1 / 28

Handling Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances in the GSI

Handling Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances in the GSI. Will McCarty GSFC/Global Modeling and Assimilation Office JCSDA Workshop 10 October 2012. Introduction. In GMAO forward processing, infrared radiances are assimilated from IASI, AIRS , and HIRS

ula
Download Presentation

Handling Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances in the GSI

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. Handling Cloud-Affected Infrared Radiances in the GSI Will McCarty GSFC/Global Modeling and Assimilation OfficeJCSDA Workshop 10 October 2012

  2. Introduction • In GMAO forward processing, infrared radiances are assimilated from IASI, AIRS, and HIRS • Heritage “multi”-spectral sounders like HIRS (~ 18 channels) and the GOES Sounder are being phased out • The US HIRS instruments replaced by CrIS from NPP onward (hyperspectral – 1297 ch total, 399 for DA) • The final European HIRS launched on MetOp-B. MetOp-C will only fly IASI (hyperspectral – 8461 ch, 616 for DA) • No Sounder in US GEO beginning w/ GOES-R • Hyperspectral sounding potentially in GEO in a number of future longitudes

  3. Observation volumeJanuary 1977 to present Number of observations considered for assimilation Before thinning, QC IASI Reduction of observations heavily due to presence of clouds in observations Observations processed per 6h 1979 − 2011 AIRS Number of observations used for assimilation After thinning, QC Observations used per 6h 1979 − 2011 IASI AIRS

  4. How are Clouds Handled in GSI • Cloud screening is a two-step process • Retrieve a cloud height • This is done via a minimum residual method (Eyre and Menzel 1989) • Compare cloud height against transmittance profile • If layer-to-top of atmosphere transmittance of a channel at the retrieved cloud height is greater than 2% reject the channel • For channels most-sensitive to the surface, this rejects ~80% of these data.

  5. Further Exploiting IR Data • To further exploit IR data, the next step is to include some characterization of clouds in the analysis

  6. Clouds in the Infrared • Quick lession in radiative transfer: • All forward radiative transfer in the GSI is done via the CRTM (in Europe, they use RTTOVS) as the observation operator • In a very basic sense, consider CLEAR-SKY radiative transfer equation as: Clear IR Measurement = Surface + (Atmospheric Layers)

  7. Clouds in the Infrared • If you consider the signature of a very, very dense cloud in the IR, we can make some assumptions and then define CLOUDY SKY radiative transfer equation as: Cloudy IR Measurement = Cloud Top + (Atmospheric Layers above cloud) ..this is known as a blackbody assumption, as the cloud top is considered “black”

  8. Clear IR Measurement = Surface + (Atmospheric Layers) Cloudy IR Measurement = Cloud Top + (Atmospheric Layers above cloud) Retrieved Cloud Height

  9. Clouds in the Infrared • In the cloud height retrieval, a cloud fraction, N, is also solved • Under the graybody assumption, the partially cloudy observation can then be considered for a single, fractional cloud as: • In the GSI, we can then restructure the H operator to include the Cloud Height and Cloud fraction to allow for a partially cloudy forward operator (and also partially cloudy Jacobians) Partially Cloudy IR Measurement = N * Cloudy IR Measurement + (1 – N) * Clear IR Measurement

  10. Considering the O-Fs versus cloud fraction, it is seen that the O-Fs are closer, but the cold bias is, as expected, amplified for higher (colder) clouds • The accuracy of the calculated cloudy radiance is fundamentally dependent on the accurate retrieval of cloud height and fraction Obs minus Forecast (clear) Obs minus Forecast (cloudy)

  11. Cloudy Infrared Radiance Assimilation within the GSI • Jacobians are adjusted to move sensitivity from below cloud to cloud surface • Single footprint assimilation shows that the system is drawing to the retrieved cloud top • Magnitude is inflated due to low observation errors. • Error in CTP will result in an erroneous O-F, which then can negatively impact the analysis • To compensate, CTP is allowed to vary in the minimization as a control variable Uncontaminated Including Cloud Cloud Top

  12. Observation-Centered Control Variables • Current GSI implementations consider control variable only in terms of grids (2D & 3D) and channel-by-channel bias predictors • Bias prediction coefficients are of the dimension [5,number of channels] • each satellite channel on each instrument has its own set of predictiors (i.e. MetOp_AMSU-A channel 8 will have the same set of five coefficients across every footprint globally • Observation-Centered control variables • consider a control variable at a footprint location over all channels measured at that point • Dimension dynamic -> any number of observation-centered control variables can be appended to the control vector

  13. Observation-Centered Control Variables • Once developed, the functionality was expanded to CTP • Cloud Fraction still considered constant and set as the retrieved value • Jacobians • In addition to modified TB/T(p), TB/qv(p), etc., the minimization now incorporates the CTP Jacobian, TB/pcld. • TB/pcldcan be directly differentiated from the radiative transfer equation (i.e. the appendix of Li et al. 2001) • Background error for CTP

  14. Background error for CTP • Background error for CTP (BCTP) was considered first in a single-footprint case: • Initial CTP – 624 hPa • Initial N – 0.968 • Consider behavior of three values of BCTP compared to clear-sky observations only and a static CTP (no variational CTP) • BCTP = 50 hPa, 10 hPa, and 5 hPa

  15. Background error for CTP Clear Cloudy Static CTP Cloudy varCTP

  16. Background error for CTP Clear Cloudy Static CTP Cloudy varCTP

  17. Background error for CTP Clear Cloudy Static CTP Cloudy varCTP

  18. Background error for CTP • Variational CTP acts as a “sink”, as a function of BCTP • As the bkg error is increases, the cloud signal is absorbed into the CTP variable • the solution approaches clear-only result • As bkg error is decreased, result approaches static CTP • Expected as CTP is tightly constrained to retrieved guess • This is only for a single footprint. How does the analysis respond to a full suite of observations • Since only CTP is varying, only consider cloudy IR if 1.0 > N > 0.9 -> higher confidence in cloud height for opaque clouds

  19. CTP Increments BCTP = 5 hPa

  20. CTP Increments BCTP = 50 hPa

  21. Background error for CTP • The CTP control variable increment variance is a function of: • Latitude • Height • Convergence is degraded as a function of background error • A 5 hPa error aloft is much different in terms of cloud temperature than near the sfc • Also seen at ECMWF in similar McNally 2009 implementation • A simplified error model, as a f(CTP) implemented, ranging from 5 hPa aloft to 13 hPa below – convergence on par w/ fixed error

  22. Differences of Analyses Std. Dev. of (A(5) – A(FullOS)) • The Variance of the difference between a CTL analysis (all obs) and a Cloudy AIRS analysis (CTL + AIRS Cld) at 0000 UTC, 850hPa • Satellite Track of Aqua satellite evident

  23. Differences of Analyses Std. Dev. of (A(5) – A(FullOS)) • The Variance of the difference between a CTL analysis (all obs) and a Cloudy AIRS analysis (CTL + AIRS Cld) at 0000 UTC, 850hPa • Satellite Track of Aqua satellite evident

  24. Differences of Analyses Std. Dev. of (A(5) – A(FullOS)) • In regions of expected persistent cloudiness, there are more changes to the analysis (month-averaged CTP, top, and cloud fraction, bottom)

  25. Future Efforts • This work is still ongoing • Cycling runs w/ advanced CTP bkg error model are under investigation • There are a number of issues to consider: • Inclusion of a 2nd outer loop showed bias w.r.t. CTP solution --- GSI expanded to interpolate between levels • GSI calls setuprad each outer loop, and this work is thus re-initialized w/ a second retrieved CTP • CTP is not re-linearized about the solution from the first outer loop • CTP was only considered for 15-11 μm

  26. Future Efforts • Expansion of observation-centered predictors to other studies • ECMWF has had this infrastructure, and it’s my thought that this has a lot of possibilities for future work • A logical potential expansion of this study is to cloud fraction • With various assumptions, this capability can be expanded to SST, sfc emissivity, Cloud-Water Path, etc. • With a little cleaning up, it will be as simple as setting an initial value, background error, and Jacobians of any predictor

  27. Differences of Analyses Std. Dev. of (A(50) – A(FullOS)) Std. Dev. of (A(5) – A(FullOS)) • Changes away from tracks for BCTP = 50 hPa are a result of decreased convergence in the minimization

More Related