1 / 26

Aerosol layers over Oklahoma as seen from Twin Otter on May 27, 2003 Photo courtesy of Roy Woods

How well can we measure the vertical profile of aerosol extinction?. Aerosol layers over Oklahoma as seen from Twin Otter on May 27, 2003 Photo courtesy of Roy Woods. B. Schmid [1] , R. Ferrare [2] , C. Flynn [3] , R. Elleman [4] ,

tanisha-warner
Download Presentation

Aerosol layers over Oklahoma as seen from Twin Otter on May 27, 2003 Photo courtesy of Roy Woods

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. How well can we measure the vertical profile of aerosol extinction? Aerosol layers over Oklahoma as seen from Twin Otter on May 27, 2003 Photo courtesy of Roy Woods

  2. B. Schmid [1], R. Ferrare [2], C. Flynn [3], R. Elleman [4], D. Covert [4], A. Strawa [5], E. Welton [6], J. Barnard [3], M. Bartholomew [7], M. Clayton [8], J. Eilers [5], G. Hallar [5], B. Holben [6], H. Jonsson [9], J. Michalsky [10], J. Redemann [1], K. Ricci [11], A. Smirnov [12], D. Turner [3] [1] Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, Sonoma, CA [2] NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA [3] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA [4] University of Washington, Seattle, WA [5] NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA [6] NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD [7] Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY [8] SAIC/NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA [9] Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies, Marina, CA [10] NOAA/CMDL, Boulder, CO [11] Los Gatos Research, Mountain View, CA [12] GEST/UMBC/ NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD

  3. How do we measure the vertical profile of aerosol extinction? • Airborne: • Nepehelometer+PSAP • Cavity-Ring-Down (Cadenza) • Sunphotometry (AATS-14) • Ground based: • Raman Lidar (CARL) • MPLNET • MPLARM Photo courtesy Yin-Nan Lee, BNL

  4. Absorption Particle Soot Absorption Photometer (PSAP) l=467, 530, 660 nm low RH Corrections (Bond et al., 1999, Virkkula et al, 2004) scattering contribution loading correction ambient p, T Scattering Nephelometers TSI: l = 450, 550, 700 nm, low RH RR: l= 540 nm, RH=20,60,85% Corrections (Anderson & Ogren, 1998) light source angular truncation (7°-170°) ambient RH, p, T Airborne in-situ measurement of Extinction = +

  5. Iout(t) Iin(t) time ring-down cavity Extinction from Airborne Cavity Ring-Down System Aerosol was sampled at low RH (comparable to TSI) Used RR-Neph measured growth curve to adjust to ambient RH

  6. NASA Ames Airborne Tracking SunphotometerAATS-14: 354-2139 nmAerosol Optical Depth and H2O columnAerosol Extinction and H2O density in suitable profiles

  7. Raman Lidar • Aerosol Extinction profiles l=355 nm • Unnoticed loss of sensitivity leading up to AIOP • Automated algorithms had to be modified to reduce impact of sensitivity loss. • Significant upgrades/mods were performed after AIOP resulting in significantly better performance than during any other time. Photo courtesy Yin-Nan Lee, BNL

  8. Backscatter Lidar • Deployed during AIOP (in SMART trailer) • Aerosol Extinction profiles l=523 nm • AOD anchored to AERONET, BER constant with altitude • Level 2.0 (ext. prof. when valid AERONET AOD) • Periodic overheating problems

  9. MPLARM • Backscatter Lidar • Deployed permanently at SGP • Aerosol Extinction profiles l=523 nm is a new product in b-stage • AOD anchored to NIMFR, BER constant with altitude

  10. ARM Aerosol IOP – May 2003 CIRPAS Twin Otter Focus on data obtained in vertical profiles over SGP CF Altitudes: ~90 – 5600 m

  11. AOD: AERONET minus AATS-14 Observation #

  12. AOD: NIMFR minus AATS-14 Observation #

  13. Eastern Asia, 2001 C-130: Bias: +6% Redemann et al., 2003 Twin Otter: Bias -13% Schmid et al., 2003 U.S. East Coast, 1996, Bias -14% (Hegg et al., 1997, Hartley et al., 2000) Canary Islands, 1997, Bias -20%(after inlet correction) (Schmid et al., 2000) U.S. East Coast, 2001, Bias -15% Magi et al. (2004) Aerosol IOP Southern Africa, 2000, Bias -4% (Magi et al., 2003) Oklahoma, 2003,Bias -14% How well did past campaigns do on AATS vs Neph+PSAP comparisons?

  14. Conclusions • When compared to airborne sunphotometer extinction, in-situ measurements are biased low (2 - 4 Mm-1  VIS 12-17%, NIR 45%) • Looking at results from 6 field campaigns, airborne Neph+PSAP measurements of extinction tend to be biased slightly low (<15%, VIS) when compared to airborne sunphotometer extinction. • Micro-Pulse Lidar measurements biased high • MPLNET 4 Mm-1,13% • MPLARM 7 Mm-1, 24% • Raman Lidar measurements biased high (29 Mm-1  UV 54%). We expect better agreement from a “healthier” Raman lidar.

  15. Suggestion to AWG • Improved Raman Lidar needs validation • Newly developed MPLARM extinction profile algos need validation • Enhanced IAP plane will need validation  With a small amount of flight hours (i.e. AATS-14 on J-31) these objectives could be met in a cost effective way

More Related