060726 barnet validationinez/msri-ncar_carbonda/... · altitude while t(p) functions have profile...
TRANSCRIPT
Chris BarnetNOAA/NESDIS/STAR
(the office formally known as ORA)
University of Maryland, Baltimore County (Adjunct Professor)AIRS Science Team Member
NPOESS Sounder Operational Algorithm Team MemberGOES-R Algorithm Working Group – Chair of Sounder Team
NOAA/NESDIS representative to IGCO
July 27, 2006MSRI-NCAR Summer Workshop on
Data Assimilation for the Carbon Cycle
Vertical Weighting Functions & Validation of Satellite Retrievals
2
Outline for Todays’s Lecture
• A question from yesterday.– What are they.– How are they used.
• Validation Techniques.– Discussion of observation types (mostly references).– Comparisons of CH4 and CO2 product with in-situ.
• Summary of some papers on using AIRS CO2 products in carbon assimilation systems.
• Trace gas product correlations – A better way to use AIRS data?
3
A Question From Jeremy
1. What does the K matrix look like for temperature and moisture?
2. Why is there more vertical information about temperature than CO2?
4
Example of T(p) & q(p) Channel Kernel Functions
AIRS 15 µm (650-800 cm-1) band
K = dR/dTAIRS 6.7 µm (1200-1600 cm-1) band
K = dR/dq
5
Weak Lines (Water & CO2) in Window Region Sound Boundary Layer Temperature
Spikes down -Cooling with height
Spikes up -Heating with height
Texas
Ontario
Brig
htne
ss T
empe
ratu
re (K
)
(low-level inversion)
(No inversion)
6
Example of 15 µm spectrum with “in-between” the lines marked with blue dots
Lines up (in emission): T(z) increases with altitude
Lines down (in absorption): T(z) decreases with altitude
7
From Yesterday: K = dR/dCO2
Mid-LatitudeTPW = 1.4 cm
PolarTPW = 0.5 cm
TropicalTPW = 2.5 cm
Isothermal vertical structure weakens
sensitivity
moisture optical depth pushes peak sensitivity upwards
8
Why are CO2 channel functions broad & all at the same altitude while T(p) functions have profile information?
• Spectroscopy: The CO2 lines are strong narrow lines. Temperature affects the width (and hence the channel transmittance) while # of CO2 molecules affects the strength. Once the line is saturated (near the surface, where p is large) we loose sensitivity.
• Radiative transfer: The temperature enters both in the absorption coefficient and in the Planck function.
9
Why is CH4 considered to be 25x more powerful as a
greenhouse gas than CO2?
10
Why is CH4 considered to be 25x more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2?
• At 380 ppm the CO2 lines are saturated and as CO2 increases the absorption of energy changes as the log(N).
• CH4 is 1.8 ppm and the lines are not saturated. As the amount of CH4 changes the absorption is linear w.r.t # of molecules.
11
Retrieval Averaging Functions
See
1)Rogers 2000, pg. 43-44 & pg. 83-85
2)Rodgers and Conner 2003
3) My notes – section 8.12.1
12
Retrieval Vertical Weighting Functions
• Our Retrieval Equation Can Be Written As
• Note that this equation is really a weighting average of the state determined via radiances and the a-priori.– The radiance covariance can be written as KTN-1K, in
geophysical units, and– The product covariance is given by [KTN-1K + C-1]-1
13
We can derive the Averaging Function our minimization equation
• We can linearize the retrieval about the “truth” state
• And simplify by replacing the region highlighted in green above with the variable G
14
Computing the Vertical Averaging Function
• The vertical averaging function is the amount of the answer that came from the radiances
• And I-A is the amount that came from the prior
Retrieval covariance Inverse of a-prioricovariance
15
Value of the Vertical Averaging Function
• A is the retrieval weighing of the channel kernel functions (think of a retrieval as an integrator of data)
• A tells you how much the observations were believed.• I-A tells you how much of the a-priori was believed.• When comparing other measurements (such as high vertical
resolution sondes or aircraft) the validation measurements – Must have similar vertical smoothing– Should be “degraded” by the fraction of the prior that entered the solution
(i.e., we know we can’t measure 100%)• When using AIRS products the A maxtrix
– Tells you the vertical correlation between parameters– Tells you how much to believe the product and where to believe the
product.– You can remove our a-priori assumptions and substitute your own.
16
Aj,j
“truth”
a-priori
retrieval
“convolved truth”
We can use averaging function to optimally smooth the truth for comparisons
This retrieval is only believed at the 50% level
17
Application of Vertical Averaging Functions with modeled CO2
• Comparison of CO2 product and Kawa 2004 model for April 2005
• At first glance it looks like the retrieval and model do not agree.
• But if we “degrade” the model with the retrieval a-priori they agree quite well.
• To use AIRS products to nudge an assimilation, the vertical weighting function tells the model when and where to believe the AIRS products.
18
Or We Can compute a Averaging Function via Brute Force
1. Start with the retrieval state, X02. Perturb X0 in some atmosphere layer by δXk3. Compute change in radiance, R(X0+δXk)-R(X0)4. Compute a new retrieval, Xk, using the perturbed
radiance.5. Xk-X0 is the jth column of Akj6. Goto Step 1 and compute another row of A
This method has the advantage that the entire system, including cloud correction and multiple-interacting and non-linear retrieval steps can be analysed.
19
The “Brute Force” Averaging provided a Sanity test for Internal Averaging Functions
Ajk & trace{A} via Brute Force for T(p) A = G*K
20
Validation
21
“what is truth”• Compare to ECMWF & NCEP Models (e.g., See Susskind, 2005)
– Can compare complete global dataset– Differences can be model or retrieval errors– Implicitly validating against all other instruments (space-borne, sondes, buoy’s
etc.) used in analysis• Compare to Radiosondes, Ozonesondes (e.g., See Tobin, 2006, Divakarla,
2006)– Only a couple hundred “dedicated” sondes are flown per year. Usually we fly
2 sondes so we can see lower and upper air at overpass time.• Sondes can take 1-2 hours to ascend• Sondes can drift up to 100’s of km’s
– A few hundred sondes are launched globally per day that are within 300 km and +/- 1 hour of our overpass.
• Different sonde instruments, quality of launches, etc.• In-situ intensive experiments with sondes, aircraft and LIDAR.
– Have participated in INTEX-NA6 AEROSE, START, MILAGRO, INTEX-B, AMMA
22
An example of things that go wrong with “truth”
These 2 sondes were launched 1.5 hours apart from same location.
23
Example of Validation of Methane Products from AIRS
with ERSL/GMD surface flasks and aircraft
24
Also providing the vertical information content to understand CH4 product
AIRS mid-trop measurement column
CH4 total column f/ transport model (Sander Houweling, SRON)
Fraction Determined from AIRS Radiances
Peak Pressure of AIRS Sensitivity
25
Comparison of CH4 product & ESRL/GMD Continuous Ground Site
Barrow Alaska
3deg. x 3deg. gridded retrieval averaged over 60-70 lat, & -165 to -90 lng
26
Comparisons of AIRS product to ESRL/GMD Aircraft Observations
ESRL/GMD aircraft profiles are the best validation for thermal sounders since they measure a thick atmospheric layer.
27
ESRL/GMD Flask Data from Poker Flats, Alaska: Seasonal cycle is a function of altitude
Surface Flasks (Barrow)
1.5 km 850 mb
5.5 km 500 mb
7.5 km 385 mb
28
We need to determine how much of our CH4 signal is from stratospheric air
Dobson-Brewer circulation
Can depress high latitude, high altitude methane signals in winter/spring time-frame.
UT/LS region in high latitudes has “older” air.
We will explore tracer correlations to
unravel surface vs
stratospheric sources.
(working w/ L. Pan, NCAR)
29
Example of Validation of Carbon Dioxide Products from
AIRS with ESRL/GMD Marine Boundary Layer and
Aircraft Products and Japanese Commercial Aircraft
30
Also providing the vertical information content & comparing CO2 product with models
AIRS mid-trop measurement column
CO2 Transport ModelRandy Kawa (GSFC)
Fraction Determined from AIRS Radiances
Averaging Function Peak Pressure
31
Preliminary Comparisons to ESRL/GMD aircraft
• Comparison of AIRS & ESRL/GMD observations..• Usually ≥ 5 hour time
difference• Limit retrievals within 200
km of aircraft.• Spot vs. regional sampling
• Retrieval is average of “good” retrievals• 3 – 50 ret’s are used in
each dot.• σ = ± 3.1 ppmv,
correlation = 0.83• Investigation of outliers is
in-work.
32
Comparisons to JAL aircraft observations & ESRL/GMD MBL model
Matsueda et al.2002 aircraft –single level measurement
ESRL/GMD Marine Boundary Layer Model (surface measurement)
AIRS CO2 retrieval from GRIDDED dataset – mid-trop thick layer measurement
JAL Aircraft data provided by H. Matsueda
33
Same as before, but in-situ CO2 adjusted by a-priori in retrieval
JAL Aircraft data provided by H. Matsueda
In-situ data is adjusted by the % of a-priori in our regularized retrieval. This depresses the seasonal amplitude of the in-situ data and is a gauge of our retrieval performance.
Differences should exist between single level (surface or altitude) observations and AIRS thick layer observations.
34
Again, to what extent does stratospheric age of air play a role?
Model runs of Brewer-Dobson circulation effect are courtesy of Run-Lie Shia, Mao-Chang Liang, Charles E. Miller, andYuk L. Yung, California Inst. Of Technology & NASA Jet Propulsion Lab.
Surface measurements (dashed line) and model of 500 mb concentration (solid line) can differ by 5 ppm
(NOTE: Vert. Scale is 350-385 ppm)
Brewer-Dobson effect has altitude, latitude, and seasonal variation with a maximum in northern winter/spring.20022000 2004
35
Example of Validation of CO2 measurements with Models
36
Chevallier, Engelen & Peylin,GRL, 2005
• Compared CO2 derived from ECMWF 4DVAR analysis of 18 AIRS channels (R. Engelen’s CO2 product) vs Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMDZ) GCM driven by surface flux climatology– Large systematic differences at high latitudes– Significant sea/land contrast– Use of a constant averaging kernel may contribute
to biases.
37
Chevallier (continued)
38
Tiwari, et al., JGR 2006 (in press)
• CO2 flux estimates of Rodenbeck 2003 used as boundary conditions for TM3 (4x5 deg, 19 σ, NCEP winds) & LMDZ (2.5x3.75 deg, 19 σ, ECMWF winds)– Averaged monthly fluxes for 1993-2001 and used as driver of
transport for 2000-2003– Spun up model from Jan. 2000-Dec. 2002
• Compared to R. Engelen’s product to explore two potential pathways for transport of CO2– North hemisphere mid-lat air laden w/ fossil fuel via northern high
latitudes along upward sloping constant pot. Temp surfaces.– Dispersal of CO2 laden air in the PBL toward the tropics and
subsequent upwards via deep convection.• Conclusions
– Models agree with each other more than with retrievals.– Hovmoeller diagrams (time vs latitude) show that models transport the
CO2 via the northern pathways whereas in the retrievals the CO2 shows up instantaneously.
– More work is needed.
39
Tiwari: Comparison of Models and R.Engelen’s AIRS CO2 Product
40
Tiwari: Comparison of Models and R.Engelen’s AIRS CO2 Product
41
Both of These Studies Have Caveats
• Used a constant averaging function that is probably too high.
• Noted land/sea boundaries were evident in product.
• Used the ECMWF derived CO2 that– Only uses 18 channels– Uses ECMWF 4DVAR
analysis that already has used AIRS radiance data.
– Uses internal clear flag that appears to select too many cases as clear.
42
Can we “Validate” our Product Using Atmospheric
Correlations
Or
Can AIRS product correlations have scientific
value
43
Suntharalingam, Jacob, Palmer, Logan, Yantosca, Xiao and Evans 2004
Biofuel & biomass would be low numbers ≈ 10-12
Biosphere would be very large numbers ≈ 800-1000
Fossil fuel would be ≈ 25 w/o CO controls, ≈ 100 with
44
Pan, Wei, Kinnison, Garcia, Wuebbles, and Brasseur (submitted to JGR)
• Using aircraft measurements of O3, CO, and H2O in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere to validate MOZART-3 & WACCM3 model.– Chemical discontinuity at tropopause caused by
changes in thermal and dynamic fields (Brewer-Dobson circulation)
45
Pan et al, 2006: Example of ER-2 Observations
Profiles from 38 ER-2 flights from approximately 5-18 km near Fairbanks Alaska (65N, 147W)
46
O3,CO correlations
Green cases: below thermal tropopause
Red cases: above thermal tropopause
Case.1 MOZART-3 w/ ECMWF Op winds
Case.2 MOZART-3 w/ ECMWF Exp471 winds
Case.3 WACCM3
47
O3,H2O Correlations
Green cases: below thermal tropopause
Red cases: above thermal tropopause
Case.1 MOZART-3 w/ ECMWF Op winds
Case.2 MOZART-3 w/ ECMWF Exp471 winds
Case.3 WACCM3
48
So How Does This Relate to AIRS measurements?
• We are collaborating with Laura Pan (NCAR) to compare AIRS products with Aircraft Products
• We are computing correlations of AIRS products to see if we can distinguish air mass types.– Can we identify cases affected by Brewer-Dobson
circulation and improve our ESRL/GMD & Matsuedacomparisons?
– Can we identify biomass regions and chemical conversion of CO?
49
Preliminary Analysis Looks Promising
50
Example of pollution eventsDomes of CO2 over cities?
Balling et al. , 2001
Idso et al. 2001
51
So maybe the utility of thermal sounders has yet to be exploited
• AIRS has measured global tropospheric CO2 & CH4 for the first time.
• AIRS has a unique capability to intercompare troposphericproducts of temperature, water, O3, CO, CH4, and CO2.
• We expect to learn new things from this dataset.• We are exploring diurnal signals and hope to identify large
pollution or biosphere events over the lifetime of these instruments.• We are exploring the use of trace gas correlations within the AIRS
products.• We want to work with transport modelers to compare our product
to a realistic emission scenario for CO2 with proper vertical weighing functions.
• Other ideas?
52
ReferencesAIRS Instrument & Retrieval Algorithms
• Aumann, H.H., M.T. Chahine, C. Gautier, M.D. Goldberg, E. Kalnay, L.M. McMillin, H. Revercomb, P.W. Rosenkranz, W.L. Smith, D.H. Staelin, L.L. Strow and J. Susskind 2003. AIRS/AMSU/HSB on the Aqua mission: design, science objectives, data products, and processing systems. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. v.41 p.253- 264. {PDF FILE = Aumann_IEEE8big15aug02.pdf}
• Susskind, J., C.D. Barnet, J.M. Blaisdell, L. Iredell, F. Keita, L. Kouvaris, G. Molnar and M.T. Chahine 2006. Accuracy of geophysical parameters derived from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit as a function of fractional cloud cover. J. Geophys. Res. v.111 doi:10.1029/2005JD006272, 19 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2005JD006272_susskind.pdf}
• Susskind, J., C.D. Barnet and J.M. Blaisdell 2003. Retrieval of atmospheric and surface parameters from AIRS/AMSU/HSB data in the presence of clouds. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. v.41 p.390-409. {PDF FILE = susskind_IEEE23apr02sub.pdf}
• Rodgers, C.D. 2000. Inverse methods for atmospheric sounding: Theory and practice. World Scientific Publishing 238 pgs.
53
ReferencesAnalysis of AIRS C products
• Barkley, M.P., P.S. Monks and R.J. Engelen 2006. Comparison of SCIAMACHY and AIRS CO2 measurements over North America during the summer and autumn of 2003. Geophys. Res. Lett. (in press). {PDF FILE = grl_fsi_v1.pdf}
• Chevallier, F., R.J. Engelen and P. Peylin 2005. The contribution of AIRS data in the estimation of CO2 sources and sinks. Geophys. Res. Lett. v.32 L23801 doi:10.1029/2005GL024229, 4 pgs. {PDF FILE = 05chevallier_publ.pdf}
• Tiwari,Y.K., M. Gloor, R.J. Engelen, F. Chevallier, C. Rodenbeck, S. Korner, P. Peylin, B.H. Braswll and M. Heimann 2006. Comparing CO2 retrieved from AIRS with model predictions: implications for constraining surface fluxes and lower to upper tropospheric transport. J. Geophys. Res. (in press).
– Rodenbeck, C., S. Houweling, M. Gloor and M. Heimann 2003. CO2 flux history 1982-2001 inferred from atmospheric data using a global inversion of atmospheric transport. Atmos. Chem. Phys. v.3 p.1919-1964. {PDF FILE = acp-3-1919.pdf}
54
ReferencesAIRS Trace Gas Algorithms
• Haskins, R.D. and L.D. Kaplan 1993. Remote sensing of trace gases using the atmospheric infrared sounder. Intl Rad. Symp. (QC912.3 I57 1992, Deepak Publ.) p.278-281. {PDF FILE = haskins_kaplan_1992.pdf}
• Crevoisier, C., S. Heilliette, A. Chedin, S. Serrar, R. Armante and N.A. Scott 2004. MidtroposphericCO2 concentration retrieval from AIRS observations in the tropics. Geophys. Res. Lett. v.31 p.17106-17110. doi:10.1029/2004GL020141 {PDF FILE = 2004GL020141.pdf}
• Crevoisier, C., A. Chedin and N.A. Scott 2003. AIRS channels selection for CO2 and other trace gases retrieval. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. v.128 p.2719-2740. doi:10.1256/qj.02.180 {PDF FILE = 03qjrms_airs_chl.pdf}
• Engelen, R.J. and A.P. McNally 2005. Estimating atmospheric CO2 from advanced IR satellite radiances within an operational 4D-Var data assim. system: Results and Validation. J. Geophys. Res. v.110 D18305 doi:10.1029/2005JD005982 {PDF FILE = 2005JD005982_engelen.pdf}
• Engelen, R.J. and G.L. Stephens 2004. Information content of infrared satellite sounding measurements with respect to CO2. J. Appl. Meteor. v.43 p.373-378. {PDF FILE = Engelen_jap2004.pdf}
• Engelen, R.J., G.L. Stephens and A.S. Denning 2001. The effect of CO2 variability on the retrieval of atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. v.28 p.3259-3263. {PDF FILE =2001GL013496_engelen.pdf}
55
ReferencesAveraging Functions & Validation
• Divakarla, M.G., C.D. Barnet, M.D. Goldberg, L.M. McMillin, E. Maddy, W.W. Wolf, L. Zhou and X. Liu 2006. Validation of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder temperature and water vapor retrievals with matched radiosonde measurements and forecasts. J. Geophys. Res. v.111 D09S15 doi:10.1029/2005JD006116, 20 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2005JD006116.pdf}
• Gettelman, A., E.M. Weinstock, E.J. Fetzer, F.W. Irion, A. Eldering, E.C. Richard, K.H. Rosenlof, T.L. Thompson, J.V. Pittman, C.R. Webster and R.L. Herman 2004. Validation of Aqua satellite data in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere with in situ aircraft. Geophys. Res. Lett. v.31 L22107 doi:10.1029/2004GL020730 {PDF FILE = Gettelman2004GL020730.pdf}
• Houweling, S., F. Dentener, J. Lelieveld, B.P. Walter and E.J. Dlugokencky 2000. The modeling of tropospheric methane: How well can point measurements be reproduced by a global model. J. Geophys. Res. v.105 p.8981-9002. {PDF FILE = 1999JD901149.pdf}
• Houweling, S. 2000. Global modeling of atmospheric methane sources and sinks. PhD Dissertation 177 pgs. {PDF FILE = houweling_thesis.pdf}
• Kawa, S.R, D.J. Erickson III, S. Pawson and Z. Shu 2004. Global CO2 transport simulations using meteorological data from the NASA data assimilation system. J. Geophys. Res. v.109 D18312 doi:10.1029/2004J004 554, 17 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2004JD004554_kawa.pdf}
• Rodgers, C.D. and B.J. Conner 2003. Inter-comparison of remote sounding instruments. J. Geophys. Res. v.108 p.1-14. doi:10.1029/2002JD002299 {PDF FILE = 03JGR_Rodgers.pdf}
• Tobin, D.C., H.E. Revercomb, C.C. Moeller and T.S. Pagano 2006. Use of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder high spectral resolution spectra to assess the calibration of Moderate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on EOS Aqua. J. Geophys. Res. v.111 D09S05 doi:10.1029/2005JD006095, 15 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2005JD006095.pdf}
• Tobin, D.C., H.E. Revercomb, R.O. Knuteson, B.L. Lesht, L.L. Strow, S.E. Hannon, W.F. Feltz, L.A. Moy, E.J. Fetzer and T.S. Cress 2006. Atmospheric Radiation Measurement site atmospheric state best estimates for Atmospheric Infrared Sounder temperature and water retrieval validation. J. Geophys. Res. v.111 D09S14 doi:10.1029/2005JD006103, 18 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2005JD006103.pdf}
56
ReferencesCirculation & Gas Correlations
• Shia, R.L., M.C. Liang, C.E. Miller and Y.L. Yung 2006. CO2 in the upper troposphere: influence of stratosphere-troposphere exchange. Geophys. Res. Lett. v.33 L14814 doi:10.1029/2006GL026141, 4 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2006GL026141_shia.pdf}
• Palmer, P.I., P. Suntharalingam, D.B.A. Jones, D.J. Jacob, D.G. Streets, Q. Fu, S.A. Vay and G.W. Sachse 2006. Using CO2:CO correlations to improve inverse analyses of carbon fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. v.111 D12318 doi:10.1029/2005JD006697, 11 pgs. {PDF FILE = 06jgr_palmer_co_co2.pdf}
• Suntharalingam, P., D.J. Jacob, P.I. Palmer, J.A. Logan, R.M. Yantosca, Y. Xiao and M.J. Evans 2004. Improved quantification of Chinese carbon fluxes using CO2/CO correlations in Asian outflow. J. Geophys. Res. v.109 D18S18 doi:10.1029/2003JD004362, 13 pgs. {PDF FILE = 2003JD004362_suntha.pdf}
57
ReferencesCO2 Domes, Fossil Fuel Use
• Balling Jr., R.C., R.S. Cerveny and C.D. Idso 2001. Does the urban CO2 dome of Phoenix, Arizona contribute to its heat island? Geophys. Res. Lett. v.28 p.4599-4601. {PDF FILE = 2000GL012632.pdf}
• Idso, C.D., S.B. Idso and R.C. Balling Jr. 2001. Intensive two-week study of an urban CO2 dome. Atmospheric Environment v.35 p.995-1000. {PDF FILE = 01_idso_domes.pdf}
• Deffeyes, Kenneth 2005. Beyond oil: The view from Hubbert's peak. Hill and Wang, (div of Farrar, Straus and Giroux) NYC 202 pgs.
• Deffeyes, Kenneth 2001. Hubbert's peak: the impending world oil shortage. Princeton University Press 208 pgs.
• Eshel, G. and P.A. Martin 2006. Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interactions v.10 p.1-17. {PDF FILE = 06ei_eshel.pdf}
• Eshel, G. and P.A. Martin 2006. Diet, energy, and global warming. BAMS v.5 p.562-562. {PDF FILE = 0605bams_diet_energy.pdf}