Engineering topics

Miller, Jeffrey A.

Publications and source records attributed to Miller, Jeffrey A..

3 records

NASA NTRS2017

Operational Implementation of Sea Ice Concentration Estimates from the AMSR2 Sensor

An operation implementation of a passive microwave sea ice concentration algorithm to support NOAA's operational mission is presented. The NASA team 2 algorithm, previously developed for the NASA advanced microwave scanning radiometer for the Earth observing system (AMSR-E) product suite, is adapted for operational use with the JAXA AMSR2 sensor through several enhancements. First, the algorithm is modified to process individual swaths and provide concentration from the most recent swaths instead of a 24-hour average. A latency (time since observation) field and a 24-hour concentration range (maximum-minimum) are included to provide indications of data timeliness and variability. Concentration from the Bootstrap algorithm is a secondary field to provide complementary sea ice information. A quality flag is implemented to provide information on interpolation, filtering, and other quality control steps. The AMSR2 concentration fields are compared with a different AMSR2 passive microwave product, and then validated via comparison with sea ice concentration from the Suomi visible and infrared imaging radiometer suite. This validation indicates the AMSR2 concentrations have a bias of 3.9% and an RMSE of 11.0% in the Arctic, and a bias of 4.45% and RMSE of 8.8% in the Antarctic. In most cases, the NOAA operational requirements for accuracy are met. However, in low-concentration regimes, such as during melt and near the ice edge, errors are higher because of the limitations of passive microwave sensors and the algorithm retrieval.

Arctic↗

NASA NTRS2017

Skillful Spring Forecasts of September Arctic Sea Ice Extent Using Passive Microwave Data

In this study, we demonstrate skillful spring forecasts of detrended September Arctic sea ice extent using passive microwave observations of sea ice concentration (SIC) and melt onset (MO). We compare these to forecasts produced using data from a sophisticated melt pond model, and find similar to higher skill values, where the forecast skill is calculated relative to linear trend persistence. The MO forecasts shows the highest skill in March-May, while the SIC forecasts produce the highest skill in June-August, especially when the forecasts are evaluated over recent years (since 2008). The high MO forecast skill in early spring appears to be driven primarily by the presence and timing of open water anomalies, while the high SIC forecast skill appears to be driven by both open water and surface melt processes. Spatial maps of detrended anomalies highlight the drivers of the different forecasts, and enable us to understand regions of predictive importance. Correctly capturing sea ice state anomalies, along with changes in open water coverage appear to be key processes in skillfully forecasting summer Arctic sea ice.

melt onset↗

NASA NTRS2017

Comparison of Passive Microwave-Derived Early Melt Onset Records on Arctic Sea Ice

Two long records of melt onset (MO) on Arctic sea ice from passive microwave brightness temperatures (Tbs) obtained by a series of satellite-borne instruments are compared. The Passive Microwave (PMW) method and Advanced Horizontal Range Algorithm (AHRA) detect the increase in emissivity that occurs when liquid water develops around snow grains at the onset of early melting on sea ice. The timing of MO on Arctic sea ice influences the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the ice-ocean system throughout the melt season by reducing surface albedos in the early spring. This work presents a thorough comparison of these two methods for the time series of MO dates from 1979through 2012. The methods are first compared using the published data as a baseline comparison of the publically available data products. A second comparison is performed on adjusted MO dates we produced to remove known differences in inter-sensor calibration of Tbs and masking techniques used to develop the original MO date products. These adjustments result in a more consistent set of input Tbs for the algorithms. Tests of significance indicate that the trends in the time series of annual mean MO dates for the PMW and AHRA are statistically different for the majority of the Arctic Ocean including the Laptev, E. Siberian, Chukchi, Beaufort, and central Arctic regions with mean differences as large as 38.3 days in the Barents Sea. Trend agreement improves for our more consistent MO dates for nearly all regions. Mean differences remain large, primarily due to differing sensitivity of in-algorithm thresholds and larger uncertainties in thin-ice regions.

sea ice↗