 time score bias score spatial score spatial sub-scale scores overall score temporal sub-scale scores (e.g. month or days) averaging in time instantaneous median data

sub-score definition  each sub-score S is defined by an error e and by an error weight w 0.9 * -0.7 * 0.8 S = 1 – w * e time score S bias score S spatial score S spatial sub-scale scores temporal sub-scale scores (e.g. month or days) instantaneous median data

definition of errors e  S = 1 – w * e   all values for the errors e are rank - based for “time score” and “spatial score” rank correlation coefficients for data pairs are determined  e, correlation = (1- rank_correlation coeff.) /2 (correlated: e = 0, anti-correlated: e = 1) time score bias score spatial score

definition of errors e  S = 1 – w * e for “bias score” all all data-pairs are placed in a single array and ranked by value then ranks are separated according to data origin, summed and (rank-sums are) compared  e, bias = (sum1 – sum2) / (sum1 + sum2) (strong neg.bias e = -1, strong pos.bias e= +1) an example (“how does the rank bias error work ?”)  set 1: value: rank-sum 1: 11  set 2: rank: rank-sum 2: 10 e = (1-2)/(1+2) = (11-10)/21 ~zero  no clear bias time score bias score spatial score

definition of error weight w  S = 1 – w * e  w is a weight factor based on the inter-quartile range / median ratio w = (75%pdf - 25%pdf) / 50%pdf … but not larger than 1.0 (w<1.0) simply put … if there is no variability an error does not matter bias score spatial score time score

scoring summary  one single score …  … without sacrificing spatial and temporal detail !  stratification into error contribution from bias spatial correlation temporal correlation  robustness against outliers still … just one of many possible approaches  now to some applications …

questions  how did GlobAER products score? overall ? seasonality ? spatial correlation ? bias ? in what regions ? in what months ?  how did scores place to other retrievals … with the same sensor (for the same year 2004) with other sensors (for the same year 2004)

selective evaluations for year 2004 data ..atsrSwansey ATSR ..gaatGlobAER ATSR 3/2009 (std) ..gaa2GlobAER ATSR 7/2009 (filtered) ..gaa3GlobAER ATSR8/2009 (test) ..misrMISR ver.22  how does ‘gaa2’ score ?  score diff between ‘gaa2’ and ‘misr’  score diff between ‘gaa2’ and ‘gaat’  score diff between ‘gaa2’ and ‘atsr’

performance vs AERONET GlobAER ATSR … “gaat” AOD score:.47 ANG score: -.57 Swansey ATSR … “atsr” AOD score:.57 ANG score: -.49 GlobAER ATSR (filter) … “gaa2” AOD score: none * ANG score: none * MISR v22 AOD score:.59 ANG score:.67 * too few areas with scores

side by side let us compare AOD details …  what is the sign of the bias ?  what is the bias strength (median diff) ?  what is the bias error ?  what is the spatial variability error ?  what is the seasonality error ?  what is the overall error  what are selected error differences among different retrieval products?

AOD bias sign vs AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22 overestimateunderestimate ATSR GlobAER filtered

AOD bias error vs AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MODIS coll.5 MISR vers.22

AOD bias strength vs AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22

AOD bias error vs AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22 ATSR GlobAER filtered

AOD spatial var. Vs. AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22 ATSR GlobAER, filtered

AOD season error vs AERONET ATSR GlobAER ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22

AOD total error vs AERONET ATSR Swansey MISR vers.22 ATSR GlobAER filtered ATSR GlobAER

AOD ATSR GlobAER filtered - total error

AOD ATSR GlobAER filtered - bias error

AOD ATSR GlobAER filtered - spatial error

AOD summary  ATSR products ATSR is most promising (merged is poorer!)  ATSR AOD of GLOBAER poorer than the ATSR AOD by Swansey much poorer than MODIS or MISR filtered version scores poorer mainly due to deterioation in spatial and temp. variability  ATSR AOD by GlobAER with filter bias error is reasonable spatial variability is poor seasonality is poor

extras  score differences … for overall errors neg. difference  smaller error pos. difference  larger error  gaa2 vs atsr  gaat vs atsr  gaa2 vs gaat  gaat vs misr

gaa2 (filtered) vs atsr (swansey) black  better worse  green

gaat (globaer) vs atsr (swansey) black  better worse  green

gaa2 (filtered) vs. gaat (globaer) bb black  better worse  green

gaat (globaer) vs. misr  better worse 

AODATSR – GlobAER 2004

AODSEVIRI – GlobAER 2004

AODMERIS – GlobAER 2004

AODmerged – GlobAER 2004

AODSEVIRI – RUIB 2004

AODATSR – Swansea 2004

annual maps – AOD 2004 med median cli ‘climatology’ sunsun-photo Globaer products MOMODIS Efcforecast MIMISREasassimilation SEVIRIAATSRMERIS

annual maps – Angstrom 2004 med median cli ‘climatology’ sunsun-photo Globaer products MOMODIS Efcforecast MIMISREasassimilation AATSRMERISSEVIRI