1. ROSA – ROSSA Validation results R. Notarpietro, G. Perona, M. Cucca riccardo.notarpietro@polito.it

2. COSMIC Data - COSMIC 1: 75 events (10 rising) well distributed in time (2 days for each 06-07 season) and space - COSMIC 2: data related 31/12/2007 (1120 events) CHAMP Data - 120 setting events related to 22/01/2004 observations: INPUT DATA

3. - COSMIC 2: data related 31/12/2007 (> 1200 events) 90°  65°  North Polar regions 65°  35°  North Temperate regions 35°   35°  Tropics  35°   65°  South Temp. regions  65°   90°  South Polar regions 24 56 80 56 188 244 68 336 404 59 149 208 17 47 64 R S TOT* * These figures are related to data couples compared at different levels after outliers removal

4. CHAMP Data ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) ISDC (CHAMP) COSMIC Data We can quantify differences due to different algorithm implementations (CHAMP Data, COSMIC Data or future ROSA-ROSSA products ARE NOT First Level Benchmark) This analysis has been carried out even if it is not an absolute validation of ROSA-ROSSA software 1 Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs)

5. COSMIC 1/2 Data 2006/2007 N e (h) COSMIC 2 Data 31/12/2007 T(h) Specific humidity (h) p wet (h)  (a) stratosph. optimized  (a) iono-free COSMIC 2 Data 31/12/2007 n(h) CHAMP Data 22/01/04 Orbits Excess phases 1 Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs)

6. 2 Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis) ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) ISDC (CHAMP) N RSA (h) N COS (h) T RSA (h) T COS (h) WV RSA (h) WV COS (h) Dati COSMIC 2 31/12/2007

7. 2 Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis) ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) ISDC (CHAMP) N RSA (h) N COS (h) ECMWF Re-analysis spatially and temporally co-located N ECM (h) T RSA (h) T COS (h) T ECM (h) WV RSA (h) WV COS (h) WV ECM (h) following Tangent Points Dati COSMIC 2 31/12/2007

8. 2 Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis) ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) ISDC (CHAMP) N RSA (h) N COS (h) ECMWF Re-analysis spatially and temporally co-located N ECM (h) T RSA (h) T COS (h) T ECM (h) WV RSA (h) WV COS (h) WV ECM (h) following Tangent Points Dati COSMIC 2 31/12/2007

9. 2 Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis) ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) ISDC (CHAMP) N RSA (h) N COS (h) ECMWF Re-analysis spatially and temporally co-located N ECM (h) T RSA (h) T COS (h) T ECM (h) WV RSA (h) WV COS (h) WV ECM (h) following Tangent Points Outliers identification and removal and Mean Fractional Error evaluation Dati COSMIC 2 31/12/2007

10. Statistic definition

13. Outlier Identification through T- Student test (  3  threshold) and rejection Mean + Std Mean - Std mean Statistic definition

14. OPEN PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST ROSA-ROSSA RELEASE Cosmic Raw Excess-phase profiles filtering

15. OPEN PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST ROSA-ROSSA RELEASE Cosmic Raw Excess-phase profiles filtering

16. OPEN PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST ROSA-ROSSA RELEASE Cosmic Raw Excess-phases filtering Statospheric Bending optimization (we are actually using CIRA- Q climatology; ROSA-ROSSA VE will adopt data coming from Numerical Weather Prediction Models) Wave Optics techniques for Bending angle extraction in low troposphere (foreseen for ROSA-ROSSA VE). Actually DG_ATMO is validated giving COSMIC data in input. Electron Density profile extraction through ROSA observations is critical given ROSA configuration and observation scheduling

17.  RSA (a) CDAAC (COSMIC)  COS (a) 1 Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs) BENDING LEVEL

18. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Rising Setting North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole Number of events

19.  (a) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

20.  (a) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

21.  (a) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

22.  (a) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

23. N RSA (h) CDAAC (COSMIC) N COS (h) 1 REFRACTIVITY LEVEL Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs)

24. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

25. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

26. Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs) T RSA (h) CDAAC (COSMIC) T COS (h) 1 TEMPERATURE and humidity LEVEL DG_ATMO q RSA (h) q COS (h) e RSA (h) e COS (h)

27. DG_ATMO is a 1-D VAR scheme developed for retrieving temperature, humidity and pressure (only as dependent variable) for the ROSA observations. The Background profile is extracted by NCEP long-term mean (365 days) reanalysis. Simplified version of error covariance matrices DG_ATMO

28. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA T(h)

29. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA e(h)

30. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA q(h)

31. Our scheme differs from the COSMIC one. –Formulation of hypotheses to develop the 1D-VAR scheme –Formulation of error covariance matrices –Background fields Results are not any different! DG_ATMO

32. Validation considering Third Level Benchmarks (output of other RO SWs) Ne RSA (h) CDAAC (COSMIC) Ne COS (h) 1 ELECTRON DENSITY LEVEL DG_DELN

33. The DG_DELN Data Generator evaluates the electron density profile in the ionosphere, using the Onion Peeling algorithm. Since the ray bending in the ionosphere is small enough, the straight- line propagation from GPS to LEO satellites has been assumed for the GPS signals. As required by the inversion technique adopted, the spherical symmetry for the electron density of the ionosphere has been assumed. Excess phase measurements at L1 and L2 GPS frequencies during one occultation event are used to compute the TEC in the shell determined by the LEO orbit (calibrated TEC). DG_DELN

34. COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

35. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

36. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

37. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

38. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

39. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

40. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

41. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

42. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

43. DG_DELN COSMIC SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

44. average +/- st.dev. average SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA Ne(h)

45. ROSA-ROSSA CDAAC (COSMIC) N RSA (h) N COS (h) ECMWF Re-analysis spatially and temporally co-located N ECM (h) 2 Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis) REFRACTIVITY LEVEL

46. North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole RISING Number of events SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

47. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole RISING 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

48. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole RISING 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

49. North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SETTING Number of events SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

50. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SETTING SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

51. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SETTING SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

52. 2 TEMPERATURE and Spec. Humidity LEVEL ROSA-ROSSA T RSA (h) ECMWF Re-analysis spatially and temporally co-located T ECM (h) DG_ATMO q RSA (h) q ECM (h) Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis)

53. Use the closest horizontal grid point (in the space-time) domain per each vertical level, this means reconstructing an ECMWF “slanted” vertical profile Interpolation of ECMWF and ROSA on a common vertical grid (100 m vertical resolution like the COSMIC one). 25 Pressure levels ECMWF data, 0.25 degree horizontal resolution DG_ATMO

54. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF T(h)

55. SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF q(h)

56. 2 ELECTRON DENSITY LEVEL ROSA-ROSSA Ne RSA (h) IONOGRAMS Ne true (h) DG_DELN Validation considering Second Level Benchmarks (ECMWF Re-analysis)

57. DG_DELN derived profiles are compared with ionosonde derived (bottomside) profiles. The distance between the Ionosonde location and the DG_DELN derived peak location has been chosen to be less than [2.5° x 2.5°] in [lat. x lon.] and 15 min in time. The ionograms have been selected and scaled by K. Alazo of the Instituto Geofisica y Astronomia, La Habana, Cuba in the framework of the STEP program of ICTP. DG_DELN

58. IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

59. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

60. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

61. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

62. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

63. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

64. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

65. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

66. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

67. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

68. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

69. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

70. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

71. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

72. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

73. DG_DELN IONOSONDE SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF Ne(h)

75. Statistic definition from Kursinsky et al., JGR1997

76. Mean + Std Mean - Std mean Statistic definition Outlier Identification through T- Student test (  3  threshold) and rejection

77. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS COSMIC DATA

78. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole RISING 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF

79. N (h) North Pole North Temperate Tropics South Temperate South Pole 50 0 3 7 10 12 16 40 30 Height [km] 25 SETTING SW ROSA-ROSSA 3.0 VALIDATION VS ECMWF