Comparisons of LER/MLER Cloud Pressures with a Model of Mie Scattering Plane-Parallel Cloud Alexander Vasilkov 1, Joanna Joiner 2, Pawan K. Bhartia 2,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Proposed new uses for the Ceilometer Network
Advertisements

Blind tests of radar/lidar retrievals: Assessment of errors in terms of radiative flux profiles Malcolm Brooks Robin Hogan and Anthony Illingworth David.
Robin Hogan, Richard Allan, Nicky Chalmers, Thorwald Stein, Julien Delanoë University of Reading How accurate are the radiative properties of ice clouds.
WP 5 : Clouds & Aerosols L.G. Tilstra and P. Stammes Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) SCIAvisie Meeting, KNMI, De Bilt, Absorbing.
 nm)  nm) PurposeSpatial Resolution (km) Ozone, SO 2, UV8 3251Ozone8 3403Aerosols, UV, and Volcanic Ash8 3883Aerosols, Clouds, UV and Volcanic.
A New A-Train Collocated Product : MODIS and OMI cloud data on the OMI footprint Brad Fisher 1, Joanna Joiner 2, Alexander Vasilkov 1, Pepijn Veefkind.
3D Radiative Transfer in Cloudy Atmospheres: Diffusion Approximation and Monte Carlo Simulation for Thermal Emission K. N. Liou, Y. Chen, and Y. Gu Department.
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.
Envisat Symposium, April 23 – 27, 2007, Montreux bremen.de SADDU Meeting, June 2008, IUP-Bremen Cloud sensitivity studies.
Atmospheric effect in the solar spectrum
MOD06 Cloud Top Properties Richard Frey Paul Menzel Bryan Baum University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Constraining aerosol sources using MODIS backscattered radiances Easan Drury - G2
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission: Effects of Polarization on Retrievals Vijay Natraj Advisor: Yuk Yung Collaborators: Robert Spurr (RT Solutions,
Menghua Wang NOAA/NESDIS/ORA E/RA3, Room 102, 5200 Auth Rd.
Improvement and validation of OMI NO 2 observations over complex terrain A contribution to ACCENT-TROPOSAT-2, Task Group 3 Yipin Zhou, Dominik Brunner,
Page 1 1 of 20, EGU General Assembly, Apr 21, 2009 Vijay Natraj (Caltech), Hartmut Bösch (University of Leicester), Rob Spurr (RT Solutions), Yuk Yung.
Reflected Solar Radiative Kernels And Applications Zhonghai Jin Constantine Loukachine Bruce Wielicki Xu Liu SSAI, Inc. / NASA Langley research Center.
Development of GEMS Cloud Data Processing Algorithm Yong-Sang Choi 1, Bo-Ram Kim 1, Heeje Cho 2, Myong-Hwan Ahn 1 (Former COMS PI), and Jhoon Kim 3 (GEMS.
Surface Reflectivity from OMI using MODIS to Eliminate Clouds: Effects of Snow on UV-Vis Trace Gas Retrievals Gray O’Byrne, 1 Randall V. Martin, 1,2 Aaron.
Cloud algorithms and applications for TEMPO Joanna Joiner, Alexander Vasilkov, Nick Krotkov, Sergey Marchenko, Eun-Su Yang, Sunny Choi (NASA GSFC)
July 14, 2004Alexander Marshak 3D Error Assessment and Cloud Climatology from MODIS R.F. Cahalan, A. Marshak (GSFC) K.F. Evans (University of Colorado)
Quality of the official SCIAMACHY Absorbing Aerosol Index (AAI) level-2 product L.G. Tilstra and P. Stammes Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
SeaDAS Training ~ NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group 1 Level-2 ocean color data processing basics NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group Goddard Space Flight.
Surface Reflectivity from OMI: Effects of snow on OMI NO 2 retrievals Gray O’Byrne 1, Randall Martin 1,2, Joanna Joiner 3, Edward A. Celarier 3 1 Dalhousie.
Test simulation of Aerosol impact on solar radiation with WRF-CHEM DustDNI (w/o dust) – DNI (w/ dust) Positive value indicates the decreased DNI due to.
Xiong Liu, Mike Newchurch Department of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
TEMPO & GOES-R synergy update and GEO-TASO aerosol retrieval for TEMPO Jun Wang Xiaoguang Xu, Shouguo Ding, Cui Ge University of Nebraska-Lincoln Robert.
OMI total-ozone anomaly and its impact on tropospheric ozone retrieval Jae Kim 1, Somyoung Kim 1, K. J. Ha 1, and Mike Newchurch Department of Atmospheric.
UV Aerosol Indices from (TROP)OMI An investigation of viewing angle dependence , Marloes Penning de Vries and Thomas Wagner Max Planck Institute.
A four year record of Aerosol Absorption measurements from OMI near UV observations Omar Torres Department of Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Hampton.
Marc Schröder, FUB Tutorial, De Bilt, 10.´04 Photon path length distributions and detailed microphysical parameterisations Marc Schröder Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften,
Satellite and Ground-based Total Column Ozone Comparisons- Latest Results and Remaining Issues Gordon Labow 1, Rich McPeters 2, P.K. Bhartia 2 1 =Science.
1 Mike3/papers/tropoz/aguf98 12/2/98 16:30 M. Newchurch 1,2, X. Liu 3, J. H. Kim 4, P. K. Bhartia 5 1. U. Alabama in Huntsville, NSSTC 320 Sparkman Dr.,Huntsville,
The Second TEMPO Science Team Meeting Physical Basis of the Near-UV Aerosol Algorithm Omar Torres NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Atmospheric Chemistry.
Testing LW fingerprinting with simulated spectra using MERRA Seiji Kato 1, Fred G. Rose 2, Xu Liu 1, Martin Mlynczak 1, and Bruce A. Wielicki 1 1 NASA.
Atmosphere: Structure and Temperature Bell Ringers:  How does weather differ from climate?  Why do the seasons occur?  What would happen if carbon.
OMI Science Team 2014, Anders Lindfors / FMI OMI cloud optical depth contributes to the observed positive bias in surface UV Anders V. Lindfors, T. Mielonen,
Intercomparison of OMI NO 2 and HCHO air mass factor calculations: recommendations and best practices A. Lorente, S. Döerner, A. Hilboll, H. Yu and K.
Cloud optical properties: modeling and sensitivity study Ping Yang Texas A&M University May 28,2003 Madison, Wisconsin.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Estimating the radiative effect of mineral dust over ocean The radiance to flux problem Dust retrieval quality Applying.
Evaluation of OMI total column ozone with four different algorithms SAO OE, NASA TOMS, KNMI OE/DOAS Juseon Bak 1, Jae H. Kim 1, Xiong Liu 2 1 Pusan National.
Use of Solar Reflectance Hyperspectral Data for Cloud Base Retrieval Andrew Heidinger, NOAA/NESDIS/ORA Washington D.C, USA Outline " Physical basis for.
S5P cloud products Sebastián Gimeno García, Ronny Lutz, Diego Loyola German S5P Verification Meeting 1 Bremen, November Chart 1>
Use of a high-resolution cloud climate data set for validation of Rossby Centre climate simulations Presentation at the EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite.
C. Lerot 1, M. Koukouli 2, T. Danckaert 1, D. Balis 2, and M. Van Roozendael 1 1 BIRA-IASB, Belgium 2 LAP/AUTH, Greece S5P L2 Verification Meeting – 19-20/05/2015.
TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 1. Scattering Phase Function Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert Loughman.
Initial Analysis of the Pixel-Level Uncertainties in Global MODIS Cloud Optical Thickness and Effective Particle Size Retrievals Steven Platnick 1, Robert.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission: Retrieval Characterisation and Error Analysis H. Bösch 1, B. Connor 2, B. Sen 1, G. C. Toon 1 1 Jet Propulsion.
Cloud property retrieval from hyperspectral IR measurements Jun Li, Peng Zhang, Chian-Yi Liu, Xuebao Wu and CIMSS colleagues Cooperative Institute for.
Lok Lamsal, Nickolay Krotkov, Sergey Marchenko, Edward Celarier, William Swartz, Wenhan Qin, Alexander Vasilkov, Eric Bucsela, Dave Haffner 19 th OMI Science.
Retrieval of cloud parameters from the new sensor generation satellite multispectral measurement F. ROMANO and V. CUOMO ITSC-XII Lorne, Victoria, Australia.
TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 2. In-cloud Multiple Scattering Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert.
UCLA Vector Radiative Transfer Models for Application to Satellite Data Assimilation K. N. Liou, S. C. Ou, Y. Takano and Q. Yue Department of Atmospheric.
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,
March 21, ‘06 comp. May 5, ‘06 comp Summary ~4% swath angle dependent difference Up to 9% difference over clouds Differences correlate with snow/ice.
Impact of 3D Clouds on Aerosol Retrievals Guoyong Wen 1,2 Alexander Marshak 1 Robert F. Cahalan 1 Lorraine Remer 1 Richard Kleidman 1,3 1 NASA/Goddard.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission: Fast Polarization Calculations Using the R-2OS Radiative Transfer Model Vijay Natraj 1, Hartmut Bösch 2, Robert.
Shaima Nasiri University of Wisconsin-Madison Bryan Baum NASA - Langley Research Center Detection of Overlapping Clouds with MODIS: TX-2002 MODIS Atmospheres.
Cloud Detection: Optical Depth Thresholds and FOV Considerations Steven A. Ackerman, Richard A. Frey, Edwin Eloranta, and Robert Holz Cloud Detection Issues.
Challenge the future Corresponding author: Delft University of Technology Collocated OMI DOMINO and MODIS Aqua aerosol products.
Cloud workshop wrap-up OMI science team meeting, 21 June 2006.
1 Deriving cloud parameters for O 3 profile retrieval Zhaonan Cai 1, Xiong Liu 1, Kai Yang 2, Kelly Chance 1 1 SAO 2 UMD 4 th TEMPO Science Team Meeting,
Visible vicarious calibration using RTM
Fourth TEMPO Science Team Meeting
Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface (I)
Johan de Haan Pepijn Veefkind
Using dynamic aerosol optical properties from a chemical transport model (CTM) to retrieve aerosol optical depths from MODIS reflectances over land Fall.
Polarization Effects on Column CO2 Retrievals from Non-Nadir Satellite Measurements in the Short-Wave Infrared Vijay Natraj1, Hartmut Bösch2, Robert J.D.
Cloud trends from GOME, SCIAMACHY and OMI
Presentation transcript:

Comparisons of LER/MLER Cloud Pressures with a Model of Mie Scattering Plane-Parallel Cloud Alexander Vasilkov 1, Joanna Joiner 2, Pawan K. Bhartia 2, and Robert Spurr 3 1 Science Systems and Applications, Inc. 2 NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Code RT Solutions Inc. OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23-25, 2006

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Contents Radiative transfer simulations with Rotational Raman Scattering (RRS) for a model of Plane-Parallel Cloud (PPC) Comparisons of the retrieved LER/MLER cloud pressures with true cloud-top pressures Comparisons of OMCLDRR cloud pressures with OMCLDO2, OMTO3 climatology, and MODIS; Identification of problems Conclusions

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Thin cloud simulation and retrieval of LER/MLER cloud pressure LIDORT-RRS (Spurr) code calculates radiance and RRS filling-in Simulations were carried out for a model of plane-parallel cloud (PPC) with geometric thickness of 1 km at cloud-top heights of 2, 6, and 10 km, cloud optical thicknesses of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 50, and surface albedo of The Henyey-Greenstein phase function was assumed with g=0.85. Cloud pressure retrieved from simulated data using lookup tables for  LER model: A single opaque Lambertian surface  MLER model: Clear sky and cloudy radiances, Ig & Ic, are calculated for two opaque Lambertian surfaces with pre-specified reflectivities of Rg=0.11 & Rc=0.40 or Rg=0.15 and Rc=0.80.

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Errors in LER/MLER Cloud Pressures, High Cloud (10 km) - Deep convective clouds: LER and both MLER models produce small errors. -Cirrus clouds: -Errors in cloud pressure retrieved with LER/MLER models are significant and strongly depend on assumed clear sky and cloud reflectivties. -The MLER model with 15% & 80% retrieves pressures significantly lower than true ones because of high fraction of clear sky sub-pixel. Reflec Cl frac

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Errors in LER/MLER Cloud Pressures, Middle-Altitude Cloud (6 km) The MLER model with Rg=15% & Rc=80% works best for this case. Errors in cloud pressures retrieved with the LER/MLER models are slightly larger than for high-altitude clouds. Reflec Cl frac

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Errors in LER/MLER Cloud Pressures, Low Cloud (2 km) MLER cloud pressures are higher than the true cloud- top pressures for all optical depths. For optically thick clouds, errors in the LER/MLER cloud pressures are larger than for high-altitude clouds. The MLER model with Rg=15% & Rc=80% works best for this case. Reflec Cl frac

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Errors in LER/MLER Cloud Pressures, IPA 80% cloud fraction Neither MLER model works particularly well at the lower values of tau. The Rg=15% & Rc=80% underestimates cloud pressure, but Rg=11% & Rc=40% generally overestimates.

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Comparison of OMCLDRR with OMCLDO2 Credit to Dr. K. Yang There is an overall bias (OMCLDRR pressures lower) that increases with decreasing cloud fraction. This does not tell the whole story…

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Monthly mean cloud pressures (Jan 2005 ) OMTO3 clim. R>60% MODIS IR (different scale) OMCLDRR Rc=80% OMCLDO2 Clouds too low Clouds too high R>40% f>60%

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Glint effect obvious at low reflectivities Glint also appears to increase reflectivities even when the cloud fraction is significant OMCLDRR is extremely sensitive to glint (glint component of radiance will look like an infinitely high cloud; note for OMCLDO2 and other absorbers, glint component will act as a bright cloud at the surface) Therefore, glint can cause cloud fractions to be overestimated and cloud pressures underestimated in OMCLDRR even in moderately cloudy pixels. Solutions: 1) Filter version 1: must eliminate significant portion (~75%!) of swath over much of the ocean 2) Use shorter wavelengths in future versions

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, OMTO3 clim. R>60% OMCLDO2 glint filtered OMCLDRR Rc=80% no filtering OMCLDRR Rc=80% glint filtered Clouds too low Clouds too high (errors due to MLER?) Glint filtering improves cloud pressures in the subsidence regions

OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 23 –25, Conclusions Errors in the LER/MLER cloud pressures are small for optically thick clouds. They slightly increase with decreasing cloud height. Errors in the LER/MLER cloud pressures for thinner clouds strongly depend on assumptions on clear sky and cloud reflectivities and cloud height. The MLER model with Rg=15% & Rc=80% retrieves pressures produces pressures closest to the true cloud-top pressure for PPC (f=1) but not necessarily for f<1. We are considering using shorter wavelength in UV2 (less sensitive to surface effects such as glint) for next release. We are considering a significant change in concept for the next- generation OMCLDRR algorithm (IPA with Mie scattering clouds).