1 Mathieu Reverdy Hélène Chepfer Workshop EECLAT 21-23 janvier 2013 Implementation of ATLID/Earthcare lidar simulator within CFMIP–Observation Simulator.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Robin Hogan, Julien Delanoe and Nicola Pounder University of Reading Towards unified retrievals of clouds, precipitation and aerosols.

Advertisements

Lidar observations of mixed-phase clouds Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth, Ewan OConnor & Mukunda Dev Behera University of Reading UK Overview Enhanced.

Proposed new uses for the Ceilometer Network

Calipso (LIDAR in space) Data during DODO Flight B237 over Ocean off Mauritanian Coast 22 nd August 2006.

Radar/lidar observations of boundary layer clouds

Modelling radar and lidar multiple scattering Modelling radar and lidar multiple scattering Robin Hogan The CloudSat radar and the Calipso lidar were launched.

ISTP Oktober Aerosol boomerang: Rapid around-the-world transport of smoke from the December 2006 Australian forest fires observed from.

Exploiting multiple scattering in CALIPSO measurements to retrieve liquid cloud properties Nicola Pounder, Robin Hogan, Lee Hawkness-Smith, Andrew Barrett.

Calibration Scenarios for PICASSO-CENA J. A. REAGAN, X. WANG, H. FANG University of Arizona, ECE Dept., Bldg. 104, Tucson, AZ MARY T. OSBORN SAIC,

1 ASIC-3 Workshop March 2006 Climate Quality Observations from Satellite Lidar Dave Winker, NASA LaRC, Hampton, VA 28 April ‘06.

Depolarization lidar for water cloud remote sensing 1.Background: MS and Depolaization 2.Short overview of the MC model used in this work 3.Depol-lidar.

1 An initial CALIPSO cloud climatology ISCCP Anniversary, July 2008, New York Dave Winker NASA LaRC.

Evaluation of ECHAM5 General Circulation Model using ISCCP simulator Swati Gehlot & Johannes Quaas Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie Hamburg, Germany.

Wesley Berg, Tristan L’Ecuyer, and Sue van den Heever Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Evaluating the impact of aerosols on.

EarthCARE: The next step forward in global measurements of clouds, aerosols, precipitation & radiation Robin Hogan ECMWF & University of Reading With input.

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft NDACC H2O workshop, Bern, July 2006 Water vapour profiles by ground-based FTIR Spectroscopy:

Microwindow Selection for the MIPAS Reduced Resolution Mode INTRODUCTION Microwindows are the small subsets of the complete MIPAS spectrum which are used.

1. The problem of mixed-phase clouds All models except DWD underestimate mid-level cloud –Some have separate “radiatively inactive” snow (ECMWF, DWD) –Met.

Work Package 2 – Overview of instrumentation, data gathering and calibration issues Lidar Calibration Ewan O’Connor, Anthony Illingworth and Robin Hogan.

© Crown copyright Met Office COSP: status and CFMIP-2 experiments A. Bodas-Salcedo CFMIP/GCSS meeting, Vancouver, 8-12 June 2009.

Evaluation of cloudiness in LMDZ GCM using CALIPSO and PARASOL H. Chepfer, S. Bony, G. Cesana, JL Dufresne, D. Konsta, LMD/IPSL D. Winker, NASA/LaRC D.

Spaceborne Weather Radar

Ben Kravitz November 5, 2009 LIDAR. What is LIDAR? Stands for LIght Detection And Ranging Micropulse LASERs Measurements of (usually) backscatter from.

CALIPSO and LITE Data for Space-based DWL Design and Data Utility Studies: Research Plans: Part II Dave Emmitt, Simpson Weather Associates Dave Winker,

Space Borne and Ground Based Lidar NASA ARSET- EPA Training ARSET - AQ Applied Remote Sensing Education and Training – Air Quality A project of NASA Applied.

What is RADAR? What is RADAR? Active detecting and ranging sensor operating in the microwave portion of the EM spectrum Active detecting and ranging sensor.

Lidar remote sensing for the characterization of the atmospheric aerosol on local and large spatial scale.

1 Une description statistique multi-variable des nuages au dessus de l’océan tropical à partir des observations de jour de l’A-train en haute résolution.

Possibility of stratospheric hydration by overshooting analyzed with space-borne sensors Suginori Iwasaki (National Defense Academy, Japan) T. Shibata.

Atmospheric Monitoring in the TA experiment

Institute of Environmental Physics and Remote Sensing IUP/IFE-UB Physics/Electrical Engineering Department 1 Measurements.

Depolarization lidar for water cloud remote sensing 1.Background MS and MC 2.Short overview of the MC model used in this work 3.Depol-lidar for Water Cld.

1 CALIPSO: Validation activities and requirements Dave Winker NASA LaRC GALION, WMO Geneva, September 2010.

Interannual Variabilities of High Clouds Seen by AIRS and Comparison with CAM5 simulations Yuk Yung, Hui Su, Katie, Hazel et al.

Meteorological Data Analysis Urban, Regional Modeling and Analysis Section Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Melanie Follette-Cook Christopher Loughner (ESSIC, UMD) Kenneth Pickering (NASA GSFC) CMAS Conference October 27-29, 2014.

The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research A partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology Southern Ocean cloud biases in ACCESS.

Figure 1. (left) Direct comparison of CCN concentration adjusted to 0.4% supersaturation and 499 nm AOD, both observed from ≤1 km altitudes during ARCTAS.

E.Plagnol - TA/TALE feb Acceptance and Counting Rates of EUSO ë Detecting UHECR from space ë The EUSO detector : Who does what. ë Some characteristics.

Characterization of Aerosols using Airborne Lidar, MODIS, and GOCART Data during the TRACE-P (2001) Mission Rich Ferrare 1, Ed Browell 1, Syed Ismail 1,

Yuying Zhang, Jim Boyle, and Steve Klein Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Jay Mace University.

KNMI 35 GHz Cloud Radar & Cloud Classification* Henk Klein Baltink * Robin Hogan (Univ. of Reading, UK)

AEROSOL CLASSIFICATION RETRIEVAL ALGORITHMS FOR EARTHCARE/ATLID, CALIPSO/CALIOP, AND GROUND-BASED LIDARS Sugimoto, N., T. Nishizawa, I. Matsui, National.

CLOUD PHYSICS LIDAR for GOES-R Matthew McGill / Goddard Space Flight Center April 8, 2015.

H 2 O retrieval from S5 NIR K. Weigel, M. Reuter, S. Noël, H. Bovensmann, and J. P. Burrows University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Physics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Rob Albee, Jim Wendell, Stan Unander, NOAA Climate Forcing program, DOE ARM program, NASA, Met. Service Canada, Chinese Met. Agency,

Bryan A. Baum, Richard Frey, Robert Holz Space Science and Engineering Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Paul Menzel NOAA Many other colleagues MODIS.

AEROCOM AODs are systematically smaller than MODIS, with slightly larger/smaller differences in winter/summer. Aerosol optical properties are difficult.

1 CALIPSO VALIDATION and DATA QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EECLAT T0, J. Pelon.

Cloudnet meeting Oct Martial Haeffelin SIRTA Cloud and Radiation Observatory M. Haeffelin, A. Armstrong, L. Barthès, O. Bock, C. Boitel, D.

12 April 2013 VARSY progress meeting Robin Hogan and Nicola Pounder (University of Reading)

UNIVERSITY OF BASILICATA CNR-IMAA (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale) Tito Scalo (PZ) Analysis and interpretation.

Fast Ion Instability Study G. Rumolo and D. Schulte CLIC Workshop 2007, General introduction to the physics of the fast ion instability Fastion.

Cloud Detection: Optical Depth Thresholds and FOV Considerations Steven A. Ackerman, Richard A. Frey, Edwin Eloranta, and Robert Holz Cloud Detection Issues.

What Are the Implications of Optical Closure Using Measurements from the Two Column Aerosol Project? J.D. Fast 1, L.K. Berg 1, E. Kassianov 1, D. Chand.

Motivation: Help satellite studies of aerosol-cloud interactions Aerosol remote sensing near clouds is challenging Excluding areas near-cloud risks biases.

Early VALIDAR Case Study Results Rod Frehlich: RAL/NCAR Grady Koch: NASA Langley.

HSAF Soil Moisture Training

Vertically resolved CALIPSO-CloudSat aerosol extinction coefficient in the marine boundary layer and its co-variability with MODIS cloud retrievals David.

LIDAR Ben Kravitz November 5, 2009.

Improved Historical Reconstructions of SST and Marine Precipitation Variations Thomas M. Smith1 Richard W. Reynolds2 Phillip A. Arkin3 Viva Banzon2 1.

Dave Winker1 and Helene Chepfer2

Using A-train observations to evaluate clouds in CAM

Using dynamic aerosol optical properties from a chemical transport model (CTM) to retrieve aerosol optical depths from MODIS reflectances over land Fall.

Mike Pavolonis (NOAA/NESDIS/STAR)

An Investigation on SYNC Detector False Alarms

GLAS Cloud Statistics and Their Implications for a Hybrid Mission

Mike Pavolonis (NOAA/NESDIS/STAR)

CALIPSO First-Light Observations – All 3 Lidar Channels

Presentation transcript:

1 Mathieu Reverdy Hélène Chepfer Workshop EECLAT janvier 2013 Implementation of ATLID/Earthcare lidar simulator within CFMIP–Observation Simulator Package

2 Merge of CALIOP (since 2006) and ATLID (2015) lidar data. => decade cloud dataset for evaluation of cloud description in climate models within (CFMIP). COSP is adapted to ATLID capability. With ACTSIM, we diagnose cloud cover in GOCCP that 532 nm spaceborn lidar (such as CALIOP) would have observed from space. We have adapted this lidar simulator to 355 nm, corresponding to ATLID. With ECSIM (lidar simulator), we produce “Level 1 like” data for CALIOP and ATLID. first stage to build GOECP consistent with CALIPSO-GOCCP. Introduction

3 COSP package + model LMDZ4 for cloud fractions. ACTSIM (532 nm and 355 nm) to compare CALIOP/ATLID results. ECSIM to produce “Level 1 like” CALIOP and ATLID data. Method Effects of Multiple scattering. Effects of wavelength. Effects of cloud detection threshold. Total attenuated backscatter. etc...

4 Effects of Multiple scattering 1/2 High Level Cloud (CLH) > 6.5km CALIOPATLID Differences MSC 0.7 -MSC 0.3 Low differences for CALIOP ~ 1-2%. Larger differences for ATLID (factor 10: 10-20%) and near Poles ~40-50%.

5 Low Level Cloud (CLL) < 3.2km CALIOPATLID Effects of Multiple scattering 2/2 Differences MSC 0.7 -MSC 0.3 Differences comparable between CALIOP and ATLID ~ +/- 10%.

6 Effects of wavelength CALIOP-ATLID CLH CLL Left: MSC 0.7 -MSC 0.7 / Right: MSC 0.3 -MSC 0.3 CLH 0.7: Important differences over North Pole and tropical belt (convective spots). CLH 0.3: Less differences over North Pole. Still important over tropical belt. CLL 0.7 and 0.3: Differences comparable between CALIOP and ATLID.

7 Effects of cloud detection threshold CLH CLL CALIOP-ATLID Left: MSC 0.7 -MSC 0.7 / Right: MSC MSC 0.3 SR CALIOP =5 / SR ATLID =2 best threshold Small differences around convective spots for CLH. Small differences near North Pole for CLL.

8 ECSIM Medium scene: 150x100 km. Clouds at 5 km and 10km of altitude. Level 1 CALIOP and ATLID files. => estimation of ATB (total attenuated backscatter) for different profils. 480m averaging to fit ACTSIM resolution. => Vertical profil correlation >0.83 but for molecular signal only (0.20) Full Resolution Damaged Resolution CALIOP ATLID

9 Molecular ATB profils at 1064nm, 532 nm and 355 nm. Good agreement between. Cloud detection threshold: SR=5 for CALIOP SR=2 for ATLID

10 Adapt the COSP lidar simulator to ATLID. Sensitivity tests with wavelengths, cloud detection thresholds, etc... Use ECSIM through different scenes (only one shown). Compare theory with simulation outputs. Next studies: Use WRF with ECSIM Focus on Signal to Noise Ratio, FOV, altitudes and HSRL resolution. Write GOECP Conclusions and Outlook