1 / 10

Ozone Data in the CFSRR

Explore the ozone data in the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis and Reanalysis 2, comparing it with ERA40. This data includes CFSRR and GFS, SBUV, and SBUV/2 observations, and provides better troposphere estimates with more layers. It also incorporates data from instruments like TOMS, MLS, GOME, and OMI.

barnese
Download Presentation

Ozone Data in the CFSRR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ozone Data in the CFSRR Craig S. Long, Shuntai Zhou – NCEP/CPC Russ Treadon, Jack Woollen, Haixai Liu – NCEP/EMC Larry Flynn, Trevor Beck, Eric Beach – NESDIS/STAR Donna McNamara – NESDIS/OSDPD

  2. Ozone in CFSRR vs R1&R2 and ERA40 • CFSRR (and GFS) • SBUV and SBUV/2 (version 8) • Nadir Profiler ~ 100 obs per orbit • Sun-lite part of Earth • Version 8 Attributes • Climate trend quality • Inter-satellite differences are minimized (at the equator) • Better troposphere estimates • V8 has more layers (21 vs 12) • Calibrations of N16, 17, and 18 are configured to give similar results • Expandable to hyperspectral instruments (i.e. OMI, GOME-2, OMPS (nadir) • Integrated Profile Ozone regarded better than ‘Best’ Ozone • What about TOMS, MLS, GOME, OMI? • R1 and R2 • Does not assimilate ozone • Uses monthly climatological profiles and total ozone • ERA40 • Did assimilate ozone • SBUV and SBUV/2 (version 6) • TOMS (version 6)

  3. Ozone Related Issues • Treatment of ozone in CFSRR same as operational GFS • Will ozone be ‘reasonable’ in polar night • Does it matter radiatively? • No heterogenious ozone chemistry • Ozone hole is created only by satellite obs • Only a couple of years where satellite drift impacts timing of ozone hole observation. • Where TOMS data would be a benefit to have. • Restrictive use of data only flagged as ‘good’ • Minimal use of NOAA-14 data • Transition from one satellite to the next • Use as many satellites as possible with ‘good’ data

  4. Time Periods of SBUV and SBUV/2 ozone productsMonths are inclusive • Nimbus7 11/1978 - 06/1990 • NOAA9a 02/1985 - 04/1988 • NOAA11a 12/1988 - 09/1993 • NOAA9d 11/1992 - 01/1998 • NOAA14 07/1995 - 10/1995 • Covers 2 month gap in N9d (08 & 09/1995) • NOAA11d 09/1997 - 03/2001 • NOAA16 10/2000 – present • NOAA17 07/2002 - present • NOAA18 01/2006 – present • A one month gap in 03/1991 will be filled with profiles generated from TOMS data.

  5. N18 N17 N16 N11d N14 N9d TOMS N11a N9a N7

  6. Validation • During CFSRR runs • Monthly zonal mean comparisons against CPC SBUV/2 zonal means. • During evaluation period • Comparisons against: • Ozonesondes • Lidar • Dobson/Brewers • SAGE/HALOE • MLS

  7. Restrictive Use of only ‘Good’ Data V8 SBUV Profile Ozone QC Flagging Frequency: Good N7 N11a N9d N11d N16 Percent Occurrence

  8. Questions?

More Related