Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-277
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-277

  13 Sep 2021

13 Sep 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal AMT.

Exploiting Aeolus Level-2B Winds to Better Characterize Atmospheric Motion Vector Bias and Uncertainty

Katherine E. Lukens1,2, Kayo Ide3, Kevin Garrett1, Hui Liu1,2, David Santek4, Brett Hoover4, and Ross N. Hoffman1,2 Katherine E. Lukens et al.
  • 1NOAA/NESDIS/Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR), College Park, Maryland, 20740, USA
  • 2Cooperative Institute for Satellite Earth System Studies (CISESS), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 20740, USA
  • 3University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 20740, USA
  • 4Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA

Abstract. The need for highly accurate atmospheric wind observations is a high priority in the science community, and in particular numerical weather prediction (NWP). To address this requirement, this study leverages Aeolus wind LIDAR Level-2B data provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) to better characterize atmospheric motion vector (AMV) bias and uncertainty, with the eventual goal of potentially improving AMV algorithms. AMV products from geostationary (GEO) and low-Earth polar orbiting (LEO) satellites are compared with reprocessed Aeolus horizontal line-of-sight (HLOS) global winds observed in August and September 2019. Winds from two of the four Aeolus observing modes are utilized for comparison with AMVs: Rayleigh-clear (derived from the molecular scattering signal) and Mie-cloudy (derived from particle scattering). For the most direct comparison, quality controlled (QC’d) Aeolus winds are collocated with quality controlled AMVs in space and time, and the AMVs are projected onto the Aeolus HLOS direction. Mean collocation differences (MCD) and standard deviation (SD) of those differences (SDCD) are determined from comparisons based on a number of conditions, and their relation to known AMV bias and uncertainty estimates is discussed. GOES-16 and LEO AMV characterizations based on Aeolus winds are described in more detail.

Overall, QC’d AMVs correspond well with QC’d Aeolus HLOS wind velocities (HLOSV) for both Rayleigh-clear and Mie-cloudy observing modes, despite remaining biases in Aeolus winds after reprocessing. Comparisons with Aeolus HLOSV are consistent with known AMV bias and uncertainty in the tropics, NH extratropics, and in the Arctic, and at mid- to upper-levels in both clear and cloudy scenes. SH comparisons generally exhibit larger than expected SDCD, which could be attributed to height assignment errors in regions of high winds and enhanced vertical wind shear. GOES-16 water vapor clear-sky AMVs perform best relative to Rayleigh-clear winds, with small MCD (-0.6 m s-1 to 0.1 m s-1) and SDCD (5.4–5.6 m s-1) in the NH and tropics that fall within the accepted range of AMV error values relative to radiosonde winds. Compared to Mie-cloudy winds, AMVs exhibit similar MCD and smaller SDCD (~4.4–4.8 m s-1) throughout the troposphere. In polar regions, Mie-cloudy comparisons have smaller SDCD (5.2 m s-1 in the Arctic, 6.7 m s-1 in the Antarctic) relative to Rayleigh-clear comparisons, which are larger by 1–2 m s-1.

The level of agreement between AMVs and Aeolus winds varies per combination of conditions including the Aeolus observing mode coupled with AMV derivation method, geographic region, and height of the collocated winds. It is advised that these stratifications be considered in future comparison studies and impact assessments involving 3D winds. Additional bias corrections to the Aeolus dataset are anticipated to further refine the results.

Katherine E. Lukens et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-277', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Oct 2021
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Katherine Lukens, 14 Oct 2021
      • RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Oct 2021
        • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Katherine Lukens, 27 Oct 2021
          • RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Oct 2021
  • RC4: 'Comment on amt-2021-277', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Nov 2021

Katherine E. Lukens et al.

Data sets

Aeolus L2B Earth Explorer data set ESA https://aeolus-ds.eo.esa.int/oads/access/

Katherine E. Lukens et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 476 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
381 79 16 476 3 34
  • HTML: 381
  • PDF: 79
  • XML: 16
  • Total: 476
  • BibTeX: 3
  • EndNote: 34
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Sep 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Sep 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 451 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 451 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 26 Nov 2021
Download
Short summary
Winds that are crucial to weather forecasting created by two different techniques – tracking satellite images (AMVs) and direct measurement of molecular and aerosol motions by Doppler lidar (Aeolus satellite winds) – are compared. We find that AMVs correspond well with Aeolus winds. The level of agreement depends on certain conditions, e.g., scene type, region, height. For example, larger differences are found in the Southern Hemisphere due to higher wind speed and higher vertical variation of wind.