130 likes | 279 Views
The transition for the AMSR-E rainfall algorithm to AMSR2. David I. Duncan Chris Kummerow Oxnard AMSR-E Technical Interface Meeting. Transition:. AMSR-E (L2A) [6/2002 – 10/2011] Non-raining variables (RSS) Precipitation (CSU/NOAA). AMSR2 [7/2012 - ] ? ?. Consistent time series?.
E N D
The transition for the AMSR-E rainfall algorithm to AMSR2 David I. Duncan Chris Kummerow Oxnard AMSR-E Technical Interface Meeting
Transition: • AMSR-E (L2A) • [6/2002 – 10/2011] • Non-raining • variables (RSS) • Precipitation • (CSU/NOAA) • AMSR2 • [7/2012 - ] • ? • ? Consistent time series?
The challenge: AMSR-E (L2A) RSS Tbs RSS and CSU • Consistency of precipitation and other geophysical data products • How to determine consistency with no temporal overlap? • Calibration is key, but using what method? AMSR-E (L1B) JAXA Tbs CSU AMSR2 (L1B) JAXA Tbs CSU
A reminder: GPROF 2010 V2 recently implemented for AMSR-E Zonal means shown for Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct 2007
An example of the future level 3 monthly gridded (0.25 deg) precipitation product from GPROF 2010v2
AMSR2 Precipitation TOP:JAXA Calibration to AME L1B Mean = 3.12 mm/day BOTTOM: No Calibration applied Mean = 3.81 mm/day (+22.1%)
AMSR2 Water Vapor TOP: JAXA Calibration to AME L1B Mean=36.6mm BOTTOM: No Calibration applied Mean=38.9mm (+6.3%)
AMSR2 Wind Speed TOP: JAXA Calibration to AME L1B Mean=9.30 m/s BOTTOM: No Calibration applied Mean=7.84 m/s (-15.7%)
Using CSU Intercal method. Contact Wes Berg (berg@atmos.colostate.edu) for further details
For the months studied: +6.5% AME L1B vs. CSU intercal +7.4% AME L1B vs. TMI +7.1%AM2 JAXA intercal vs. CSU intercal +9.8% AM2 JAXA intercal vs. TMI