Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

J. Brant Dodson

Publications and source records attributed to J. Brant Dodson.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Do Citizen Science Intense Observation Periods Increase Data Usability? A Deep Dive of the NASA GLOBE Clouds Data Set With Satellite Comparisons

The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) citizen science program has recently conducted a series of month-long intensive observation periods (IOPs), asking the public to submit daily reports on cloud and sky conditions from all regions of Earth. This provides a wealth of crowdsourced observations from the ground, which complements other conventional scientific cloud data. In addition, the GLOBE reports are matched in space and time with geostationary and low Earth orbit satellites, which allows for a straightforward comparison of cloud properties, and minimizes the biases associated with mismatched sampling between participants and satellites. The matched GLOBE dataset is used to calculate the mean observed cloud cover by atmospheric level both worldwide and by region. The overall magnitudes of cloud cover between the GLOBE participants and the matched satellites agree within 10%, which is notable given the distinctly different natures of the data sources. The mean vertical cloud profiles show GLOBE reporting more low-level clouds and fewer high-level clouds than satellites. The low cloud disagreement is likely related to satellites missing low clouds when high clouds block their view. Conversely, the high cloud disagreement is related primarily to cloud opacity, as satellites may miss some optically thin clouds. Monte Carlo testing shows the results to be robust, and the tripled amount of IOP data reduces uncertainty by half. These findings also highlight ways in which citizen science IOP data may be used to support scientific research while accounting for their unique properties. Plain Language Summary: Citizen science is becoming an increasingly prominent aspect of scientific research, and so it important to study how citizen science data can be used effectively. For example, The GLOBE Program has recently conducted a series of special data-collecting events, or “challenges”, which gathered large numbers of reports on cloud and sky conditions. Because NASA GLOBE Clouds matches the participant reports with cloud observations from satellites, we can use these data to get a combined view of clouds from above and below. When looking at the average cloud cover for different atmospheric levels across Earth, we find that the GLOBE participants and the satellites agree quite closely. This is a surprising and fascinating find, given how different in nature volunteer ground reports are to satellite measurements. However, there are some small but notable disagreements between GLOBE participants and satellites about the distribution of cloud cover at different levels. In addition, by testing the data for uncertainty, we show that the results from the GLOBE data are reliable, and that more public participation improves the reliability. So, by carefully designing the analysis methodology, and by testing for the uncertainty of the data, citizen science can make a meaningful contribution to scientific research.

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRS2020

Clouds Around the World: How a Simple Citizen Science Data Challenge Became a Worldwide Success

Citizen science is often recognized for its potential to directly engage the public in science, and is uniquely positioned to support and extend participants’ learning in science. In March 2018, the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program, NASA’s largest and longest-lasting citizen science program about Earth, organized a month-long event that asked people around the world to contribute daily cloud observations and photographs of the sky (15 March–15 April 2018). What was considered a simple engagement activity turned into an unprecedented worldwide event that garnered major public interest and media recognition, collecting over 55,000 observations from 99 different countries, in more than 15,000 locations, on every continent including Antarctica. The event was called the “Spring Cloud Challenge” and was created to 1) engage the general public in the scientific process and promote the use of the GLOBE Observer app, 2) collect ground-based visual observations of varying cloud types during boreal spring, and 3) increase the number and locations of ground-based visual cloud observations collocated with cloud-observing satellites. The event resulted in roughly 3 times more observations than during the historic and highly publicized 2017 North American total solar eclipse. The dataset also includes observations over the Drake Passage in Antarctica and reports from intense Saharan dust events. This article describes how the challenge was crafted, outreach to volunteer scientists around the world, details of the data collected, and impact of the data.

GLOBE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-31966-DND

Solar eclipses provide the scientific community with a natural experiment of the processes within the Earth system. Through the rapid reduction and recovery of surface insolation, the short-term interrelationships between surface fluxes, clouds, temperature, and other meteorological components. Past observations of the eclipse-induced temperature perturbation show a wide range of values dependent on multiple factors. One of the primary factors is prevailing cloud cover, which is challenging to quantify. The large public interest in the 21 August 2017 eclipse provided an opportunity for a study of the eclipse using citizen science. Inspired by past citizen science efforts, the GLOBE Observer (GO) program organized a citizen science campaign for the 2017 eclipse. The large number of observers combined with their ability to travel to meteorologically important areas provided nearly unbroken coverage of the path of totality, and provides a useful complementary view of the eclipse with the automated networks. Primary questions: 1) What is the quantitative relationship between prevailing cloud cover and eclipse-induced temperature perturbation according to citizen scientist observations? 2) How well do the results from the citizen scientist observations compare with those from conventional ground observing stations?

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards a more realistic representation of NASA CERES-derived surface radiative fluxes during polar night: a comparison with the MOSAiC field campaign

The Arctic is one of the most sensitive regions of Earth to climate change, and yet remains one of the more difficult regions to both observe and simulate. The high latitude of the Arctic gives it some unusual features compared with much of Earth, such as large and variable sea ice cover, extensive mixed phase cloud cover, and the polar day/night cycle. These features significantly influence the radiative environment of the Arctic as well as the ability to observe it. The remoteness of the Arctic from most of civilization makes large volumes of in situ observations difficult to collect, and so satellite observations are a critical tool for observing the region, such as those from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). But validating the satellite radiative flux estimates is difficult because of the lack of in situ measurements. A useful remedy is utilizing measurements from field campaigns, such as the year-long Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition during 2019-2020. The extensive high-quality surface radiative flux and meteorological measurements collected from MOSAiC provide a useful check on flux retrievals from CERES instruments. Previous work compared MOSAiC and CERES surface radiative fluxes during the 2020 melt season (April-September). Errors in CERES fluxes were related to errors in estimated atmospheric optical depth and surface albedo. We conduct a similar assessment of CERES surface flux retrievals using MOSAiC data, but for the months of October through March instead. As this time period is mostly during polar night and twilight, the focus of the study is on longwave surface fluxes. To better understand the reasons for errors in CERES fluxes, we use the large set of meteorological measurements also collected by MOSAiC, including surface temperature, thermodynamic vertical profiles, surface turbulent fluxes, and cloud properties. For example, one notable possible source of error in the CERES estimate of surface downwelling longwave flux is the estimate of cloud base height when compared with MOSAiC W-band radar measurements – an overestimate of cloud base height yields an underestimate of the downwelling flux on the order of tens of W m2.

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards A More Realistic Representation of Nasa Ceres-Derived Surface Radiative Fluxes During Polar Night: A Comparison With the Mosaic Field Campaign

The Arctic remains one of the more difficult regions observe, and so satellite observations are a critical tool for observing the region, such as those from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). But validating the satellite surface radiative flux estimates is difficult because of the lack of in situ measurements. The extensive high-quality surface radiative flux and meteorological measurements collected from MOSAiC provide a useful check on flux retrievals from CERES instruments. We compare MOSAiC and CERES surface radiative fluxes during October through March of 2019-2020 using the large set of meteorological measurements also collected by MOSAiC, specifically cloud properties. Previous work identified a significant source of error in the CERES estimate of surface downwelling longwave flux as the estimate of low level cloud amount when compared with MOSAiC W-band radar measurements. Continuing this work, we examine the effects of errors in cloud water path on surface radiative fluxes. When using all cloud conditions, errors in cloud water are also significantly correlated with surface radiative flux errors, though the size off the effect is only about half that of cloud amount. But when considering low cloud conditions only, the effects of cloud water and cloud amount are comparable.

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Path to Improving Simulated Properties of Low Clouds over the Beaufort Sea using Airborne In Situ Observations of Subgrid-Scale Variability

Arctic low clouds influence the evolution of the Arctic system through their effects on radiative fluxes, boundary layer mixing, stability, turbulence, humidity, and precipitation. Unfortunately, atmospheric models and retrospective analysis (reanalysis) products struggle to accurately simulate the occurrence and properties of low clouds in the Arctic. One of the main reasons for this problem are the possible unrealistic assumptions that models/reanalyses make about the subgrid-scale (SGS) variability of meteorological properties, as well as the relationship between SGS variability and grid-scale (GS) cloud properties. We utilize cloud and thermodynamic data of low level (primarily) liquid clouds collected from two aircraft campaigns conducted over the Beaufort Sea to better understand and characterize this problem. Examining data from the September 2014 Arctic Radiation-IceBridge Sea and Ice Experiment (ARISE) airborne campaign and the 1998 First International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) Regional Experiment (FIRE)–Arctic Cloud Experiment (ACE) reveals that GS cloud water variability is closely related with SGS distribution of total water (i.e. water vapor + cloud water). We investigate two related approaches to prediction of GS cloud properties from SGS variability: the critical saturation ratio method, and the critical relative humidity method. We find significant correlation between GS cloud water and SGS supersaturation when the critical saturation ratio is set at 100%, as well as a notable relationship between GS cloud water and the width of the SGS total water distribution. Critical relative humidity also compares well with GS cloud water. However, we also find that the assumptions of a static critical saturation ratio of 100% to be unrealistic, as well as a fixed SGS distribution width. Empirical calculations from the ARISE data show a large sensitivity of these SGS variables to GS relative humidity, and so a SGS parameterization allowing them to vary according to GS thermodynamic properties may result in more realistic GS cloud water values.

J. Brant Dodson↗