Evalua&ng)Surface)Flux)Results)from)FLASHFlux)Version…€¦ ·...

Evalua&ng Surface Flux Results from FLASHFlux Version 3A Anne C. Wilber1, David P. Kratz2, Paul W. Stackhouse, Jr.2, Shashi K. Gupta1,

and Parnchai K. Sawaengphokhai1 1Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Hampton, Virginia

2NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia "

Conclusions: !Shortwave : : Replacing the WCP-55 aerosol properties in the SW algorithm with monthly climatological properties based on -year monthly averages of MATCH aerosol optical depths made considerable difference in the resulting fluxes. Though the comparison with the ground measurements shows little improvement, the use of the more up-to-date optical depths correspond to an improvement in the ground measurement/FLASHFlux difference histograms shown above. For further improvement in the SW model, it is planned to use near real time aerosols in place of the climatology. Also, work continues on the cloud transmission algorithm. "

Longwave: The use of the new GEOS 5.9.1 meteorology with change in the lower atmospheric temperature, humidity and skin temperature made the largest difference in the surface LW results. FLASHFlux LW fluxes overall showed a slightly larger bias but a slightly improved RMSE. The most improved surface types were the the Island and Desert sites."

Continued assessment of the FLASHFlux data products is on-going. The TOA flux products are being successfully used to evaluate radiative flux variability for the annual “State of Climate” report published annually in BAMS (see poster 147). Year-to-year regional changes in the surface fluxes over oceans have also been used to assess changes in ocean energy fluxes for the same annual report. The data products are available through the “HDF” portion of the CERES ordering page or more directly through the FLASHFlux homepage: http://flashflux.larc.nasa.gov."

Summary of Changes Between Version 2H and Version 3A

Version 2H Version 3A

Spectral Correc4on Coefficients

CERES Ed2 CERES Ed3

Solar Constant 1365 W m-‐2 1361 W m-‐2

Aerosols WCP-‐55 MATCH Climatology

Rayleigh ScaEering Original LPSA New based on Bodhaine et

al. (1999)

Meteorology GEOS-‐5.2.0 GEOS 5.9.1 (FP-‐IT)

Temperature Inversions No special treatment Improved Algorithm

Cloud Transmission Coefficient

0.80 0.75

-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 18048.31N, 105.10W Fort Peck, MT

40.72N, 77.93W Penn State, PA

40.05N, 88.37W Bondville, IL

40.13N, 105.24W Boulder, CO

34.25N, 89.87W Goodwin Creek, MS

43.73N, 96.92W Sioux Falls, SD

36.60N, 97.48W SGP ARM

45.03S, 169.7E New Zealand

44 N, 5.1E Carpentras, FR

48.71N 2.20W Palaiseau, FR

58.3N, 26.5E Toravere, Estonia

29.44S 53.82W São Martinho da Serra, Brazil

32.30N, 64.77W Bermuda

24.28N, 153.98E Minami-Torishima

2.06S, 147.42 E Manus

0.52S, 166.9 E, Nauru

12S 97E Cocos Isl

36.05N, 140.13E Tatano

36.9N, 75.71W Ches Light

51.97N, 4.9E Cabauw, Netherlands

12.43S, 130.8E Darwin, AU

33.58N, 130.37E Fukuoka, Japan

24.33N, 124.16E Ishigakijima,Japan

71.32N, 156.61W Barrow, AK

90.00S, 0.00 South Pole

69.00S, 39.58E Syowa

70.65S, 8.25W Georg von Neumayer

78.9N, 11.95E Ny Alesund

72.57N, !38.5W Greenland Summit

B 23.70S, 133.87E Alice Springs

J 36.63N, 116.02W Desert Rock, NV

H 22.78N, 5.52E Algeria

H 30.9N , 34.8E Sede Boger, Israel

H 23.56S, 15.04N Gobabeb Namib Desert

B 12.0N, 23.0W PIRATA Buoy

J 0.0N, 23W PIRATA Buoy

19.0S, 34W PIRATA Buoy

15.0N, 90.0E RAMA Buoy

0.00 80.5E RAMA Buoy

Locations of Ground Measurement Sites "

Sites Color-coded by Type"Surface Measurements from http://www-cave.larc.nasa.gov/"

Downward Shortwave Flux" Downward Longwave Flux"

0 100 200 300 400 500

Ground Measured DSF (W m-2)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 2H Derived DSF (W m-2)

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 50 > 50

N = 6669Bias = -1.2 W m-2

R.E. = 32.2 W m-2

N = 6669Bias = -5.9 W m-2

R.E. = 33.2 W m-2

N = 6669Bias = -4.7 W m-2

R.E. = 13.7 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HGlobal

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 > 20

N = 829Bias = 15.7 W m-2

R.E. = 32.6 W m-2

N = 829Bias = 8.1 W m-2

R.E. = 34.4 W m-2

N = 829Bias = -7.6 W m-2

R.E. = 4.8 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HIsland

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 > 25

N = 2402Bias = -4.8 W m-2

R.E. = 24.7 W m-2

N = 2402Bias = -8.4 W m-2

R.E. = 26.4 W m-2

N = 2402Bias = -3.6 W m-2

R.E. = 6.8 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HContinental

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 > 25

N = 1246Bias = -5.9 W m-2

R.E. = 20.5 W m-2

N = 1246Bias = 0.6 W m-2

R.E. = 19.3 W m-2

N = 1246Bias = 5.2 W m-2

R.E. = 7.3 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HDesert

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 > 20

N = 1564Bias = 10.3 W m-2

R.E. = 24.2 W m-2

N = 1564Bias = 0.3 W m-2

R.E. = 24.8 W m-2

N = 1564Bias = -9.9 W m-2

R.E. = 7.8 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HCoastal

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 > 20

N = 630Bias = -28.9 W m-2

R.E. = 55.8 W m-2

N = 630Bias = -40.8 W m-2

R.E. = 54.8 W m-2

N = 829Bias = -11.9 W m-2

R.E. = 34.0 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HHigh Latitude

Introduction :! The Fast Longwave and Shortwave Radiative Flux (FLASHFlux) data product was developed to provide a rapid release version of the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) results, which could be made available to the research and applications communities within one week of the satellite observations by exchanging some accuracy for speed of processing. Unlike standard CERES products, FLASHFlux does not maintain a long-term consistent dataset. Therefore the latest changes in algorithms and input data can be incorporated into processing. FLASHFlux transitioned from Version 2H to Version 3A in January 2013 changing to the latest meteorological product from Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), GEOS FP-IT (5.9.1), latest spectral response functions and gains for the CERES instruments, and aerosol climatology based on the latest MATCH data. Some algorithm changes were made in the cloud transmission coefficient and Rayleigh attenuation for the shortwave flux computation. Typically FLASHFlux does not reprocess when a new version is released. However, in order to investigate the effects of the changes in algorithms and input data, nine months (201207 – 201303) were processed with both Version2H and Version3A. The Time Interpolated Space Averaged (TISA) surface flux results from these overlap months have been compared to the ground-based measurements. The effects of the changes on the calculated surface fluxes were evaluated. "

0 100 200 300 400 500

Ground Measured DLF (W m-2)

1 2 - 10 11 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 > 200

N = 8423Bias = -1.4 W m-2

R.E. = 17.0 W m-2

Version 2H

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 3A

N = 8423Bias = -2.5 W m-2

R.E. = 16.8 W m-20

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 2H Derived DLF (W m-2)

N = 8423Bias = -1.2 W m-2

R.E. = 6.1 W m-2

3A vs 2HGlobal

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 50 > 50

N = 2776Bias = -6.6 W m-2

R.E. = 18.1 W m-2

Version 2H

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 3A

N = 2776Bias = -8.2 W m-2

R.E. = 17.0 W m-20

0 100 200 300 400 500

N = 2776Bias = -1.6 W m-2

R.E. = 6.2 W m-2

3A vs 2H

Continental

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 > 60

N = 1546Bias = 1.1 W m-2

R.E. = 11.8 W m-2

Version 2H

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 3A

N = 1546Bias = -1.4 W m-2

R.E. = 11.6 W m-20

0 100 200 300 400 500

N = 1546Bias = -2.5 W m-2

R.E. = 5.0 W m-2

3A vs 2H

Coastal

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 > 20

N = 829Bias = 15.7 W m-2

R.E. = 32.6 W m-2

N = 829Bias = 8.1 W m-2

R.E. = 34.4 W m-2

N = 829Bias = -7.6 W m-2

R.E. = 4.8 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HIsland

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 > 25

N = 1246Bias = -5.9 W m-2

R.E. = 20.5 W m-2

N = 1246Bias = 0.6 W m-2

R.E. = 19.3 W m-2

N = 1246Bias = 5.2 W m-2

R.E. = 7.3 W m-2

Version 2H Version 3A 3A vs 2HDesert

0 100 200 300 400 500

1 2 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 > 25

N = 1179Bias = 7.3 W m-2

R.E. = 18.2 W m-2

Version 2H

0 100 200 300 400 500

Version 3A

N = 1179Bias = 7.8 W m-2

R.E. = 17.7 W m-20

0 100 200 300 400 500

N = 1179Bias = 0.5 W m-2

R.E. = 4.4 W m-2

3A vs 2HHigh Latitude

DSF FLASHFlux Version 2H - Ground Measured

DSF FLASHFlux Version 3A - Ground Measured

Downward Shortwave"FLASHFlux- Ground Measured "

Version 2H Version 3A"

DLF FLASHFlux Version 2H - Ground Measured

DLF FLASHFlux Version 3A - Ground Measured

Downward Longwave"FLASHFlux- Ground Measured "

Version M2H Version 3A"

Acknowledgements: !

The CERES FLASHFlux data products are part of the CERES production system and we acknowledge the CERES working groups at LaRC for their role in providing algorithms and the Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) for their role in providing mechanisms to archive and distribute the data products."

Comparison to Ground Measurements Comparison to Ground Measurements"

Evalua&ng)Surface)Flux)Results)from)FLASHFlux)Version…€¦ ·...

Documents

Transcript of Evalua&ng)Surface)Flux)Results)from)FLASHFlux)Version…€¦ ·...

evalua 9.doc

NJDEP Hydrodynamic Protocol Evalua on with 100 m Par cles ... · AET Nutrient Separa ng Baﬄe Box NJDEP Hydrodynamic Protocol Evalua on with 100 m Par cles Daniel P. Smith, Ph.D.,

Evalua&ng)Streaming)Strategies)) for)Event)Processing ... · Evalua&ng)Streaming)Strategies)) for)Event)Processing)across)) Infrastructure)Clouds (joint)work)) Radu Tudoran, Gabriel

Evalua on of Innova free Foo ng System for Residen on

Evalua&ng the MJO forecast skill in the NCEP GEFS 35-day ... · Evalua&ng the MJO forecast skill in the NCEP GEFS 35-day Experiments Wei Li, Yuejian Zhu, Xiaqiong Zhou, Malaquias

Evalua&ng Farms for Pollinator and Beneﬁcial Insect Habitat

Importance of MT Evalua&on Diﬃculty of MT Evalua&on Evalua ... · Evalua&on of Machine Transla&on Quality Marco Turchi FBK Trento, Italy turchi@

EVALUATION OF RESEARCH · evalua on of research in energe cs” (hereina L er Steering Group); − to visit the ins tu ons par cipa ng in the evalua on for the purpose of obtaining

Manual Evalua 2

Manual Evalua 9

Evalua Compe Mates

Manual evalua 4

New Truth in Adver-sing: Evalua-ng Therapeu-c Claims · 2018. 1. 26. · Truth in Adver-sing: Evalua-ng Therapeu-c Claims Thomas Lloyd, MD ... 1. Pathogenesis poorly understood! –

Evalua&ng New Models of Care - University of Glasgow · Evalua&ng New Models of Care Stewart Mercer Director of the Scosh School of Primary care Professor of Primary care Research

Evalua&ng)Ammonium,)Nitrate)and)Sulfate)Aerosols… · Evalua&ng)Ammonium,)Nitrate)and)Sulfate)Aerosols)in)38Dimensions)) References))) Setup: • 2°x2.5 ...

Evalua&ng)Evidence) - University of California, Berkeleystage.cchem.berkeley.edu/~bcgc/sites/default/files/Class 20.pdf · Evalua&ng)Evidence) Making&Decisions&in&Uncertain&Condi?ons&

NG-Test CARBA 5 · NG-test CARBA 5 Posi ve Nega ve PCR Total Performance Characteris cs Clinical Evalua on NG-Test CARBA 5 was evaluated at the NRC (AMR French Referent Center, Kremlin-Bicêtre

Evalua&ng the MJO forecast skill in the NCEP GEFS 35-day … · 2018-04-13 · Evalua&ng the MJO forecast skill in the NCEP GEFS 35-day Experiments Wei Li, Yuejian Zhu, Xiaqiong Zhou,

Evalua 8.pdf

Evalua=ng Orthopaedic Access for a Ter=ary Referral Hospital in ...