Date post: | 17-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kelly-nichols |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
* This work was sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Contract NNG 04HZ53C, Grant NNG 04HZ51C, and Grant NAG5-13652, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Air Force Contract FA8721-05-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Government.
Satellite-based Estimation of Precipitation
Using Passive Opaque Microwave Radiometry*
Frederick W. Chen, Laura J. Bickmeier, William J. Blackwell, R. Vincent LeslieMIT Lincoln Laboratory (Lexington, MA, USA)
David H. Staelin, Chinnawat “Pop” SurussavadeeMIT Research Laboratory of Electronics (Cambridge, MA, USA)
3rd Workshop of the International Precipitation Working GroupMelbourne, VIC, Australia
24 October 2006
MIT Lincoln Laboratory2FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Outline
• Physical basis
• Algorithm development– AMSU (Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit)– ATMS (Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder)
• Future work
• Summary
MIT Lincoln Laboratory3FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Physical Basis
• Transparent channels (or window channels)– Warm water vapor signatures over cold ocean– Scattering signatures due to ice particles over land
• Opaque channels– Varying atmospheric opacity– Sensitive primarily to specific layers of atmosphere
OPAQUEBANDS
TRANSPARENTBANDS
MIT Lincoln Laboratory4FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
54-GHz and 183-GHz Weighting Functions
54-GHz
183-GHz
MIT Lincoln Laboratory5FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Estimation of Precipitation Rate with Opaque W Channels
(54-GHz and 183-GHz)
• Precipitation rate ~ humidity × vertical wind velocity
• Absolute humidity– 54-GHz band reveal temperature profile– 54-GHz and 183-GHz bands reveal water vapor
profile
• Vertical wind velocity
– Stronger vertical wind →
– Stronger vertical winds results in increased backscattering of cold space radiation
– Perturbations (cold spots) in 54-GHz data reveal cloud-top altitude
– Absolute albedos reveal hydrometeor abundance– Relative albedos (54 vs. 183-GHz) reveal
hydrometeor size
Greater hydrometeors size
Greater hydrometeor abundance
Higher cloud-top altitude
MIT Lincoln Laboratory6FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Particle Sizes Revealed in NAST-M Data
54 GHz
118 GHz
183 GHz
425 GHz
Visible
Leslie & Staelin, IEEE TGRS, 10/2004
TB
MIT Lincoln Laboratory7FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
AMSU Radiometry
• Passive W sounder
• AMSU-A– 12 channels in opaque 54-
GHz O2 band– Window channels near 23.8,
31.4, and 89.0 GHz
• AMSU-B– 3 channels in opaque
183.31-GHz H2O band– Window channels near 89.0
and 150.0 GHz
AMSU-A Channel Frequencies (GHz)
23.8
31.4
50.3
52.8
53.596 ± 0.115
54.4
54.94
55.5
57.290344
57.290344 ± 0.217
57.290344 ± 0.3222 ± 0.048
57.290344 ± 0.3222 ± 0.022
57.290344 ± 0.3222 ± 0.010
57.290344 ± 0.3222 ± 0.0045
89.0
AMSU-B Channel Frequencies (GHz)
89.0
150.0
183.31 ± 1
183.31 ± 3
183.31 ± 7
MIT Lincoln Laboratory8FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
General Structure of AMSU Algorithm(Chen and Staelin, IEEE TGRS, 2/2003)
• Signal processing– Regional Laplacian interpolation– Image sharpening– Principal component analysis
• Neural net– 2-layer feedforward neural net– 1st layer: tanh transfer function– 2nd layer: linear transfer function
MIT Lincoln Laboratory9FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Signal Processing Components
• Neural-net correction of angle-dependent variations in TB’s
• Cloud-clearing via regional Laplacian interpolation– Temperature profile characterization– Cloud-top altitude characterization
• Principal component analysis for dimensionality reduction– Temperature profile PC’s
– Window channel / H2O profile PC’s
• Image sharpening– AMSU-A data sharpened to AMSU-B resolution
MIT Lincoln Laboratory10FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
The Algorithm: Precipitation Masks &Precipitation-Induced Perturbations
PR
EC
IPIT
AT
ION
DE
TE
CT
ION IMAGE
SHARPENING
CO
RR
UP
T D
AT
AD
ET
EC
TIO
N
LIM
B-&
-SU
RF
AC
EC
OR
RE
CT
ION
REGIONALLAPLACIAN INTERPOLATION
MIT Lincoln Laboratory11FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
The Algorithm: Neural Net
Trained to NEXRAD
MIT Lincoln Laboratory12FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Final Output
MIT Lincoln Laboratory13FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Example of Global Retrieval
MIT Lincoln Laboratory14FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS
• Similar to AMSU
• To be launched on NPP (2009) & NPOESS satellites– NPP = NPOESS Preparatory Project
• Improvements over AMSU– Additional channels in 54-GHz and 183-GHz bands– Better resolution in 54-GHz band– Better sampling
Nyquist sampling of 54-GHz data Identical sampling of all channels
MIT Lincoln Laboratory15FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Simulating ATMS TB’s
• MM5 Atmospheric Circulation Model– Provides temperature profile, water vapor profile, hydrometeor profile, …– Used Goddard hydrometeor model (Tao & Simpson, 1993)
• Radiative Transfer– TBSCAT due to Rosenkranz (IEEE TGRS, 8/2002)
Multi-stream, initial-value– Improved hydrometeor modeling due to Surussavadee & Staelin (IEEE TGRS,
10/2006)
• Filtering– Accurate matching of TB’s on MM5 grid to ATMS resolution and geolocation
using “satellite geometry” toolbox for MATLAB Computing angular offset of surface locations from boresight Computing satellite zenith angles from scan angle Computing geolocation from scan angle
MIT Lincoln Laboratory16FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
MM5 Rain Rate: Typhoon Pongsona, 2002/12/8
MIT Lincoln Laboratory17FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
AMSU vs. ATMS, 183±7 GHz
Observed AMSU Simulated ATMS
• Simulated ATMS 183±7 GHz data shows reasonable agreement with AMSU-B
• Morphology difference between AMSU observations and MM5 predicted radiances is due to the inaccuracy of the NCEP analyses used to initialize the MM5 model
MIT Lincoln Laboratory18FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
AMSU vs. ATMS, 50.3 GHz
Observed AMSU Simulated ATMS
• Simulated ATMS 50.3-GHz data with finer resolution and sampling shows finer features than AMSU-A
• Intense eyewall signature in simulated ATMS 50.3-GHz data due to NCEP initialization & limited 5-hr MM5 spinup time producing excess of large ice particles
MIT Lincoln Laboratory19FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Future Developments
• Adapting Chen-Staelin algorithm (IEEE TGRS, 2/2003) for ATMS
• Exploiting Nyquist sampling in the 54-GHz band
• Using methods from window-channel-based algorithms
• Improving the signal processing of Chen-Staelin algorithm
• Improving neural net training– Representations of circular data
MIT Lincoln Laboratory20FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Recently Launched & Future Instruments
• Similar to AMSU-A/B– AMSU/MHS on NOAA-18 (2005)– AMSU/MHS on NOAA-N’, METOP-1, METOP-2, METOP-3
• ATMS– NPP (2009)– NPOESS
W instruments on geostationary satellites?– < 1 hr revisit times
MIT Lincoln Laboratory21FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Summary
• Physical basis of precipitation estimation using opaque W channels
– Atmospheric sounding capabilities of opaque W channels– Cloud shape and particle size distribution from NAST-M 54-,
118-, 183-, and 425-GHz data
• AMSU precipitation algorithm– Relies primarily on 54-GHz and 183-GHz opaque bands– Signal processing: regional Laplacian interpolation, principal
component analysis, image sharpening
• ATMS precipitation algorithm development– Simulation system using MM5/TBSCAT
22FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Backup Slides
MIT Lincoln Laboratory23FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
NAST-M
• NAST = NPOESS Aircraft Sounder Testbed– Risk-reduction effort by NPOESS Integrated Program Office– Cooperative effort of NASA, NOAA, & DoD
• Equipped with 54-, 118-, 183-, and 425-GHz radiometers
• Flown on high-altitude aircraft– ER-2 (NASA)– Proteus (Scaled Composites)
• ~2.5-km resolution near nadir
MIT Lincoln Laboratory24FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Scattering in the 54-GHz and 183-GHz Bands
0.7 mm 2.4 mm
MIT Lincoln Laboratory25FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
AMSU Geographical Coverage
• Aboard NOAA-15, NOAA-16, & NOAA-17
• Nearly identical AMSU/HSB on Aqua
MIT Lincoln Laboratory26FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
AMSU-A/B Sampling & Resolution
• AMSU-A– 3 1/3° sampling (~50 km near nadir)– 3.3° resolution (~50 km near nadir)
• AMSU-B– 1.1° resolution (~15 km near nadir)– 1.1° sampling (~15-km near nadir)
AMSU-A
AMSU-B
MIT Lincoln Laboratory27FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
15-km AMSU vs. NEXRAD Comparison
MIT Lincoln Laboratory28FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
RMS Discrepancies (mm/h)between AMSU and NEXRAD
Range ofNEXRAD rain
rate
15-km(30-110 km from radar)
15-km(110-230 km from radar)
50-km(30-110 km from radar)
50-km(110-230 km from radar)
< 0.5 mm/h 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.5
0.5 – 1 mm/h 2.0 2.6 0.9 1.1
1 – 2 mm/h 2.3 2.7 1.1 1.5
2 – 4 mm/h 2.7 3.9 1.8 2.3
4 – 8 mm/h 3.5 7.4 3.2 5.2
8 – 16 mm/h 6.9 8.4 6.6 6.5
16 – 32 mm/h 19.0 17.2 12.9 14.6
> 32 mm/h 42.9 39.2 22.1 21.7
MIT Lincoln Laboratory29FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Features of ATMS vs. AMSU
• Channel set– Similar to AMSU Additional 51.76-GHz channel Additional 183.31±4.5-GHz & 183.31±1.8-GHz– 165.5-GHz replaces 150-GHz on AMSU-B No 89.0-GHz 15-km channel (available on AMSU-B)
• Resolution 54-GHz and 89-GHz: 2.2° vs. 3.33° on AMSU 23.8- and 31.4-GHz: 5.2° vs. 3.33° on AMSU
• Sampling– 165.5-GHz, 183-GHz: Similar to AMSU-B Other channels: ~3× finer than AMSU-A cross-track & along-track All channels sampled at the same locations Nyquist sampling of 54-GHz and 89-GHz
• Similar sensitivity
MIT Lincoln Laboratory30FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS & AMSU Footprints
MIT Lincoln Laboratory31FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS & AMSU Footprints (Near Nadir)
MIT Lincoln Laboratory32FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS Rain Rate Retrieval Algorithm
• Completely new algorithm
• Neural net
• Inputs– All 22 channels– sec(satellite zenith angle)
• Training, validation, and testing sets– MM5 data over Typhoon Pongsona– 1 time step (1521 data points) each for training, validation,
and testing
MIT Lincoln Laboratory33FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS vs. MM5, 1.1°
MIT Lincoln Laboratory34FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
ATMS vs. MM5, 5.2°
MIT Lincoln Laboratory35FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Representations of Geolocation
Rectangular (2-D)
Discontinuity across 180° E/W (Int’l Date Line)
Topological distortion around 90° N & 90° S (Geo. N & S Poles)
Cylindrical (3-D)
Continuity across 180° E/W
Topological distortion around 90° N & 90° S
Spherical (3-D)
Continuity across 180° E/W
No topological distortion around 90° N & and 90° S
MIT Lincoln Laboratory36FWC 2006-10-24
IPWG
Geolocation:Comparing the Representations
• Spherical representation produces the lowest RMS errors
• RMS error with 10 weights & biases
• Linear: 0.16• Cylindrical: 0.16• Spherical: 0.01
• Weights & biases needed for RMS error < 1.5 × 10-2
• Rectangular: 23• Cylindrical: 18• Spherical: 6
RECTANGULAR
CYLINDRICAL
SPHERICAL