1 / 23

Evaluation of Microwave Scatterometers and Radiometers as Satellite Anemometers

Evaluation of Microwave Scatterometers and Radiometers as Satellite Anemometers Frank J. Wentz, Thomas Meissner, and Deborah Smith Presented at: NOAA/NASA Workshop Satellite Measurements of Ocean Vector Winds Present Capabilities and Future Trends February 8-10, 2005.

wren
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Microwave Scatterometers and Radiometers as Satellite Anemometers

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. Evaluation of Microwave Scatterometers and Radiometers as Satellite Anemometers Frank J. Wentz, Thomas Meissner, and Deborah Smith Presented at: NOAA/NASA Workshop Satellite Measurements of Ocean Vector Winds Present Capabilities and Future Trends February 8-10, 2005

  2. Two Type of Evaluations Wind Speed Evaluation Capability of Satellite Microwave Radiometers is Well Demonstrated Midori-2 Flew both Scatterometer and Radiometer Wind Direction Evaluation WindSat EDR Produced July 2004 using NOAA-NESDIS/NRL Algorithm (Jelenak) Rain is Excluded from the Analysis • Moored Buoys: TAO. PIRATA, NDBC, MEDS • QuikScat: RSS Version • NCEP FNL Analysis (GDAS)

  3. Active Versus Passive Wind Speed Retrievals: The Physics • Scatterometer measures backscatter from capillary waves • (L = /(2sin)  1 cm) • Radiometer measures polarization mixing and sea foam emission

  4. Active Versus Passive Wind Speed Retrievals: Regional Biases Eliminated Old Sea-Surface Emissivity Model New Sea-Surface Emissivity Model

  5. SeaWinds and AMSR Comparison with Moored-Buoy Data SeaWinds - Buoy: mean speed bias -0.12 m/s std deviation 1.1 m/s mean direction bias 1.23 deg std deviation 16.7 deg AMSR – Buoy: mean speed bias -0.29 m/s std deviation 0.97 m/s AMSR – Buoy Wind Speeds Size: Standard Deviation +1.5 -1.5

  6. Conclusions On Wind Speed • The active and passive winds speed are in very close agreement. For individual observations at 25-km resolution rms difference between SeaWinds and AMSR is 0.78 m/s. • Passive wind speeds agree well with buoys (0.97 m/s standard deviation) • The passive winds are more sensitive to rain than active retrievals • The passive winds are more sensitive to nearby land • The passive winds are degraded when RFI is present (only 7 and 11 GHz so far)

  7. The Active and Passive Directional Signal at Low Winds

  8. NDBC TAO/TRITON PIRATAMEDS Buoy Comparisons Collocation Window = 30 minutes and 12.5 km Triplets = WindSat + NCEP + Buoy Quadruplets = WindSat + QuikScat + NCEP + Buoy

  9. WindSat Compared to Buoys: Tables Table 1: Wind direction statistics for wind speed range from 3 to 5 m/s for buoy comparisons. Table 2: Wind direction statistics for wind speed range from 5 to 25 m/s for buoy comparisons.

  10. WindSat and NCEP Compared to Buoys WindSat NCEP Wind direction retrievals for WindSat (left) and NCEP (right) versus buoy wind direction. These results are for a wind speed range from 5-25 m/s and show the triplet collocations. A total of 1.56% of the WindSat observations and 0.37% of the NCEP values have wind directions that differ by more than 90 from the buoy direction

  11. WindSat, NCEP, and QuikScat Compared to Buoys WindSat NCEP QuikScat

  12. 5-6 m/s, WindSat minus buoy rms = 28o Standard deviation of the difference between the WindSat and buoy direction (black curve) and the QuikScat and buoy direction (red curve). These results show the quadruplet collocations for which both WindSat and QuikScat see the same buoy at nearly the same time. The faint dashed line shows the wind direction requirement of a 25-accuracy for wind speeds from 3-5 m/s and a 20-accuracy for wind speeds above 5 m/s. If either the WindSat direction or the QuikScat direction differed by more than 90 from the buoy direction, the collocation was excluded. Head-to-Head Comparison

  13. WindSat Compared to QuikScat: Tables Collocation Window = 60 minutes and 12.5 km Table 1: Wind direction statistics for wind speed range from 3 to 5 m/s for global comparisons. Table 2: Wind direction statistics for wind speed range from 5 to 25 m/s for global comparisons.

  14. WindSat Compared to QuikScat: Plots Bias (dashed curves) and standard deviation (solid curves) for wind direction differences between WindSat – NCEP (blue), WindSat – QuikScat (red) and QuikScat – NCEP (green). Outliers having directional differences greater than 90 are removed from these statistics.

  15. Report Available containing Additional Details http://www.remss.com/support/publications.html Assessment of the Initial Release of WindSat Wind Retrievals Individual Buoy Time Series Cross Talk Histograms

  16. New and Improved Algorithms RSS CMIS Algorithm Versus WindSat First Rank Ambiguity NOAA\NESDIS Wind direction bias (dotted line) and standard deviation (solid line) for the WindSat first-ranked wind vector versus NCEP. The NOAA-NESDIS algorithm is shown in red, and the RSS algorithm is shown in blue.

  17. Radio Frequency Interference European TV Satellites Broadcasting at 10.7 GHz Error in Retrieved Wind Speed 80 K Excess Brightness Temperature

  18. CMIS Compared to WindSatChannel Sets

  19. CMIS Compared to WindSat Radiometer Bandwidths Swath Width WindSat swath = 1000 km CMIS swath = 1500 km

  20. Future Technology Advancements Passive Technique Internal calibration/dedicated spacecraft allowing full 360o view 2-look, fully polarimetric Marginal improvement Still limited by low winds, rain, RFI, spatial resolution Little or no signal below 5 m/s. Active Technique Dual frequency (Ku and C-band) Fully Polarimetric Enhanced spatial resolution Significant improvement particularly in storms and hurricanes

  21. Conclusions on Wind Direction from Passive Microwave Radiometry • Wind-direction retrieval accuracy strongly depends on wind speed • For winds less than 6 m/s, the WindSat directions error exceeds 20o • For winds above 8 m/s, WindSat accuracy close to QuikScat • New and improved algorithms may results in better performance • But, below 5 m/s there is little if any signal • RFI will be a problem for the passive technique in some areas • Rain and land effects need closer study • WindSat performance needs to be mapped to CMIS

More Related