1 / 9

DR Sensitivity Analysis, Part 4

DR Sensitivity Analysis, Part 4. Mike Wilson, Murty Divakarla , Changyi Tan, Xiaozhen Xiong , Flavio Iturbide-Sanchez I.M Systems Group Tony Reale , NOAA/NESDIS Xu Liu, Susan Kizer NASA/Langley Degui Gu , Xia Ma, Denise Hagan Northrup Grumman. Modifications Table.

rangle
Download Presentation

DR Sensitivity Analysis, Part 4

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. DR Sensitivity Analysis, Part 4 Mike Wilson, Murty Divakarla, Changyi Tan, XiaozhenXiong, Flavio Iturbide-Sanchez I.M Systems Group Tony Reale, NOAA/NESDIS Xu Liu, Susan Kizer NASA/Langley DeguiGu, Xia Ma, Denise Hagan Northrup Grumman

  2. Modifications Table • List of Changes • Modifications to fix ccNAF so it is reported properly. ccNAF is 999999 for overcast and 1.0/9 for clear skies. Also removes constraint in calc_cc_rad.f that ccnaf is always >= 1. • Fixes chisq values so that they are reported correctly when the combined-run loop is terminated early. • Changes the sensitivity of a cloud threshold from 4.246 to 4.2426. • Modifies the definitions of clear, cloudy, and partly cloudy. • Scenes with one “cluster” but with high variability are now called partly cloudy instead of cloudy. • Scenes with many clusters (ncldfm>=4) are now called partly cloudy instead of cloudy.

  3. Yield Rates for subset: 9/20 • QC(1) shows whether the infrared chisq test passed for the combined run. • QC(4) shows whether the microwave chisq test passed for the combined run. • QC(5) shows whether the microwave chisq test passed for the microwave-only run. • QC(1&4) shows whether both QC(1) and QC(4) passed. • The percentages on the next screen indicate what percentage of all profiles passed the given QC flag. • Blue is an improvement over the baseline, Black is no change, and Red is a worse result compared to the baseline.

  4. Modifications Table List of Changes Changes to LUT files: IR-ATM-NOISE from NG IR-ATM-NOISE from LaRC Partly Cloudy/Cloudy Definition Change c) Original Way Modification from Xia Ma Modification from Xu Liu

  5. Changes By Level:

  6. B10 to P1: • Differences due to removing the forcing of ccnaf to 1 in cloud clearing algorithm “calc_cc_rad.f” • If (ccnaf<1.0) ccnaf=1.0 • Error covariance matrix is smaller in invrtcc because of this change when ccnaf<1. • After cloud clearing algorithm, another statement is not commented out, which usually sets ccnaf back to 1 and masks this difference: • IF (ccnaf<1.0 .AND. nccl>3) ccnaf = 1. • Keep both in, comment both out, or keep as-presented here, with one in and one out?

  7. P1 to P2 • Previous values of QC were incorrect when the combined-run was terminated early. • Results allowed some infrared runs to sneak through, when they should have been flagged and made mw-only. • New results cause a drop in yields: • QC(1) (chisq for infrared alone) drops by about 3%. • QC(4) (chisq for microwave in combined run) drops by about 0.07%. • Overall impact is a drop of about 0.8%. • Makes results slightly worse, but is a bug that needs to be fixed.

  8. P2 to P3 • Change is very small. • Barely perceptible in either yield or performance. • See just a little bit of a blue line (P2) in some of the graphs, buried under the red line (P3).

  9. P3 to P4: • All changes cosmetic. Only real changes are: • ncldfm=0, nccl>=9, cc true, clrflg false. • Ncldfm>4, cc true, clrflg false.

More Related