Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Level 2 data”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sea Salt and Dust Optical Depths in the Caribbean and Equatorial Western Atlantic: A Multi-technique Analysis

Many instruments and algorithms can estimate aerosol optical depth (AOD) of the atmosphere. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) onboard the Aqua spacecraft provides estimates at several wavelengths. The Synergized Optical Depth of Aerosols (SODA) algorithm utilizes the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) onboard the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) spacecraft and the Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) onboard the CloudSat spacecraft’s ocean returns to estimate AOD. CALIOP routinely estimates AOD for all individual layers detected within a column and these can be summed to generate a total column approximation. With the release of the Version 4.51 Lidar Level 2 data products in October 2023, direct estimates of total column optical depth are now derived using the Ocean Derived Column Optical Depths (ODCOD) algorithm. In this poster we investigate the multispectral AOD estimates, and derived Angstrom exponents of marine sea salt and dust provided by MODIS, SODA, CALIOP, and ODCOD in a major dust transport and deposition region of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean.

optical depth↗
NASA NTRS1973

Land use classification and change analysis using ERTS-1 imagery in CARETS

Land use detail in the CARETS area obtainable from ERTS exceeds the expectations of the Interagency Steering Committee and the USGS proposed standardized classification, which presents Level 1 categories for ERTS and Level 2 for high altitude aircraft data. Some Levels 2 and 3, in addition to Level 1, categories were identified on ERTS data. Significant land use changes totaling 39.2 sq km in the Norfolk-Portsmouth SMSA were identified and mapped at Level 2 detail using a combination of procedures employing ERTS and high altitude aircraft data.

Alexander, R. H.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2013

The Collection 6 'dark-target' MODIS Aerosol Products

Aerosol retrieval algorithms are applied to Moderate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensors on both Terra and Aqua, creating two streams of decade-plus aerosol information. Products of aerosol optical depth (AOD) and aerosol size are used for many applications, but the primary concern is that these global products are comprehensive and consistent enough for use in climate studies. One of our major customers is the international modeling comparison study known as AEROCOM, which relies on the MODIS data as a benchmark. In order to keep up with the needs of AEROCOM and other MODIS data users, while utilizing new science and tools, we have improved the algorithms and products. The code, and the associated products, will be known as Collection 6 (C6). While not a major overhaul from the previous Collection 5 (C5) version, there are enough changes that there are significant impacts to the products and their interpretation. In its entirety, the C6 algorithm is comprised of three sub-algorithms for retrieving aerosol properties over different surfaces: These include the dark-target DT algorithms to retrieve over (1) ocean and (2) vegetated-dark-soiled land, plus the (3) Deep Blue (DB) algorithm, originally developed to retrieve over desert-arid land. Focusing on the two DT algorithms, we have updated assumptions for central wavelengths, Rayleigh optical depths and gas (H2O, O3, CO2, etc.) absorption corrections, while relaxing the solar zenith angle limit (up to 84) to increase pole-ward coverage. For DT-land, we have updated the cloud mask to allow heavy smoke retrievals, fine-tuned the assignments for aerosol type as function of season location, corrected bugs in the Quality Assurance (QA) logic, and added diagnostic parameters such as topographic altitude. For DT-ocean, improvements include a revised cloud mask for thin-cirrus detection, inclusion of wind speed dependence in the retrieval, updates to logic of QA Confidence flag (QAC) assignment, and additions of important diagnostic information. At the same time as we have introduced algorithm changes, we have also accounted for upstream changes including: new instrument calibration, revised land-sea masking, and changed cloud masking. Upstream changes also impact the coverage and global statistics of the retrieved AOD. Although our responsibility is to the DT code and products, we have also added a product that merges DT and DB product over semi-arid land surfaces to provide a more gap-free dataset, primarily for visualization purposes. Preliminary validation shows that compared to surface-based sunphotometer data, the C6, Level 2 (along swath) DT-products compare at least as well as those from C5. C6 will include new diagnostic information about clouds in the aerosol field, including an aerosol cloud mask at 500 m resolution, and calculations of the distance to the nearest cloud from clear pixels. Finally, we have revised the strategy for aggregating and averaging the Level 2 (swath) data to become Level 3 (gridded) data. All together, the changes to the DT algorithms will result in reduced global AOD (by 0.02) over ocean and increased AOD (by 0.02) over land, along with changes in spatial coverage. Changes in calibration will have more impact to Terras time series, especially over land. This will result in a significant reduction in artificial differences in the Terra and Aqua datasets, and will stabilize the MODIS data as a target for AEROCOM studie

Aerosol retrieval algorithms↗
NASA NTRS1991

Validating a large geophysical data set - Experiences with satellite-derived cloud parameters

The goal of this study is to validate the global cloud parameters derived from the satellite-borne HIRS2 and MSU atmospheric sounding instrument measurements, and to use the analysis of these data as one prototype for studying large geophysical data sets in general. The HIRS2/MSU data set contains a total of 40 physical parameters, filling 25 MB/day; raw HIRS2/MSU data are available for a period exceeding 10 years. Validation involves developing a quantitative sense for the physical meaning of the derived parameters over the range of environmental conditions sampled. This is accomplished by comparing the spatial and temporal distributions of the derived quantities with similar measurements made using other techniques, and with model results. The need to work with Level 2 (point) data, rather than Level 3 (gridded) data for validation purposes is discussed, and some techniques developed for charting the assumptions made in deriving an algorithm and generating a code to produce geophysical quantities from measured radiances are presented.

Kahn, Ralph↗
NASA NTRS2020

High-Resolution Gridded Level 3 Aerosol Optical Depth Data from MODIS

The state-of-art satellite observations of atmospheric aerosols over the last two decades from NASA's MODIS instruments have been extensively utilized in climate change and air quality research and applications. The operational algorithms now produce level 2 aerosol data at varying spatial resolutions (1, 3, and 10 km) and level 3 data at 1 degree. The local and global applications have been benefited from the coarse resolution gridded data sets (i.e., level 3, 1 degree), as it is easier to use since data volume is low and, several online and offline tools are readily available to access and analyze the data with minimal computing resources. At the same time, researchers who require data at much finer spatial scales have to go through a challenging process of obtaining, processing, and analyzing larger volumes of data sets that require high-end computing resources and coding skills. Therefore, we have created a high spatial resolution (HRG, 0.1x0.1 degree) daily and monthly aerosol optical depth (AOD) product by combining two MODIS operational algorithms, namely Deep Blue (DB) and Dark Target (DT). The new HRG AODs meets the accuracy requirements of level 2 AOD data and provide either the same or more spatial coverage on daily and monthly scales. The data sets are provided in daily and monthly files through open Ftp server with python scripts to read and map the data. The reduced data volume with an easy to use format and tools to access the data will encourage more users to utilize the data for research and applications.

aerosol↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CERES FLASHFlux: Low Latency Data Product for Education and Applied Science Uses

The Fast Longwave and Shortwave Radiative Flux (FLASHFlux) data product was developed to provide a rapid release version of the CERES results, which are made available to the GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment) program and the applied science research communities involving in the renewable energy and agricultural sectors within a week of the satellite observations by exchanging some accuracy for speed. FLASHFlux provides two data products: 1) an hourly Level 2 Single Scanner Footprint (SSF) data separately for Terra, Aqua, and NOAA-20 observations, and 2) a daily Level 3 Time Interpolated and Spatially Averaged (TISA) 1-degree equal angle gridded data the combines Terra and Aqua observations. However, since both Terra and Aqua satellites are nearing end of life, the FLASHFlux data product will begin to transition to utilizing NOAA-20 observation in the TISA data product. The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on board the NOAA-20 and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on board the Aqua satellites have different optics and spectral channels. We quantify the differences in the Level 2 SSF data products between the two satellites over a few sample months for cloud and radiative flux quantities for both the shortwave (solar wavelengths) and longwave (thermal infrared wavelengths) at TOA and surface. In addition, we also assess the impact of using NOAA-20 in place of Aqua in the Level 3 FLASHFlux TISA daily product on the TOA and surface radiative fluxes. Additionally, we highlight use case of FLASHFlux data product in combination with CERES EBAF to assess the Earth’s Radiation Budget, the accuracy of FLASHFlux data product compares to Surface sites measurement, and users of the FLASHFlux data through the POWER (Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources) program.

PC Sawaengphokhai↗
NASA NTRS1998

Nimbus/TOMS Science Data Operations Support

Projected goals include the following: (1) Participate in and provide analysis of laboratory and in-flight calibration of LTV sensors used for space observations of backscattered LTV radiation; (2) Provide support to the TOMS Science Operations Center, including generating instrument command lists and analysis of TOMS health and safety data; (3) Develop and maintain software and algorithms designed to capture and process raw spacecraft and instrument data, convert the instrument output into measured radiance and irradiances, and produce scientifically valid products; (4) Process the TOMS data into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 data products; (5) Provide analysis of the science data products in support of NASA GSFC Code 916's research.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

Nimbus/TOMS Science Data Operations Support

1. Participate in and provide analysis of laboratory and in-flight calibration of UV sensors used for space observations of backscattered UV radiation. 2. Provide support to the TOMS Science Operations Center, including generating instrument command lists and analysis of TOMS health and safety data. 3. Develop and maintain software and algorithms designed to capture and process raw spacecraft and instrument data, convert the instrument output into measured radiance and irradiances, and produce scientifically valid products. 4. Process the TOMS data into Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 data products. 5. Provide analysis of the science data products in support of NASA GSFC Code 916's research.

Childs, Jeff↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Source Application of Fusing Aerosol Products from GEO and LEO Satellites

Retrieving aerosol optical depths (AODs) from sun-synchronous polar orbiting (aka low earth orbit, LEO) satellites, such as MODISs, and VIIRSs, OMI, TROPOMI, etc, has become well-established as a tool for extracting information on particulate matter (PM) and related processes in the atmosphere. However, with recently launched geostationary satellites (GEO), such as GOES-16/17/18, and Himawari-8/9, and Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) they provide a much higher temporal resolution (order of 10 minutes), typically an image once or more per hour during daylight compared to LEO once per day. By combining these observations, we may be able to characterize the diurnal cycle of global AOD at the local, regional and global scale. While the science community is still exploring the new data from GEO observations, we have been thinking about how to properly combine/merge/fuse those data considering differences in their spatial and temporal resolutions. However, this poses a “Big Data” challenge. The big data challenge is not just about data storage, but also about data discoverability, and accessibility, and even more, about data migration/mirroring in the cloud-computing environment. This paper is merely showing some of the efforts and approaches we have attempted in fusing six satellites’ Level 2 aerosol data (three are from GEO (GOES-16/17 and Himawari-8), and the other three are from LEO (TERRA/MODIS, AQUA/MODIS, SNPP-VIIRS) from Dark Target (DT) aerosol retrieval algorithm. Having the on-demand capability of fusing remote sensing products onto the desired temporal and spatial domain enables researchers and application practitioners to better manipulate and work with satellite and sensor data. It is our hopeWe hope that by making such an open-source package, and the accompanying functionality, the scientific community will be granted easier access to aerosol data processing resources. The MEaSUREs Program (Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments) expands our understanding of the Earth's current system through atmospheric and surface measurements. In an effort to aid the scientific research component and improve open source methods, this project developed Python code for fusing six satellite Level 2 aerosol data (three are from geostationary satellites (GEO), and the other three are from low earth orbital satellites (LEO)) from Dark Target Aerosol Retrieval Algorithm.

Jennifer Wei↗
NASA NTRS2016

What's NEW at the GES DISC: Evolution of Data Management and Services for Aura Mission and Beyond

GES DISC world. Aura data usage and trend. Aura data users requests. GES DISC update (before/after); New Access method (ftp to http) with Earthdata Login System, New Website (DISC/Mirador to New Interface), New Giovanni (Giovanni to Now Federated). GES DISC support beyond Aura Mission; Multi-sensor coincident data subsets, Level 2 support (Sub-setter, Visualization), Data List.

metrics↗