Significance of ISCCP to Realistic Estimates of Global Radiation Profiles Yuanchong Zhang 1 and William B. Rossow 2 1 Columbia University at NASA GISS,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© University of Reading Richard Allan Department of Meteorology, University of Reading Thanks to: Jim Haywood and Malcolm.
Advertisements

A thermodynamic model for estimating sea and lake ice thickness with optical satellite data Student presentation for GGS656 Sanmei Li April 17, 2012.
James Dewar presenting liquid hydrogen: Physics Today, March 2008.
An Evaluation of the Surface Radiation Budget Over North America for a Suite of Regional Climate Models Student: Marko Markovic Director: Colin Jones Université.
TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measurement (Mission). Why TRMM? n Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) is a joint US-Japan study initiated in 1997 to study.
1 An initial CALIPSO cloud climatology ISCCP Anniversary, July 2008, New York Dave Winker NASA LaRC.
Surface Skin/Air Temperature and LW Flux Calculation Y-C. Zhang and W.B. Rossow LandFlux Conference CNES/CESBIO, Toulouse, France May 28 – 31, 2007.
Earth System Data Record (ESDR) for Global Evapotranspiration. Eric Wood Princeton University ©Princeton University.
Aerosol radiative effects from satellites Gareth Thomas Nicky Chalmers, Caroline Poulsen, Ellie Highwood, Don Grainger Gareth Thomas - NCEO/CEOI-ST Joint.
The Radiative Budget of an Atmospheric Column in Tropical Western Pacific Zheng Liu Department of Atmospheric Science University of Washington.
Quantifying aerosol direct radiative effect with MISR observations Yang Chen, Qinbin Li, Ralph Kahn Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology,
Brief Overview of CM-SAF & Possible use of the Data for NCMPs.
Brief Overview of CM-SAF & Possible use of the Data for NCMPs.
Surface Albedo and SW Flux Calculation Y-C. Zhang and W.B. Rossow LandFlux Conference CNES/CESBIO, Toulouse, France May 28 – 31, 2007.
Surface Skin Temperatures Observed from IR and Microwave Satellite Measurements Catherine Prigent, CNRS, LERMA, Observatoire de Paris, France Filipe Aires,
Climate Science Branch, Science Directorate NASA Langley Research Center Shashi K. Gupta, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr.*, Taiping Zhang, and J. Colleen Mikovitz.
The Radiative Budget of an Atmospheric Column in Tropical Western Pacific Zheng Liu 1 Thomas Ackerman 1,2, Sally McFarlane 2, Jim Mather 2, University.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Quantifying the direct radiative effect of Saharan dust aerosol over north-west Africa and the tropical Atlantic Richard.
Reflected Solar Radiative Kernels And Applications Zhonghai Jin Constantine Loukachine Bruce Wielicki Xu Liu SSAI, Inc. / NASA Langley research Center.
Surface Atmospheric Radiation Budget (SARB) working group update Seiji Kato 1, Fred Rose 2, David Rutan 2, Alexander Radkevich 2, Tom Caldwell 2, David.
Numerical diffusion in sectional aerosol modells Stefan Kinne, MPI-M, Hamburg DATA in global modeling aerosol climatologies & impact.
SHNHCEF EI ind c-5.3±0.24.5±0.1−0.8±0.1 EI dir c-5.4±0.24.8± ±0.2 E40 ind c−5.7±0.34.9±0.3−0.9±0.2 E40 dir c-4.9±0.64.7± ±0.2 FT08−4.9±0.25.1±0.5-
An assessment of data products for studies of clouds and radiation (INVITED) Ehrhard Raschke University of Hamburg, Germany William R. Rossow, Yuan-Chong.
Evaluation and applications of a new satellite-based surface solar radiation data set for climate analysis Jörg Trentmann1, Richard Müller1, Christine.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 GOES Solar Radiation Products in Support of Renewable Energy Istvan Laszlo.
1 CERES Results Norman Loeb and the CERES Science Team NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA Reception NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD.
Introduction Invisible clouds in this study mean super-thin clouds which cannot be detected by MODIS but are classified as clouds by CALIPSO. These sub-visual.
Differences in solar insolation fields at TOA among numerical models for the projects AMIP-2 and IPCC-FAR, Ehrhard Raschke (University of Hamburg), Yoko.
AGU 2002 Fall Meeting NASA Langley Research Center / Atmospheric Sciences Validation of GOES-8 Derived Cloud Properties Over the Southeastern Pacific J.
USING OF METEOSAT SECOND GENERATION HIGH RESOLUTION VISIBLE DATA FOR THE IMPOVEMENT OF THE RAPID DEVELOPPING THUNDERSTORM PRODUCT Oleksiy Kryvobok Ukrainian.
Global Scale Energy Fluxes: Comparison of Observational Estimates and Model Simulations Aaron Donohoe -- MIT David Battisti -- UW CERES Science Team Meeting.
DO WE KNOW HOW STORMS WILL CHANGE IN A WARMING CLIMATE? William B. Rossow NOAA CREST at The City College of New York June 2013.
JCSDA Summer Colloquium Erica Dolinar 4 August 2015.
ISCCP at its 30 th (New York, 22 – 25 April, 2013) Congratulations to the “Core Team” and to “Patient Outside-Supporters”: Our best wishes for a perspective.
The GEWEX Radiative Flux Assessment Project The GEWEX Radiative Flux Assessment Project 5 th International GEWEX Conference June , 2004 Atsumu Ohmura.
1 Radiative impact of mineral dust on surface energy balance and PAR, implication for land-vegetation- atmosphere interactions Xin Xi Advisor: Irina N.
TESTING THE REALISM OF THE MMF (or any GCM) REPRESENTATION OF THE MJO William B. Rossow Eric Tromeur City College of New York CMMAP Meeting July.
Estimating the radiative impacts of aerosol using GERB and SEVIRI H. Brindley Imperial College.
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.
Boundary Layer Clouds.
Investigations of Artifacts in the ISCCP Datasets William B. Rossow July 2006.
ISCCP Calibration 25 th Anniversary Symposium July 23, 2008 NASA GISS Christopher L. Bishop Columbia University New York, New York.
Clouds & Radiation: Climate data vs. model results A tribute to ISCCP Ehrhard Raschke, University of Hamburg Stefan Kinne, MPI-Meteorology Hamburg 25 years.
09-Nov-2004Brussels, 09-Nov CM-SAF Surface Radiation Budget: First Results and Plans R. Hollmann, A. Gratzki, R. Mueller O. Sievers Deutscher Wetterdienst.
Global characteristics of marine stratocumulus clouds and drizzle
Representation of Subgrid Cloud-Radiation Interaction and its Impact on Global Climate Simulations Xinzhong Liang (Illinois State Water Survey, UIUC )
Ocean Surface heat fluxes
Diurnal Water and Energy Cycles over the Continental United States from three Reanalyses Alex Ruane John Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography / UCSD.
Page 1© Crown copyright 2006 Modelled & Observed Atmospheric Radiation Balance during the West African Dry Season. Sean Milton, Glenn Greed, Malcolm Brooks,
ISCCP SO FAR (at 30) GOALS ►Facilitate "climate" research ►Determine cloud effects on radiation exchanges ►Determine cloud role in global water cycle ▬
Lazaros Oreopoulos (NASA-GSFC)
Eric Tromeur and William B. Rossow NOAA/CREST at the City College of New York Interaction of Tropical Deep Convection with the Large-Scale Circulation.
© Oxford University Press, All rights reserved. 1 Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 THE GLOBAL ENERGY SYSTEM.
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Deriving clear-sky fluxes for GERB Jo Futyan Gist 21, CERES-GERB meeting 02/04/04 Boulder, Colorado.
AEROCOM AODs are systematically smaller than MODIS, with slightly larger/smaller differences in winter/summer. Aerosol optical properties are difficult.
Interannual Variability and Decadal Change of Solar Reflectance Spectra Zhonghai Jin Costy Loukachine Bruce Wielicki (NASA Langley research Center / SSAI,
Sea Ice, Solar Radiation, and SH High-latitude Climate Sensitivity Alex Hall UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences SOWG meeting January 13-14,
Consistent Earth System Data Records for Climate Research: Focus on Shortwave and Longwave Radiative Fluxes Rachel T. Pinker, Yingtao Ma and Eric Nussbaumer.
TAS-I/ESA Progress Meeting – 11 th July 2012 Design of a new global dust storm scenario for GCM simulations L. Montabone, E. Millour, F. Forget.
Do ISCCP & SRB Radiation Products Show Effects of Anomalies in Ancillary Data ? Ehrhard Raschke (Hamburg) Stefan Kinne (Hamburg) Ely Duenas (GISS, NY)
NASA Langley Research Center / Atmospheric Sciences CERES Instantaneous Clear-sky and Monthly Averaged Radiance and Flux Product Overview David Young NASA.
1 Changes in global net radiative imbalance Richard P. Allan, Chunlei Liu (University of Reading/NCAS Climate); Norman Loeb (NASA Langley); Matt.
Investigating Cloud Inhomogeneity using CRM simulations.
TOA Radiative Flux Estimation From CERES Angular Distribution Models
Xiquan Dong, Baike Xi, Erica Dolinar, and Ryan Stanfield
+ = Climate Responses to Biomass Burning Aerosols over South Africa
Aaron Kennedy, Xiquan Dong, and Baike Xi University of North Dakota
Studying the cloud radiative effect using a new, 35yr spanning dataset of cloud properties and radiative fluxes inferred from global satellite observations.
Investigator: B. Lin Integrated satellite global energy data sets for climate analysis and modeling studies Investigator: B. Lin
Integrated Satellite Global Energy Data for Climate Studies
Presentation transcript:

Significance of ISCCP to Realistic Estimates of Global Radiation Profiles Yuanchong Zhang 1 and William B. Rossow 2 1 Columbia University at NASA GISS, USA and 2 City University of New York-NASA GISS, USA ISCCP 25th Anniversary Symposium NASA GISS, NYC, July 2008

2 OUTLINE I. Possibilities opened by ISCCP I. Possibilities opened by ISCCP (related to radiative transfer profile modeling) (related to radiative transfer profile modeling) II. ISCCP-based radiative profile product: FD II. ISCCP-based radiative profile product: FD III. Global, long-term ERB IV. Global, long-term SRB V. Clouds/AOD vs Diffuse/Direct fluxes VI. Meridional energy transports VII. Summary

3 I. Possibilities opened by ISCCP (Related to radiative transfer profile modeling) (Then-)Unique Features of ISCCP Products: 1. Long-term, continuous global coverage with mesoscale resolution (280 km) 2. Resolved diurnal variation (3-hourly, barely though) 3. Essentially radiance-only-dependent cloud-detection methodology 4. Retrieval of most important cloud optical property: τ(or liquid/ice path) 5. Consistent retrievals for atmospheric-surface physical properties that make the following realistic or to be realistic: 1. Deepening understanding on key roles of clouds in global energy and water circulations (and regional climate/weather variations) 2. Estimates of radiative transfer fluxes for Earth-atmosphere system, Surface and (with knowledge of cloud vertical structure) whole atmospheric profile 3. Producing consistent, long-term and continuous, global-covered ERB and SRB datasets (ISCCP-FD and GEWEX-SRB) 4. And these lead to studying all possible general energy circulations (transports) of Earth-atmosphere, atmosphere and ocean 5. Monitoring climate variations

4 II. ISCCP-based radiative profile product: FD 1. Main Features of ISCCP-FD (Version: 0.00, But 0.10 for 2004) ► FD is a self-consistent, physically-integrated, TOA-to-SRF profile flux product, including all up & down, SW (diffuse/direct and VIS/NIR) and LW for full-, clear- and (100%) overcast sky Spatial resolution: horizontal: 280-km equal-area (2.5° on equator) vertical: 5 levels (SRF-680mb-440mb-100mb-TOA) Temporal resolution: Nominal 3-houly (UTC = 0, 3, … 21) Spatial coverage: fully global (on 280-km equal-area map) Temporal coverage: July 1983 → Dec → … ► Radiative Model: (modified) NASA GISS model using mainly ISCCP-D1 Cloud inputs: Cloud Fraction (CF), Optical thickness (τ) and its macro- inhomogeneous variability factor (ε), Statistical vertical structure, phases and particle size climatology Albedo: Land: VIS -- based on ISCCP-D1 visible reflectance NIR -- modified model ratio of VIS/NIR over 8 Vege types Ocean: from NASA GISS model AOD: GISS’ evolutional monthly climatology ( 18 sizes/compositions ) ► 23.5-year, 3-hourly and global FD-product: (1) FD-TOA, (2) FD-SRF, (3) FD-PRF, (4) FD-INP & (5) FD-MPF ● Allow Evaluation on Radiative Fluxes through Input Physical Variables

5..II..FD: 2. Clouds: (1) Multiyear Annual Mean Cloud Fraction (CF) (%)

6..II..FD: 2. Clouds: (2) Multiyear Annual Mean Cloud Optical Depth (τ)

7..II..FD: 2. Clouds: (3) Vertical Structure (CVS): CF (%) of FD

8..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (1) SW Net Profile for Full/Clr sky & CE (W/m 2 )

9..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (2) LW Net Profile for Full/Clr sky & CE (W/m 2 )

10..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (3) Total Net Profile for Full/Clr sky & CE (W/m 2 )

11..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (4) 86-Annual Cloud Effects (“cloud forcing”): for SW Heating Profile (K/Day)

12..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (5) 86-Annual Cloud Effects (“cloud forcing”): for LW Cooling Profile (K/Day)

13..II..FD: 3. FD-PRF: (6) 86-Annual Cloud Effects (“cloud forcing”): for Total (SW+LW) Heating/Cooling Profile (K/Day)

14 III. Global, long-term ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (1) Overall Statistics based on monthly means

15..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (2) TOA SW Net for 0107

16..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (3) TOA LW Net for 0107

17..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (4) TOA Total (SW+LW) Net for 0107

18..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (5) TOA SW Cloud Effects for 0107

19..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (6) TOA LW Cloud Effects for 0107

20..III. ERB: 1. FD vs. CERES: (7) TOA Total Cloud Effects for 0107

21..III...ERB: 2. FD vs. ERBS: (1) SWup Tropical Anomaly Mean difference: w/m 2 Difference Stdv: 1.89 w/m 2 Correlation Coef: 0.85

22..III...ERB: 2. FD vs. ERBS: (2) LWup Tropical Anomaly Mean difference: w/m 2 Difference Stdv: 1.03 w/m 2 Correlation Coef: 0.75

23..III...ERB: 2. FD vs. ERBS: (3) NET Tropical Anomaly Mean difference: w/m 2 Difference Stdv: 2.19 w/m 2 Correlation Coef: 0.73

24..III...ERB: 3. FD/GEWEX-SRB vs. Ocean Heat Content [Correcting XBT (eXpendable Bathy Thermograph) is being processing] Mean Diff (Stdv) Correlation FD vs Willis 1.39 (1.69) 0.84 SRB vs Willis (2.67) J =0.635 W/m 2 ; or 1 W/m 2 = 1.6 * J Mean Annual Imbalance ≈ 8*0.63/10 = 0.5 W/m 2

25..III..ERB: 4. Total CE (cloud Effect) Anomaly: FD vs. GEWEX-SRB

26 IV. Global, long-term SRB: 1. FD vs GEWEX-SRB: SW-Net Anomaly at Surface

27 …IV.. SRB: 2. FD vs GEWEX-SRB: LW-Net anomaly at Surface

28..IV.. SRB: 3. FD vs GEWEX-SRB: Total-Net anomaly at Surface

29 …IV.. SRB: 4. FD vs GEWEX-SRB: Surface Total CE Anomaly

30 …IV.. SRB: 5. Surface Net Energy Flux vs Ocean Heat Storage Rate: FD/SRB with F2, H2 & WH vs. OHSR 7-yr Anomaly (W/m 2 )

31 V. Clouds/AOD vs Diffuse/Direct fluxes 1. SOB: 15 stations from BSRN, ARM and SURFRAD)

32.V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (1) 2-D frequency VS CFsw (X=FD and Y=SOB; scatter correlation = 0.588)

33.V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (2) 2-D Frequency: X=CFsw of FD (L) and SOB (R); Y=CFsw difference (FD - SOB) SOB ~ 1. SOB ~ 0. FD ~ 1.

34..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (3) SWdn difference (L) and Dir/Dif difference (R) vs CFsw [X=FD; Y=SOB]

35.V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (4) Dif difference (L) and Dir difference (R) vs CFsw [X=FD; Y=SOB]

36..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (5) CFsw Histogram when |CFsw difference| ≤ 1(No restriction; total 20280’s): FD (L) and SOB (R)

37..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (6) CFsw Histogram when |CFsw difference| ≤ 0.01 (total 2959’s): FD (L) and SOB (R)

38..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (7 ) Mean difference (L) and Stdv (R) vs |CFsw difference| (no-CF-fluxes included: total 41005’s for X=1.0) for hourly & 15 Sites

39..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 2. Cloud Fraction (CFsw): (8) Mean difference (L) and Stdv (R) vs |CFsw difference| (All have CF, i.e., excluding no-CF flux values: total = for X=1.0)

40..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 3. AOD: (1) AOD for all 2004 local hr’s from 10 Stations: Original (L) and FDrv=50% of original (R) [X=FD; Y=SOB]

41..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 3. AOD: (2) Seasonal/Site AOD difference (FD or FDrv minus SOB): Original (L) and FDrv=50% of original (R)

42..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 3. AOD: (3) CDif (2004 local hr’s) Difference (FD minus SOB) VS AOD [X=FD; Y=SOB]: Original (L) and FDrv=50% org (R)

43..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 3. AOD: (4) CDir (2004 local hr’s) Difference (FD minus SOB) VS AOD [X=FD; Y=SOB]: Original (L) and FDrv=50% org (R)

44..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 3. AOD: (5) CDir/CDif (2004 local hr’s) Difference (FD minus SOB) VS AOD [X=FD; Y=SOB]: Original (L) and FDrv=50% org (R)

45..V.. Clouds/AOD vs Dif/Dir: 4. Monthly-mean Statistical Comparison: FD/FDrv vs SOB

46 VI. Meridional energy transports 1. Earth-atmosphere: ERBE, FD & SRB Transports and Differences with ERBE (pW)

47..VI. Transports: 2. Total Ocean Surface Energy Flux: Zonal Total SRF Energy from FD/SRB with F2, H2 & WH (W/m 2 )

48..VI. Transports: 3. Ocean Transport: mean from FD/SRB with F2, H2 & WH (pW)

49..VI. Transports: 4. Atmospheric Transport: from FD/SRB with F2, H2 & WH (pW)

50..VI. Transports: 5. Anomaly of Atmosphere-ocean Transport: (1) ISCCP-FD

51..VI. Transports: 5. Anomaly of Atmosphere-ocean Transport: (2) FD & SRB

52..VI. Transports: 6. CE on Transports: ISCCP-FC (precursor of FD) (1) Full- and Clear-sky Transport by Earth-atmosphere System

53..VI. Transports: 6. CE on Transports: ISCCP-FC (2) Full- and Clear-sky Transport by Atmosphere

54..VI. Transports: 6. CE on Transports: ISCCP-FC (3) Full- and Clear-sky Transport by Ocean

55..VI. Transports: 6. CE on Transports: ISCCP-FC (4) CE on Transports by Atmosphere, Ocean & Earth-atmosphere

56 VII. Summary 1. ISCCP sets up a kind of milestone for cloud climatological research as it supplies decades-long, global, historically reasonably accurate and near- maximal parameter retrievals. 2. Such a valuable and unique data product has opened unprecedented possibilities for various cloud-related research fields. 3. In particular, we have produced radiative transfer profiles, ISCCP-FD based on ISCCP product (and some ancillary datasets). 4. As we can’t yet validate the profiles because of lacking of observations, we have been validating their TOA and Surface components that shows we have reached realistically accurate levels as this presentation does – But still not the levels for accurately monitoring climate changes! 5. Even so, such a profile product has brought about a variety of applications in studying cloud-radiation interaction, Earth and surface (and profile) radiation budgets and global general energy circulations, etc. 6. Eventually we need real CVS to have more realistic radiative profile, and combine it with to-be-produced latent and sensible heat profile to have a complete, real 3-D general energy circulation that can realistically monitor our planetary climate!