1 / 16

Simulating Realistic Doppler Wind Lidar Observations

Simulating Realistic Doppler Wind Lidar Observations. G. D. Emmitt, S. A. Wood and S. Greco Simpson Weather Associates Charlottesville, VA 6 March 2003. Bracketing Concepts.

arditha
Télécharger la présentation

Simulating Realistic Doppler Wind Lidar Observations

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. Simulating Realistic Doppler Wind Lidar Observations G. D. Emmitt, S. A. Wood and S. Greco Simpson Weather Associates Charlottesville, VA 6 March 2003

  2. Bracketing Concepts • Clouds permitting; 200 km resolution; zero error within sample volume; measurement and representative errors added to simulated observations during assimilation cycles • Full profiles (0-20km) over 2000km swath • PBL and cloud top winds only • mid and upper troposphere cloud free only • full profile along a single line-of-sight (non-scanning)

  3. Realistic DWLs (1) • Flown at 400 km rather than NPOESS 824 km • Observation errors are flow dependent • Systematic errors can be included • Distribution of data is aerosol and attenuation dependent

  4. Realistic DWLs (2) • IPO and GTWS baseline concepts using single DWL technologies (coherent and direct). Tend to be quite large (energy, telescope, R&D…) • Hybrid DWL concept currently most favored option for further study. Uses both coherent and direct detection using technology much closer to the SOTA.

  5. Realistic DWLs (3) • IPO coherent baseline system • IPO direct detection system • IPO hybrid systems (options 1 and 2) • ESA’s ADM • Japan’s JEM/CDL

  6. NPOESS Bracketing Full Profile (ignore system parameters)

  7. NPOESS Bracketing PBL/CLDS Only (ignore system parameters)

  8. NPOESS Bracketing Mid/Upper Only (ignore system parameters)

  9. IPO Coherent Baseline 1

  10. IPO Direct (mol) Baseline 3.6

  11. IPO Coherent Hybrid .03

  12. IPO Direct Hybrid (1) .22

  13. IPO Direct Hybrid (2) .14

  14. ESA ADM Direct (non scanning) 5.2

  15. JEM CDL Coherent (two orthogonals) .14

  16. Conclusions • Ready to produce simulated observations for some “realistic” DWL concepts • systematic errors • fewer observations • greater cloud effects • situation representativeness errors • Still need community input for D-Edge Direct aerosol, MAC space (mol and aero) and ADM aerosol? • OSSEs need to include CMV, WVMV, scatterometer and ACARS simulated winds.

More Related