1 / 19

Amanda M. Plagge Research & Discover Graduate Fellow University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

Gulf of Mexico and East Coast Carbon Research Cruise: A preliminary comparison of in situ and satellite products. Amanda M. Plagge Research & Discover Graduate Fellow University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Introduction.

gyula
Download Presentation

Amanda M. Plagge Research & Discover Graduate Fellow University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

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. Gulf of Mexico and East Coast Carbon Research Cruise: A preliminary comparison of in situ and satellite products Amanda M. Plagge Research & Discover Graduate Fellow University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

  2. Introduction • Undergraduate work in engineering and Earth science at Dartmouth College • Masters in Electrical Engineering from Thayer Engineering School at Dartmouth College • Currently in the University of New Hampshire’s Natural Resources and Earth System Science Ph.D. Program

  3. Objectives • Long-term • Use of ocean remote sensing to aid in renewable energy development efforts • Use of ocean remote sensing to better understand the Earth system and how it is changing • Short-term • Detailed analyses of satellite data compared to in situ data: ocean winds, fluxes, and productivity measurements

  4. Background

  5. GOMECC Cruise • Gulf of Mexico and East Coast Carbon Cruise: July 10-Aug 4 • Water samples taken at various depths • Air fluxes: Momentum, CO2, Ozone • Flow-through system measured: • Salinity • Temperature • Chlorophyll • Scattering • Nitrate • Oxygen saturation

  6. Original Plan and Changes • Original plan: concentrate on flux data in preparation for building our flux measurement buoy • Problem 1: ozone flux team had data transfer problems, and have not begun analyzing data yet • Problem 2: CO2 flux team lost sonic anemometer after first two weeks and will have to use data from ozone team’s anemometer; therefore also no data processed yet • Solution: Alternate focus found: comparing data from UNH flow-through system to satellite products

  7. Methods • Use of SPIP and QuaTech box to log data • Use of statistical filters back at UNH to read in raw data and create ASCII files with all variables; upload back to ship • Filter data to match ship’s GPS string with flow-through instrument data • Use of MATLAB to process ASCII files • Incorporate SPIP on-off times and remove known bad data (e.g. when water shut off for cleaning) • Use of MATLAB to compare flow-through data to MODIS satellite products (uploaded by Ken Fairchild at UNH) • Difficulties finding clear (cloud-free) data • Choose chlorophyll product as most straight-forward to compare to in situ measurements

  8. Chlorophyll units are log(mg m-3) Cruise Data

  9. Results: Satellite image from July 11 Chlorophyll units are log(mg m-3)

  10. Results: July 11 continued Chlorophyll units are log(mg m-3)

  11. Results: Satellite image from July 22 Chlorophyll units are log(mg m-3)

  12. Results: July 22 continued Chlorophyll units are log(mg m-3)

  13. Possible Sources of Error • Satellite chlorophyll in many places is greater than that measured by flow-through sensor • Coastal regions: • Satellite algorithm is basically ratio of reflectance in blue to that in yellow/green • Colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) also absorbs blue light and are common along coast • Therefore, results in higher satellite measures of chlorophyll along coast • Open ocean: • During summer, optimal depth for phytoplankton would be 20-30 m • Satellite would pick up plankton at this depth • Flow-through seawater inlet is 3-5 m; would not pick up this signal • Errors due to different quantum yields • Quantum yield= measure of efficiency of photosynthetic process • Differs for different water masses • Relationship between fluorescence (measured quantity) and chlorophyll concentration (desired quantity) will change • Instrument errors (satellite, sensor) • Errors in GPS match-ups and co-location

  14. Conclusions • Accomplished a fair amount in a short time while learning a lot about ocean productivity • Very reasonable match-ups: matching error should be less than 30% (MODIS specs) but it is routine to find it as high as 100%* • Visual coherence observed between in situ and satellite measurements • Based on above, fluorometer is a reasonable instrument to use to study chlorophyll distributions • Further work will be needed to quantify errors * Joe Salisbury, personal communication

  15. Future Work Based on GOMECC • Productivity and fluorescence: use 8-day MODIS composite images to increase probability of pixel matching; compare other MODIS products (bb, cdom, etc); quantify errors • Wind comparison: in situ from R/V Ron Brown vs. satellite scatterometer wind at various resolutions • Fluxes: investigate data from flux equipment on R/V Brown to prepare for data from flux buoy • Temperature comparison: in situ from R/V Brown on-ship data and both temp-monitoring flow-through sensors vs. with MODIS SST data

  16. Acknowledgments • Joe Salisbury • Ken Fairchild and Chris Hunt • My committee: Doug Vandemark (chair), Jamie Pringle, John Moisan, Bertrand Chapron, John Kelley • NOAA and AOML • The crew of the Ronald H. Brown • The Ocean Color Group’s MODIS browser • UNH, GSFC, and Research & Discover

  17. Questions?

  18. Future Work: Buoy • Assemble equipment on bench; test on roof of Morse Hall to ensure data logging properly etc • Mount equipment on Jim Irish’s wave buoy • Deploy for one month • Recover; make any necessary changes • Move equipment to CO2 buoy; redeploy with remote data access.

  19. Future Work: Wind • Evaluation of high resolution (3 km) product • Comparison of variance and buoy gustiness • Filtering to degrade resolution: what information lost between 3 km, 12.5 km, 25 km? • Comparison with MODIS True Color images to attempt to account for image variability and apparent fronts • All resolutions: (3 km, 12.5 km, 25 km) • Comparison with CODAR-- current-measuring radar • Comparison of MM5 model • Comparison with SAR images • Further comparison with MODIS SST fronts

More Related