1 / 9

Co-located Validation Data

Comparative analysis of cloud detection data from HIRDLS, TES & OMI satellites for enhanced meteorological insights. Statistical comparisons for Cloud Frequency, Top Height & Extinction Coefficient to better understand global cloud dynamics.

knightt
Download Presentation

Co-located Validation Data

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. Co-located Validation Data TES/HIRDLS Comparison for Reduced Resolution Mode

  2. The Satellites

  3. High Resolution Dynamics Limb Sounder (HIRDLS): • 21-channel limb-scanning infrared radiometer, which includes window channels for aerosol/cloud detection • Cloud Top Height is an operational product (pointing error, operational HIRDLS altitudes are accepted to be higher by 1.7 km than intended) • Soon extinction information to be retrieved … • Tropospheric Emission Sounder (TES): • Infrared-imaging, limb and nadir sounding Fourier Transform Spectrometer which measures spectra between 650 - 3050 cm-1 at a resolution of • 0.02 cm-1 for altitudes between 0 – 33 km. • Operationally reports Cloud Top Height, frequency-dependent Cloud Optical Depth and Average Effective Cloud Optical Thickness (nadir measurements) • Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI): • UV and visible hyperspectral imager • Cloud Scattering Layer Pressure • Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS): • Microwave emission limb-radiometer/spectrometer • Cirrus Ice content

  4. Spatially good overlap Temporally poor overlap • COMPARE: • MIPAS CTH vs HIRDLS CTH • MIPAS CTH vs TES CTHs • MIPAS Kext vs TES optical depth • MIPAS vs HIRDLS vs TES cloud frequency Statistical comparisons ONLY

  5. Cloud Frequency – 2 May 2006

  6. Cloud Top Height – 2 May 2006

  7. Cloud Top Height – 2 May 2006

  8. Cloud Extinction Coefficient – 2 May 2006

  9. Conclusions: • Qualitatively: • MIPAS retrieved cloud products of cloud top height and cloud extinction coefficient compare well with HIRDLS cloud top height and TES cloud top height and cloud optical depth. • HIRDLS shows the highest cloud tops and TES the lowest, but taking into account the known 1.7 km pointing error associated with HIRDLS and the fact that TES cloud products are from it's nadir-viewing measurements, the cloud top heights reported by all three instruments agree quite well. • MIPAS and TES report a near-global coverage of extinction coefficient of 10-2 km-1 – but TES exhibits more structure globally than does MIPAS. • All instruments show the same global distribution, with increased • probability of finding cloud in the tropics and less at the poles. However, MIPAS notes far less cloud detected than do the other two instruments.

More Related