1 / 11

Comparison of GOME-2 and OMI surface UV products

Comparison of GOME-2 and OMI surface UV products. Niilo Kalakoski, Finnish Meteorological Institute. O3M SAF Offline UV Product. Satellite Application Facility on Ozone and Atmospheric Chemistry Monitoring (O3M SAF)

keagan
Download Presentation

Comparison of GOME-2 and OMI surface UV products

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. Comparison of GOME-2 and OMI surface UV products Niilo Kalakoski, Finnish Meteorological Institute

  2. O3M SAF Offline UV Product • Satellite Application Facility on Ozone and Atmospheric Chemistry Monitoring (O3M SAF) • Joint effort of 10 institutes in 7 European countries, FMI is the leading entity • Part of EUMETSAT’s Polar System (EPS) ground segment • 3 Metop satellites to cover some 15 years up to 2020 • Metop-A was successfully launched 19 October 2006 • Ozone, trace gases and aerosols from GOME-2 • Offline Surface UV (OUV) Product: • Developed and processed at FMI • Contains • Daily (integrated) doses • Daily maximum dose rates • Biological weightings: • Erythemal (CIE) • DNA damage • Generalized Plant Response • SCUP-h • 0.5 x 0.5 degree grid, HDF5 format • Currently demonstrational status

  3. O3M SAF OUV: Inputs • Inputs: Total Ozone • GOME-2 NRT Total Ozone (NTO) product • Produced by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) within the O3M SAF • Read from EUMETCast broadcasting, 2.5 hours from sensing • Used in modelling of surface UV irradiance and AVHRR channel 1 reflectance • Inputs: Surface albedo: • Static regions (no seasonal variability): • TOMS 380 nm MLER • Dynamic regions (seasonal snow or ice): • Climatology of A. Tanskanen • Inputs: Aerosols: • Currently: Global Aerosol Dataset GADS • Testing with Aerocom climatology

  4. O3M SAF OUV: Cloud Optical Depth Data • Inputs: AVHRR ch. 1 (630 nm) reflectances • exploits the synergy between Metop and NOAA satellites • Data readily available from EUMETCast • At least 2 cloud observations per day obtained globally • Morning (9:30): Metop-A • Afternoon (14:30): NOAA-18 • Using both morning and afternoon observations improves the daily dose integration • Currently no cloud retrieval if • solar zenith angle > 70 degrees • surface albedo > 60 %

  5. O3M SAF OUV vs. OMI UV Main Differences

  6. Comparisons of OUV and OMIuv • Surface UV radiation in kJ/m2 from OMI (left) and GOME-2 (right) for February 1st 2008. • GOME-2 UV not retrieved for SZA > 70 degrees

  7. OUV – OMIuv absolute difference in kJ/m2

  8. (OUV-OMI)/OMI relative difference

  9. Time series of the surface UV from OMI and GOME-2 compared to ground-based measurements • CIE erythemal daily dose • Jokioinen (above) and Sodankylä (below) • August 2007

  10. Scatterplot comparisons of OMIuv and OUV CIE erythemal daily doses • Jokioinen (above) and Sodankylä (below) • From June 1st 2007 to May 31st 2008

  11. Thank you for your attention!

More Related