Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “intercomparison”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Terra and Aqua MODIS Intercomparison Using LEO-GEO Double Difference Method

The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) onboard the Terra and Aqua satellites havesuccessfully operated since their launch in 1999 and in 2002, providing more than 18 and 16 years ofcontinuous global observations, respectively. The inter-comparison between the two MODIS instruments can bevery supportive for the instrument calibration and uncertainty assessment. Aqua and Terra MODIS have almostidentical relative spectral response, spatial resolution, and dynamic range for each band. Therefore, a sitedependent correction for a sensor spectral band pair is not necessary for their comparison. However, Terra is inthe morning orbit with an equator crossing time of 10:30 am, and Aqua is in the afternoon orbit with equatorcrossing time of 1:30 pm. Consequently, there is a dearth of simultaneous nadir overpasses (SNOs)between the two satellites. Major challenges in cross-sensor comparison of instruments on different satellitesinclude differences in observation time, solar angle, and view angle over selected pseudo-invariant sites.In this work, the inter-comparisons of thermal emissive bands are performed over a pseudo-invariant target,using the observations from a sensor onboard a geostationary satellite as a bridge. Himawari8 was launched onOctober 7, 2014. The Advanced Himawari Imager (AHI) onboard Himawari8 can be used as a reference tobridge the comparison between Terra and Aqua MODIS. AHI has 16 channels; with spatial resolutions from 0.5km to 2 km at nadir and produces a full disk observations every 10 minutes. The band spectral coveragematchup, comparable spatial resolution and near-simultaneous observation between MODIS and AHI providefeasibility to implement a double difference method. This comparison method minimizes the impact of thedifference in observation time and solar angle. The comparison results will be used as an assessment for MODISinstrument calibration and will be helpful for future enhancement of the L1B product.

Himawari8↗
NASA NTRS2019

Intercomparison of Aerosol Volume Size Distributions Derived from AERONET Ground-Based Remote Sensing and LARGE in Situ Aircraft Profiles During the 2011–2014 DRAGON and DISCOVER-AQ Experiments

Aerosol volume size distribution (VSD) retrievals from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) aerosol monitoring network were obtained during multiple DRAGON (Distributed Regional Aerosol Gridded Observational Network) campaigns conducted in Maryland, California, Texas and Colorado from 2011 to 2014. These VSD retrievals from the field campaigns were used to make comparisons with near-simultaneous in situ samples from aircraft profiles carried out by the NASA Langley Aerosol Group Experiment (LARGE) team as part of four campaigns comprising the DISCOVER-AQ (Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality) experiments. For coincident (1 h) measurements there were a total of 91 profile-averaged fine-mode size distributions acquired with the LARGE ultra-high sensitivity aerosol spectrometer (UHSAS) instrument matched to 153 AERONET size distributions retrieved from almucantars at 22 different ground sites. These volume size distributions were characterized by two fine-mode parameters, the radius of peak concentration (rpeak_conc) and the VSD fine-mode width (widthpeak_conc). The AERONET retrievals of these VSD fine-mode parameters, derived from ground-based almucantar sun photometer data, represent ambient humidity values while the LARGE aircraft spiral profile retrievals provide dried aerosol (relative humidity; RH< 20 %) values. For the combined multiple campaign dataset, the average difference in rpeak_conc was 0:0330:035 μm (ambient AERONET values were 15.8% larger than dried LARGE values), and the average difference in widthpeak_conc was 0:0420:039 μm (AERONET values were 25.7% larger). For a subset of aircraft data, the LARGE data were adjusted to account for ambient humidification. For these cases, the AERONET–LARGE average differences were smaller, with rpeak_conc differing by 0:0110:019 μm (AERONET values were 5.2% larger) and widthpeak_conc average differences equal to 0:0300:037 μm (AERONET values were 15.8% larger).

Schafer, Joel S.↗
NASA NTRS2018

A13H-2546: Intercomparison of biomass burning aerosol properties from in-situ and remote-sensing instruments in ORACLES-2016

The magnitude of the cumulative effects of aerosols, both directly and on cloud properties, remains the biggest source of uncertainty in our understanding of anthropogenic radiative forcing on the climate. The magnitude of aerosol effects in any given region will depend on not just the aerosol concentration, but also on the characteristics of the aerosol under consideration. The NASA ORACLES (ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS) campaign was conducted in 2016-2018 over three deployments in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean (SEA), with the goal of making observations of seasonal biomass burning (BB) smoke plumes overlying persistent stratocumulus cloud decks. During the first ORACLES deployment (September 2016), two NASA aircraft (a P-3 and an ER-2) were flown with a suite of aerosol, cloud, radiation, and meteorological instruments for remote-sensing and in-situ observations. In ORACLES, data collected by eight different instrument teams are used to derive aerosol properties over this region by independent methods. Here we present a comparison of results from the different instrument retrievals with a focus on the measures of aerosol absorption. We focus on specific cases with near-coincident measurements from in-situ (PSAP or PTI for aerosol absorption combined with a nephelometer for aerosol scattering) and remote sensing (4STAR, AirMSPI, RSP, and SSFR) instruments from coordinated flights between the two aircraft. We use the single scattering albedo (SSA), a measure of the relative absorption versus total extinction by aerosols, as the main comparable property between the various remote sensing and in-situ methods. For the remote sensing instruments, we see general good agreement in the total aerosol loading (aerosol optical depth, AOD), though see some differences in the absorbing component (AAOD). We report values for the retrieved aerosol parameters measured in the ORACLES flights and comment upon the observed variability between different instruments. Finally, we discuss these ORACLES results in the context of previous measurements of BB aerosol over the SEA.

Kristina Pistone↗
NASA NTRS2020

TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI): motivations and protocol version 1.0

Upcoming telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) or the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) may soon be able to characterize, through transmission, emission or reflection spectroscopy, the atmospheres of rocky exoplanets orbiting nearby M dwarfs. One of the most promising candidates is the late M-dwarf system TRAPPIST-1, which has seven known transiting planets for which transit timing variation (TTV) measurements suggest that they are terrestrial in nature, with a possible enrichment in volatiles. Among these seven planets, TRAPPIST-1e seems to be the most promising candidate to have habitable surface conditions, receiving ∼66 % of the Earth's incident radiation and thus needing only modest greenhouse gas inventories to raise surface temperatures to allow surface liquid water to exist. TRAPPIST-1e is, therefore, one of the prime targets for the JWST atmospheric characterization. In this context, the modeling of its potential atmosphere is an essential step prior to observation. Global climate models (GCMs) offer the most detailed way to simulate planetary atmospheres. However, intrinsic differences exist between GCMs which can lead to different climate prediction and thus observability of gas and/or cloud features in transmission and thermal emission spectra. Such differences should preferably be known prior to observations. In this paper we present a protocol to intercompare planetary GCMs. Four testing cases are considered for TRAPPIST-1e, but the methodology is applicable to other rocky exoplanets in the habitable zone. The four test cases included two land planets composed of modern-Earth and pure-CO2 atmospheres and two aqua planets with the same atmospheric compositions. Currently, there are four participating models (LMDG, ROCKE-3D, ExoCAM, UM); however, this protocol is intended to let other teams participate as well.

Thomas Jean Daniel Fauchez↗
NASA NTRS2020

Intercomparison of the SNPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS DNB High-Gain Stage Using Observations of Bright Stars

The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on board the Suomi-NPP (SNPP) and NOAA-20 (N20) spacecrafts is a multi-spectral Earth-observing instrument with bands covering wavelengths from visible to long-wave infrared. Among these bands is a panchromatic day/night band (DNB) with a broad spectral response ranging from 500􀀀900 nm, and a high dynamic range spanning over 7 orders of magnitude, allowing for observations to take place during both daytime and nighttime. The DNB operates at 3 gain levels, with low-, mid- , and high-gain stages. The high-gain stage (HGS) is capable of detecting dim city lights during Earth-view observations at night as well as bright stars through the instrument space-view port. Since SNPP and N20 are at opposite points of the same orbit, each VIIRS instrument is able to observe the same stars with the DNB in successive orbits. This will allow us to make a direct comparison of the relative calibration of each instrument using stars over a range of spectral classes. In this work, we develop methodology for accurately identifying target stars in order to make proper comparisons between the DNB HGS of each instrument. We then take observations from multiple stars in order to compute the ratio in the measured irradiance for each instrument as a function of spectral class. For K-type stars, which have the least spectral change over the DNB wavelength range, we measure a calibration bias between the SNPP and N20 DNB HGS of approximately 4%, which is stable over the duration of the N20 mission.

Truman Wilson↗
NASA NTRS2020

How Long Is Too Long? Variogram Analysis of AERONET Data to Aid Aerosol Validation and Intercomparison Studies

Geophysical data sets derived from satellite sensors, ground/airborne instrumentation, and computational models are often compared against each other. A common example is the validation of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrievals against measurements from Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Sun photometers. Spatiotemporal mismatch between data set sampling means that uncaptured variation in the underlying geophysical field introduces apparent disagreement into such comparisons, known as representation or collocation matchup uncertainty. This study uses variogram analysis of AERONET data to estimate temporal mismatch uncertainties and decorrelation time scales for the global AERONET record. As well as total AOD, the fine‐ and coarse‐mode AODs, Ångström Exponent (AE), and fine‐mode fraction (FMF) of AOD are analyzed. Globally, a time difference of 30 min typically induces from 0.011–0.035 variation in AOD. For total, fine, and coarse AODs the typical time to decorrelation is around 2–10 days. For AE and FMF it is 3–33 days; that is, aerosol systems often persist significantly longer than individual events in them. Biomass burning regions tend to show the largest and fastest subdaily AOD variability and also longest times to decorrelation. Some sites show significant season‐to‐season variations in behavior. These results can be used to inform site‐specific time collocation thresholds for aerosol validation analyses and account for temporal variation when estimating data set uncertainty. They also have implications for comparisons between different satellite products or models, data aggregation, and time series analyses. Results are provided on a site‐by‐site basis to facilitate use by other researchers.

satellite↗
NASA NTRS2020

Intercomparison of Precipitation Estimates Over the Southern Ocean from Atmospheric Reanalyses

Precipitation is a major component of the hydrologic cycle and plays a significant role in the sea-ice mass balance in the polar regions. Over the Southern Ocean, precipitation is particularly uncertain due to the lack of direct observations in this remote and harsh environment. Here we demonstrate that precipitation estimates from 8 global reanalyses produce similar spatial patterns between 2000-2010, although their annual means vary by about 250 mm yr -1 (or 26 percent of the median values) and there is little similarity in their representation of interannual variability. ERA-Interim produces the smallest and CFSR produces the largest amount of precipitation overall. Rainfall and snowfall are partitioned in five reanalyses; snowfall suffers from the same issues as the total precipitation comparison, with ERA-Interim producing about 128 mm less snowfall and JRA-55 about 103 mm more rainfall compared to the other reanalyses. When compared to CloudSat-derived snowfall, these five reanalyses indicate similar spatial patterns, but differ in their magnitude. All reanalyses indicate precipitation on nearly every day of the year, with spurious values occurring on an average of about 60 days yr -1 resulting in an accumulation of about 4.5 mm yr -1 . While similarities in spatial patterns among the reanalyses suggest a convergence, the large spread in magnitudes points to issues with the background models in adequately reproducing precipitation rates, and the differences in the model physics employed. Further improvements to model physics are required to achieve confidence in precipitation rate, as well as the phase and frequency of precipitation in these products.

Linette N. Boisvert↗
NASA NTRS2020

Intercomparison of surface meltwater routing models for the Greenland ice sheet and influence on subglacial effective pressures

Each summer, large volumes of surface meltwater drain off the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) surface through moulins to the bed, impacting subglacial hydrology and ice flow dynamics. Supraglacial surface routing delays may propagate to englacial and subglacial hydrologic systems, requiring accurate assessment to correctly estimate subglacial effective pressures. We compare hourly supraglacial moulin discharge simulations from three surface meltwater routing models – the synthetic unit hydrograph (SUH), the bare-ice component of surface routing and lake filling (SRLF), and the rescaled width function (RWF) – for four internally drained catchments on the southwestern Greenland ice sheet surface. The routing models are forced identically using surface runoff from the Modèle Atmosphérique Régionale regional climate model (RCM). For each catchment, simulated moulin hydrographs are input to the SHAKTI subglacial hydrologic model to simulate diurnally varying subglacial effective-pressure variations in the vicinity of a single moulin. Overall, all three routing models produce more realistic moulin discharges than simply using RCM runoff outputs without surface routing but produce significant differences in peak moulin discharge and time to peak. In particular, the RWF yields later, smaller peak moulin discharges than the SUH or SRLF due to its representation of slow interfluve flow between supraglacial meltwater channels, and it can readily accommodate the seasonal evolution of supraglacial stream and river networks. Differences among the three routing models are reflected in a series of simple idealized subglacial hydrology simulations that yield different diurnal effective-pressure amplitudes; however, the supraglacial hydrologic system acts as short-term storage for surface meltwater, and the temporal mean effective pressure is relatively consistent across routing models.

Kang Yang↗