Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Level 2”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2011

Evaluation of SMAP Level 2 Soil Moisture Algorithms Using SMOS Data

The objectives of the SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) mission are global measurements of soil moisture and land freeze/thaw state at 10 km and 3 km resolution, respectively. SMAP will provide soil moisture with a spatial resolution of 10 km with a 3-day revisit time at an accuracy of 0.04 m3/m3 [1]. In this paper we contribute to the development of the Level 2 soil moisture algorithm that is based on passive microwave observations by exploiting Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellite observations and products. SMOS brightness temperatures provide a global real-world, rather than simulated, test input for the SMAP radiometer-only soil moisture algorithm. Output of the potential SMAP algorithms will be compared to both in situ measurements and SMOS soil moisture products. The investigation will result in enhanced SMAP pre-launch algorithms for soil moisture.

Bindlish, Rajat↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Proposed Extension to the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity Level 2 Algorithm for Mixed Forest and Moderate Vegetation Pixels

The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS)mission, launched in November 2009, provides global maps of soil moisture and ocean salinity by measuring the L-band (1.4 GHz) emission of the Earth's surface with a spatial resolution of 40-50 km.Uncertainty in the retrieval of soilmoisture over large heterogeneous areas such as SMOS pixels is expected, due to the non-linearity of the relationship between soil moisture and the microwave emission. The current baseline soilmoisture retrieval algorithm adopted by SMOS and implemented in the SMOS Level 2 (SMOS L2) processor partially accounts for the sub-pixel heterogeneity of the land surface, by modelling the individual contributions of different pixel fractions to the overall pixel emission. This retrieval approach is tested in this study using airborne L-band data over an area the size of a SMOS pixel characterised by a mix Eucalypt forest and moderate vegetation types (grassland and crops),with the objective of assessing its ability to correct for the soil moisture retrieval error induced by the land surface heterogeneity. A preliminary analysis using a traditional uniform pixel retrieval approach shows that the sub-pixel heterogeneity of land cover type causes significant errors in soil moisture retrieval (7.7%v/v RMSE, 2%v/v bias) in pixels characterised by a significant amount of forest (40-60%). Although the retrieval approach adopted by SMOS partially reduces this error, it is affected by errors beyond the SMOS target accuracy, presenting in particular a strong dry bias when a fraction of the pixel is occupied by forest (4.1%v/v RMSE,-3.1%v/v bias). An extension to the SMOS approach is proposed that accounts for the heterogeneity of vegetation optical depth within the SMOS pixel. The proposed approach is shown to significantly reduce the error in retrieved soil moisture (2.8%v/v RMSE, -0.3%v/v bias) in pixels characterised by a critical amount of forest (40-60%), at the limited cost of only a crude estimate of the optical depth of the forested area (better than 35% uncertainty). This study makes use of an unprecedented data set of airborne L-band observations and ground supporting data from the National Airborne Field Experiment 2005 (NAFE'05), which allowed accurate characterisation of the land surface heterogeneity over an area equivalent in size to a SMOS pixel.

Panciera, Rocco↗
NASA NTRS2018

CALIPSO IIR Version 2 Level 1b Calibrated Radiances: Analysis and Reduction of Residual Biases in the Northern Hemisphere

Version 2 of the Level 1b calibrated radiances of the Imaging Infrared Radiometer (IIR) on board the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite has been released recently. This new version incorporates corrections of small but systematic seasonal calibration biases previously revealed in Version 1 data products mostly north of 30° N. These biases – of different amplitudes in the three IIR channels 8.65 µm (IIR1), 10.6 µm (IIR2), and 12.05 µm (IIR3) – were made apparent by a striping effect in images of IIR inter-channel brightness temperature differences (BTDs) and through seasonal warm biases of nighttime IIR brightness temperatures in the 30–60° N latitude range. The latter were highlighted through observed and simulated comparisons with similar channels of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board the Aqua spacecraft. To characterize the calibration biases affecting Version 1 data, a semi-empirical approach is developed, which is based on the in-depth analysis of the IIR internal calibration procedure in conjunction with observations such as statistical comparisons with similar MODIS/Aqua channels. Two types of calibration biases are revealed: an equalization bias affecting part of the individual IIR images and a global bias affecting the radiometric level of each image. These biases are observed only when the temperature of the instrument increases, and they are found to be functions of elapsed time since night-to-day transition, regardless of the season. Correction coefficients of Version 1 radiances could thus be defined and implemented in the Version 2 code. As a result, the striping effect seen in Version 1 is significantly attenuated in Version 2. Systematic discrepancies between nighttime and daytime IIR–MODIS BTDs in the 30–60° N latitude range in summer are reduced from 0.2 K in Version 1 to 0.1 K in Version 2 for IIR1–MODIS29. For IIR2–MODIS31 and IIR3–MODIS32, they are reduced from 0.4 K to close to zero, except for IIR3–MODIS32 in June, where the night-minus-day difference is around −0.1 K.

Garnier, Anne↗
NASA NTRS2014

Exploring NASA OMI Level 2 Data With Visualization

Satellite data products are important for a wide variety of applications that can bring far-reaching benefits to the science community and the broader society. These benefits can best be achieved if the satellite data are well utilized and interpreted, such as model inputs from satellite, or extreme events (such as volcano eruptions, dust storms, etc.).Unfortunately, this is not always the case, despite the abundance and relative maturity of numerous satellite data products provided by NASA and other organizations. Such obstacles may be avoided by allowing users to visualize satellite data as images, with accurate pixel-level (Level-2) information, including pixel coverage area delineation and science team recommended quality screening for individual geophysical parameters. We present a prototype service from the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) supporting Aura OMI Level-2 Data with GIS-like capabilities. Functionality includes selecting data sources (e.g., multiple parameters under the same scene, like NO2 and SO2, or the same parameter with different aggregation methods, like NO2 in OMNO2G and OMNO2D products), user-defined area-of-interest and temporal extents, zooming, panning, overlaying, sliding, and data subsetting, reformatting, and reprojection. The system will allow any user-defined portal interface (front-end) to connect to our backend server with OGC standard-compliant Web Mapping Service (WMS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS) calls. This back-end service should greatly enhance its expandability to integrate additional outside data-map sources.

Level 2↗
NASA NTRS2014

Exploring NASA OMI Level 2 Data With Visualization

Satellite data products are important for a wide variety of applications that can bring far-reaching benefits to the science community and the broader society. These benefits can best be achieved if the satellite data are well utilized and interpreted, such as model inputs from satellite, or extreme events (such as volcano eruptions, dust storms,... etc.). Unfortunately, this is not always the case, despite the abundance and relative maturity of numerous satellite data products provided by NASA and other organizations. Such obstacles may be avoided by allowing users to visualize satellite data as "images", with accurate pixel-level (Level-2) information, including pixel coverage area delineation and science team recommended quality screening for individual geophysical parameters. We present a prototype service from the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) supporting Aura OMI Level-2 Data with GIS-like capabilities. Functionality includes selecting data sources (e.g., multiple parameters under the same scene, like NO2 and SO2, or the same parameter with different aggregation methods, like NO2 in OMNO2G and OMNO2D products), user-defined area-of-interest and temporal extents, zooming, panning, overlaying, sliding, and data subsetting, reformatting, and reprojection. The system will allow any user-defined portal interface (front-end) to connect to our backend server with OGC standard-compliant Web Mapping Service (WMS) and Web Coverage Service (WCS) calls. This back-end service should greatly enhance its expandability to integrate additional outside data/map sources.

Aura↗
NASA NTRS2023

Comparison Between Ozone Column Depths and Methane Lifetimes Computed By One- and Three-Dimensional Models at Different Atmospheric O(2) Levels

The calculation of ozone column depth as a function of atmospheric O2concentration has been performed multiple times over the past 40 years using one-dimensional (1-D) photochemical models. Several of these calculations [1–3] have been done by the Kasting group. We refer to the current version of that model as the‘standard’1-D model (see §2). Recently, Cooke et al., henceforth C22 ,performed a similar calculation using a three-dimensional (3-D) coupled chemistry-climate model (WACCM6). They found substantially lower ozone column depths at lower pO2levels. For example, at0.01 times the present atmospheric level (PAL) of O(2), Segura et al. calculated 124 Dobson units(DU), whereas C22 calculated a mean column depth of just 66 DU—almost a factor of two lower. This comparison is shown in figure 1. C22 argued, correctly, that 3-D models should be able to do a better job on this problem than 1-D models because ozone column depths are affected by atmospheric transport, e.g. the Brewer–Dobson circulation in the stratosphere that blows ozone from the tropics towards the poles, as well as vertical transport that carries ozone downward from the stratosphere to the troposphere. Meridional transport is absent in 1-D models, and vertical transport is fixed, so model geometry almost certainly contributes to the observed discrepancies in ozone column depth. The 3-D model also has a variable tropopause height (higher at the equator, lower towards the poles), which is difficult to simulate in one dimension.

Atmospheric chemistry↗
NASA NTRS2007

Processing AIRS Scientific Data Through Level 2

The Atmospheric Infrared Spectrometer (AIRS) Science Processing System (SPS) is a collection of computer programs, denoted product generation executives (PGEs), for processing the readings of the AIRS suite of infrared and microwave instruments orbiting the Earth aboard NASA s Aqua spacecraft. AIRS SPS at an earlier stage of development was described in "Initial Processing of Infrared Spectral Data' (NPO-35243), NASA Tech Briefs, Vol. 28, No. 11 (November 2004), page 39. To recapitulate: Starting from level 0 (representing raw AIRS data), the PGEs and their data products are denoted by alphanumeric labels (1A, 1B, and 2) that signify the successive stages of processing. The cited prior article described processing through level 1B (the level-2 PGEs were not yet operational). The level-2 PGEs, which are now operational, receive packages of level-1B geolocated radiance data products and produce such geolocated geophysical atmospheric data products such as temperature and humidity profiles. The process of computing these geophysical data products is denoted "retrieval" and is quite complex. The main steps of the process are denoted microwave-only retrieval, cloud detection and cloud clearing, regression, full retrieval, and rapid transmittance algorithm.

Oliphant, Robert↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 2 TOA/Cloud Stereo parameters (MIL2TCST_V1)

The MISR Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA)/Cloud Stereo geophysical parameters include stereoscopically-derived cloud motion vectors (winds), cloud-top heights, and an accompanying cloud mask. The Stereo product geophysical parameters include a stereoscopically-derived cloud mask and cloud height on a 1.1 km grid. It also includes cloud motion vectors on a 70.4 km grid. The three types of stereo heights are: the BestWind heights are only calculated for those regions where the associated wind vectors passed the quality tests. Therefore, they have sparse coverage but since the wind correction is included, these contain our 'best guess' as to what the true heights are. The WithoutWind heights are calculated assuming a constant wind vector of zero. They have almost complete coverage and therefore form a nice 'pretty picture' of the relative cloud heights over small areas. The RawWind heights are a diagnostic product as they are calculated using all available wind vectors (even the bad ones). It is therefore recommended that one only use the Best and Without wind products. It is important to remember that the stereo matchers pick up the layer of maximum contrast, which is not necessarily the same as the highest cloud so all the stereo heights are keyed to this level of maximum contrast. Therefore, higher and thinner cirrus layers may not be detected by any of the height fields. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Longitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=1 km - < 10 km or approximately .01 degree - < .09 degree; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day; Temporal_Resolution_Range=Daily - < Weekly].

EOSDIS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 2 TOA/Cloud Stereo parameters (MIL2TCST_V2)

The MISR Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA)/Cloud Stereo geophysical parameters include stereoscopically-derived cloud motion vectors (winds), cloud-top heights, and an accompanying cloud mask. The Stereo product geophysical parameters include a stereoscopically-derived cloud mask and cloud height on a 1.1 km grid. It also includes cloud motion vectors on a 70.4 km grid. The three types of stereo heights are: the BestWind heights are only calculated for those regions where the associated wind vectors passed the quality tests. Therefore, they have sparse coverage but since the wind correction is included, these contain our 'best guess' as to what the true heights are. The WithoutWind heights are calculated assuming a constant wind vector of zero. They have almost complete coverage and therefore form a nice 'pretty picture' of the relative cloud heights over small areas. The RawWind heights are a diagnostic product as they are calculated using all available wind vectors (even the bad ones). It is therefore recommended that one only use the Best and Without wind products. It is important to remember that the stereo matchers pick up the layer of maximum contrast, which is not necessarily the same as the highest cloud so all the stereo heights are keyed to this level of maximum contrast. Therefore, higher and thinner cirrus layers may not be detected by any of the height fields. [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Longitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day].

CLOUD MASK↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 2 TOA/Cloud Albedo parameters (MIL2TCAL_V2)

The TOA/Cloud Albedo data contain albedo values, including finely-sampled or local (2.2 km) TOA albedos registered to the RLRA, and two coarsely-sampled (35.2 km resolution) TOA albedos projected to 30-km altitude. The local (2.2 km) albedos do not take the obscuration of cloud features into account, so they should only be treated as traditional albedos when the number of obscured pixels is low. The restrictive and expansive albedos are both available at 35.2 km resolution: the restrictive albedos are only calculated using the radiation upwelling from the pixel under consideration, whereas the expansive albedos use all the radiation emanating from the surrounding area. Therefore, the expansive albedo is closer to the traditional definition of top-of-atmosphere albedos. [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Longitude_Resolution=1.1 km; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day].

AM-1↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

MISR Level 2 TOA/Cloud Albedo parameters (MIL2TCAL_V1)

The TOA/Cloud Albedo data contain albedo values, including finely-sampled or local (2.2 km) TOA albedos registered to the RLRA, and two coarsely-sampled (35.2 km resolution) TOA albedos projected to 30-km altitude. The local (2.2 km) albedos do not take the obscuration of cloud features into account, so they should only be treated as traditional albedos when the number of obscured pixels is low. The restrictive and expansive albedos are both available at 35.2 km resolution: the restrictive albedos are only calculated using the radiation upwelling from the pixel under consideration, whereas the expansive albedos use all the radiation emanating from the surrounding area. Therefore, the expansive albedo is closer to the traditional definition of top-of-atmosphere albedos. [Location=GLOBAL] [Temporal_Coverage: Start_Date=2000-02-24; Stop_Date=] [Spatial_Coverage: Southernmost_Latitude=-90; Northernmost_Latitude=90; Westernmost_Longitude=-180; Easternmost_Longitude=180] [Data_Resolution: Latitude_Resolution=35.2 km; Longitude_Resolution=35.2 km; Horizontal_Resolution_Range=10 km - < 50 km or approximately .09 degree - < .5 degree; Temporal_Resolution=about 15 orbits/day].

CLOUD TEXTURE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Level 2 Milestone: Develop and Incorporate Novel Code Verification of Fundamental Equations in Gemma and Set Up Appropriate Tests

For computational physics simulations, code verification plays a major role in establishing the credibility of the results by assessing the correctness of the implementation of the underlying numerical methods. In computational electromagnetics, surface integral equations, such as the method-of-moments implementations of the electric-, magnetic-, and combinedfield integral equations, are frequently used to solve Maxwell’s equations on the surfaces of electromagnetic scatterers. These electromagnetic surface integral equations yield many code-verification challenges due to the various sources of numerical error and their possible interactions. In this report, we provide approaches to separately measure the numerical errors arising from these different error sources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these approaches in Gemma.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Completion of Level 2 FY25 milestone #9193

Future laser facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility (NIF) Enhanced Yield Capability (EYC) upgrade, or entirely new facilities (often referred to as a “Next Generation” laser facilities), will drive inertial confinement fusion (ICF) targets with higher laser energies and total laser drive powers than those currently accessible at the NIF. One of the primary concerns is the loss of driver energy or symmetry control due to unwanted laser-plasma interactions (LPIs) that can backscatter, divert, or otherwise redistribute laser drive in a deleterious manner, or pre-heat the capsule ablator or fuel through the generation of hot electrons.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗