GOV-CLIVAR workshop 13-17 june, Santa Cruz - 1 - New diagnostics to assess the impact of satellite constellation for (sub)mesoscale applications Complementarity.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

OVERVIEW OF THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE SEA STATE BIAS CORRECTION S. Labroue, P. Gaspar, J. Dorandeu, F. Mertz, N. Tran,

Advertisements

ECCO-2 and NASA Satellite Missions Lee-Lueng Fu Jet Propulsion Laboratory January 22-23, ECCO-2 Meeting.

ECOOP Meeting March 14-21, 2005 ECOOP WP7 Pierre-Yves LE TRAON Better use of remote sensing and in-situ observing systems for coastal/regional seas Objective.

Draft Recommendations subtitle here. Recommendation 1 The study groups from this workshop continue to collaborate with the goal of reporting progress.

SNPP VIIRS green vegetation fraction products and application in numerical weather prediction Zhangyan Jiang 1,2, Weizhong Zheng 3,4, Junchang Ju 1,2,

OSE meeting GODAE, Toulouse 4-5 June 2009 Interest of assimilating future Sea Surface Salinity measurements.

Mercator Ocean activity

GlobColour CDR Meeting ESRIN July 2006 Merging Algorithm Sensitivity Analysis ACRI-ST/UoP.

Coastal Altimetry Workshop February 5-7, 2008 Organized by: Laury Miller, Walter Smith: NOAA/NESDIS Ted Strub, Amy Vandehey: CIOSS/COAS/OSU With help from.

- 1- Quality of real time altimeter products OSTST, Hobart, March 2007 Quality of real time altimeter products impact of the delay G.Larnicol, G. Dibarboure,

Observation impact studies with ocean reanalysis Elisabeth REMY, Nicolas FERRY, Laurent PARENT, Marie DREVILLON, Eric GREINER and.

Surface Water and Ocean Topography Mission (SWOT)

Height error “scaling” factor Temporal Decorrelation and Topographic Layover Impact on Ka-band Swath Altimetry for Surface Water Hydrology Delwyn Moller,

Observations of Mesoscale* Ocean Circulation: Present and Future Observations of Mesoscale* Ocean Circulation: Present and Future Bo Qiu Dept of Oceanography.

Aquarius optimum interpolation analysis for global and regional studies O. Melnichenko, P. Hacker, N. Maximenko, G. Lagerloef, and J. Potemra 2014 Aquarius/SAC-D.

ElectroScience Lab IGARSS 2011 Vancouver Jul 26th, 2011 Chun-Sik Chae and Joel T. Johnson ElectroScience Laboratory Department of Electrical and Computer.

2nd GODAE Observing System Evaluation Workshop - June Future altimetry design From impact studies to operational metrics or the reverse ? G.Dibarboure.

Development of an “end-to-end” altimeter mission simulator Alix Lombard - Juliette Lambin (CNES) Laurent Roblou – Julien Lamouroux (NOVELTIS)

OSTST, Hobart, March Future altimeter systems : is mesoscale observability guaranteed for operational oceanography? Future altimeter systems.

1 Assessment of Geoid Models off Western Australia Using In-Situ Measurements X. Deng School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Australia R.

“ New Ocean Circulation Patterns from Combined Drifter and Satellite Data ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material from.

“ Combining Ocean Velocity Observations and Altimeter Data for OGCM Verification ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material.

Ocean Data Variational Assimilation with OPA: Ongoing developments with OPAVAR and implementation plan for NEMOVAR Sophie RICCI, Anthony Weaver, Nicolas.

A NEW APROACH TO STIRRING Lehahn, d'Ovidio, et al., JGR, 2007 Méthod: compute Lyapono exonent d'Ovidio et al., GRL, 2004 sub- mesoéchelle ► localisation.

Mapping Ocean Surface Topography With a Synthetic-Aperture Interferometry Radar: A Global Hydrosphere Mapper Lee-Lueng Fu Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena,

Impact of partial steps and momentum advection schemes in a global ocean circulation model at eddy-premitting resolution Barnier Bernard et al.

A SATELLITE CONSTELLATION TO OBSERVE THE SPECTRAL RADIANCE SHELL OF EARTH Stanley Q. Kidder and Thomas H. Vonder Haar Cooperative Institute for Research.

OSTST Hobart 2007 – Performance assessment Jason-1 data M.Ablain, S.Philipps, J.Dorandeu, - CLS N.Picot - CNES Jason-1 GDR data Performance assessment.

MODELING AND APPLICATIONS OF SWOT SATELLITE DATA C. Lion 1, K.M. Andreadis 2, R. Fjørtoft 3, F. Lyard 4, N. Pourthie 3, J.-F. Crétaux 1 1 LEGOS/CNES, 2.

GP33A-06 / Fall AGU Meeting, San Francisco, December 2004 Magnetic signals generated by the ocean circulation and their variability. Manoj,

2nd GODAE Observing System Evaluation Workshop - June Ocean state estimates from the observations Contributions and complementarities of Argo,

Enhancing predictability of the Loop Current variability using Gulf of Mexico Hycom Matthieu Le Hénaff (1) Villy Kourafalou (1) Ashwanth Srinivasan (1)

S. Munier, A. Polebitski, C. Brown, G. Belaud, D.P. Lettenmaier.

1) What is the variability in eddy currents and the resulting impact on global climate and weather? Resolving meso-scale and sub- meso-scale ocean dynamics.

U.S. Navy Global Ocean Prediction Update Key Performers: A.J. Wallcraft, H.E. Hurlburt, E.J. Metzger, J.G. Richman, J.F. Shriver, P.G. Thoppil, O.M. Smedstad,

Improved Satellite Altimeter data dedicated to coastal areas :

OSTST March, Hobart, Tasmania Ocean Mean Dynamic Topography from altimetry and GRACE: Toward a realistic estimation of the error field Marie-Helene.

Building Bluelink David Griffin, Peter Oke, Andreas Schiller et al. March 2007 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

SWOT Hydrology Workshop Ka-band Radar Scattering From Water and Layover Issues Delwyn Moller Ernesto Rodriguez Contributions from Daniel Esteban-Fernandez.

OSSEs and NOAA’s Quantitative Observing Systems Assessment Program (QOSAP) Bob Atlas, Craig MacLean, Lidia Cucurull (NOAA, USA) Sharan Majumdar, Tom Hamill.

Ocean Surface Current Observations in PWS Carter Ohlmann Institute for Computational Earth System Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.

Joint OS & SWH meeting in support of Wide-Swath Altimetry Measurements Washington D.C. – October 30th, 2006 Baptiste MOURRE ICM – Barcelona (Spain) Pierre.

SWOT: A HIGH-RESOLUTION WIDE-SWATH ALTIMETRY MISSION

GODAE OceanView-GSOP-CLIVAR workshop June Monitoring the Ocean State from the Observations Stéphanie Guinehut Sandrine Mulet Marie-Hélène.

Speaker I Organism I adresse mail WP9: NEW METHODS TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF COASTAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS Presented by Srdjan Dobricic on.

Water HM meeting E. Obligis (CLS) and L. Eymard (LOCEAN) The wet tropospheric correction issue for the WATER HM mission.

Orbit comparison for Jason-2 mission between GFZ and CNES (POE-D) The GFZ orbit is referred to as GFZ in the following study The CNES orbit is referred.

Inverse Barometer correction comparison for Envisat mission between Corrections based on JRA-55 and ERA-Interim atmospheric reanalyses The JRA-55 correction.

Potential for estimation of river discharge through assimilation of wide swath satellite altimetry into a river hydrodynamics model Kostas Andreadis 1,

Orbit comparison for ERS-2 mission between GFZ and REAPER The GFZ orbit is referred to as GFZ in the following study The REAPER orbit is referred to as.

1 July 20, 2000 Geosat Follow-On An examination from an operational point of view Impact on operational products Overall system performance (from sensor.

The OC in GOCE: A review The Gravity field and Steady-state Ocean Circulation Experiment Marie-Hélène RIO.

SCM x330 Ocean Discovery through Technology Area F GE.

Validation strategy MARCDAT-III meeting - Frascati, Italy - May 2011 The validation phase to compare all the algorithms together and to select the best.

ESA Climate Change Initiative Sea-level-CCI project A.Cazenave (Science Leader), G.Larnicol /Y.Faugere(Project Leader), M.Ablain (EO) MARCDAT-III meeting.

Dry Troposphere Correction comparison for Jason-2 mission between the JRA55-based and the ERA-Interim-based corrections The JRA55-based correction is referred.

RTOFS Monitoring and Evaluation Metrics Avichal Mehra MMAB/EMC/NCEP/NWS.

L. Carrère, Y. Faugère, E. Bronner, J. Benveniste

(2) Norut, Tromsø, Norway Improved measurement of sea surface velocity from synthetic aperture radar Morten Wergeland Hansen.

(Towards) anthropogenic CO2 emissions through inverse modelling

Bruce Cornuelle, Josh Willis, Dean Roemmich

Orbit comparison for ERS-1 mission between GFZ and REAPER

Statistical Methods for Model Evaluation – Moving Beyond the Comparison of Matched Observations and Output for Model Grid Cells Kristen M. Foley1, Jenise.

Mesoscale/sub-mesoscale dynamics and SWOT

Y. Xue1, C. Wen1, X. Yang2 , D. Behringer1, A. Kumar1,

Objectives and Requirements of SWOT for Observing the Oceanic Mesoscale Variability (based on a workshop held at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, April.

NOAA Objective Sea Surface Salinity Analysis P. Xie, Y. Xue, and A

Mesoscale/sub-mesoscale dynamics and SWOT

Data Assimilation Initiative, NCAR

Presentation transcript:

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz New diagnostics to assess the impact of satellite constellation for (sub)mesoscale applications Complementarity between SWOT and a large constellation of pulse-limited altimeters M.I.Pujol, G.Dibarboure, G. Larnicol (CLS) P.Y.Le Traon, P.Klein (IFREMER),

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Introduction SWOT will provide an unprecedented sampling capability by 2019 Iridium-NEXT telecommunication constellation renewed, starting from 2015 –Iridium satellites can take payloads of opportunity –It is technically possible to have AltiKa-like pulse-limited altimeters on Iridium-NEXT –The constellation itself would have intrinsic advantages (very cost efficient, temporal sampling, robustness vs failures, near real time…) –But a constellation of traditional sensors cannot replace SWOT images What could be the benefits of having a constellation of 6 Iridium-NEXT altimeters (+upcoming missions) in addition to SWOT for (sub)mesoscale retrieval ? Are Lagrangian diagnostics relevant for this study ?

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz OSSE approach Protocol: –Reality: Earth Simulator outputs from Ifremer: mesoscale and submesoscale –Simulate observation by remote sensor (with error) –Reconstruct « observed ocean topography » from profile/swath observations using optimal interpolation mapping (DUACS center to generate the AVSIO products) The difference between the reality and the observed state is the sum of : –Remote sensing sampling weaknesses (blind spots) –Remote sensing measurement errors –Reconstruction imperfections (e.g. oversmoothing) Error is always measured in percentage of the reality signal variance

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Simulation details Configurations studied : –Classical nadir constellation: 3 x nadir altimeters (Jason-CS, Sentinel3-B, S3-C) –SWOT alone –SWOT + 3 altimeters –SWOT + 11 altimeters (6 Iridium, Jason-CS, S3-B, S3-C, HY-C, GFO2) Error levels: optimistic (both on SWOT and nadir altimetry) –only noise and residual roll for SWOT (after good cross-calibration) –1 cm noise for nadir (radiometer, dual frequency/Ka, and good POD) Reconstructing the topography at each time step and position: –Straightforward optimal interpolation (no model + assimilation) derived from DUACS tools –Mapping #1: standard DUACS mapping 100 km / 10 days (mesoscale) –Mapping #2: 2-step optimal down to 30 km and 5 days (small mesoscale / submesoscale) –Regional reconstruction (not just within the swath  temporal coherency analyzed)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Ocean reality One year of Earth Simulator from Ifremer (Klein et al)  mesoscale and submesoscale Theoretical model: can be « projected » to any region or bathymetry configuration  North Pacific at two locations : [38°N,210°E] and [45°N,210°] RMS of the sea surface height anomaly: TOTAL> 100km < 100km

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Instantaneous observations (typical snapshot) 3 x Nadir1 x SWOT 11 x Nadir (Iridium 6 + Jason-CS +GFO2+ HYC+ S3A + S3B) 1 x SWOT + 11 x Nadir 2 x SWOT

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Objective Analysis (OA) method (Le Traon et al, 1998; Ducet et al, 2000) used for SLA reconstruction:  Large and medium mesoscale signal : direct OA with correlation scales 100km/10days  Short mesoscale signal : 2-step OA method with correlation scales 100km/10days and 30km/5days Along-track total SLA field Map of large/medium mesoscale SLA OA 100km/10days Map of residual short mesoscale SLA OA 30km/5days Map of large/medium+short mesoscale SLA + Along-track residual submesoscale SLA field - Method  Errors on reconstructed fields are analyzed for SLA, surface geostrophic velocities (U,V), vorticity and vertical velocities (W) Map reconstructed with 1/8°x1/8° and 3 days resolution.

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Illustration of common diagnostics used for OSSEs SSH reconstruction error (diff = reference – reconstructed) Analysis made at 38°N (SWOT temporal sampling is optimal) Mesoscale SSHA reasonably resolved with 3 satellites (current applications of DUACS) SWOT alone performs like 4 altimeters Adding more sensors reduces the error but the gain is small SSHA Reconstruction error (% of reality signal variance)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Mesoscale sampling (influence of latitude) Only one SWOT sensor  results change with latitude Blue is for 38° (optimal temporal sampling : 1 sample every 11 days) Grey is for 45° (poor sampling : 2 samples in 4 days, then 18 days with no data) Sampling discrepancies disappear when a large constellation is added Delta Time between ascending and descending arcs on SWOT x SWOT crossovers -10 days+10 days 38° 45°

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Mesoscale sampling (geostrophic velocities) Reconstruction error at 45°N on U (blue) and V (red) components Observing true gradients is much more difficult, even on « simple » mesoscale Second SWOT or constellation  error divided by a factor of 2 Direct benefit for traditional altimetry applications at regional scale Geostrophic velocities reconstruction error (% of reality signal variance)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz The lyapunov exponents Potential of using Lagrangian metrics to charactrise the impact of satellite constellation Test has been performed using a Lagrangian approach with the calculation of the Lyapunov exponents (FSLE for finite size Lyapunov exponents) of the velocity data set  direct measure of the local stiring  characterise the trajectories of initially close particules that are quickly separated along the streaching directions In practice: a set of tracers (initially separated with a specific distance) are followed in time during the advection by the velocity field. FSLE is the time it takes to the tracers to reach a given separation distance Ref papers: D’Ovidio et al. (GRL, 2004), D’Ovidio et al. (DSR, 2009) D’Ovidio et al.., (2004) software is rewriting and will be available soon.

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Reconstructing lyapunov exponents 3 x Nadir 1 x SWOT 1 x SWOT +11 x Nadir Reality (Earth Simulator)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Do we need optimal 2-step mapping ? SWOT + 11 Nadir (standard) Reality (Earth Simulator)SWOT + 11Nadir (2-step)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Integrated advection error Average error on tracer position 5 days Initial state : hundreds of particules to be advected  Position analyzed every 3 hours over 5 days The mean distance between reference and observed trajectories gives an estimate of the integrated error SWOT alone still has an average error (42km) superior to the mapping scales (30km)  observation lacking Adding a second SWOT or (better) a constellation of 11 nadir reduces the error by 50% (25km)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Do we need optimal 2-step mapping ? If SWOT is alone, the 2-step mapper significantly reduces the error at regional scale (optimal interpolation uses statistical decay between sparse images) When a constellation is merged with SWOT, the dense 1D profiles can preserve the SWOT 2D information until a new swath refreshes the scene  improvements from 2- step mapping is marginal (standard maps are good enough if observation is not filtered) SWOT (standard) SWOT (2-step) SWOT+11 Nadir (standard) SWOT+11 Nadir (2-step)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Conclusions : OSSE results A large altimetry constellation can complement SWOT images: To fill SWOT temporal gaps between 2D images (with dense 1D profiles) To fill SWOT observation weaknesses at certain latitudes (22-day orbit)  To better observe smaller scales (error divided by a factor of 2 for signals > 30km) Optimal 2-step mapping (vs. traditional DUACS mapping) : 2-step is not necessary for SWOT+constellation (dense measurements) 2-step is needed for SWOT alone to balance the sparser temporal observation (standard mapping would over-smooth between 2D images)

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Conclusions on Lagrangian metrics Lyapunov exponents useful but qualitative further work need to understand the fiability/sensitivity of this Lagrangian method ? (impact of the parameterisation, sensitivity to the sampling) Quantitative diagnostics with the Integrated advection error are satisfying. Are Lagrangian diagnostics relevant for a NRT monitoring (OSE)? DUACS Global product DUACS régional AMESD

GOV-CLIVAR workshop june, Santa Cruz Conclusions on Lagragian metrics Lyapunov exponents useful but qualitative further work need to understand the fiability/sensitivity of this Lagrangian method ? (impact of the parameterisation, sensitivity to the sampling) Quantitative diagnostics with the Integrated advection error are satisfying. Are Lagrangian diagnostics relevant for a NRT monitoring (OSE) Where is the truth ? How could we verify that the small scale introduced in the field are realistic ? Is there specific signatures on FSLE/FTLE results of some specific signals? (internal wave, sampling discontinuity,..), Consistency with tracers like ocean colour ? Interest to use Lyapunov exponent for model simulations intercomparison and validation ?