View
216
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
GOME-2 Polarisation Study
First results
L.G. Tilstra (1,2), I. Aben (1), P. Stammes (2)
(1)SRON; (2)KNMI
EUMETSAT, Darmstadt, 29-06-2007
2
OverviewOverview
1.1. Q/I versus (Q/I)Q/I versus (Q/I)ssss
2.2. verification: forward scan versus backward scan pixelsverification: forward scan versus backward scan pixels
3.3. verification: PMD readouts versus “187.5 ms subpixels”verification: PMD readouts versus “187.5 ms subpixels”
4.4. special points where Q/I =P∙cos(2special points where Q/I =P∙cos(2χχ)= 0 owing to:)= 0 owing to:
- cos(2- cos(2χχssss) = 0) = 0
- backscatter geometry- backscatter geometry
3
1: Q/I versus (Q/I)1: Q/I versus (Q/I)ssss
GOME-2 polarisation measurements: 256 PMD readouts per scan (in 15 spectral bands). A scan lasts exactly 6 seconds, of which 4.5 seconds in forward scan, and the remaining 1.5 seconds in backward scan. Data: one level-1B orbit (actually consisting of 3-min. “chuncks” of data) of 13-APR-2007.
Total number of NADIR scans: 593 scans = 151808 polarisation values per orbit.
IDEA: 0 ≤ Q/I ≤ (Q/I)ss
Geometry in the data product is given only 32 times per scan (for the 187.5 ms subpixels).
Verification: checked (Q/I)ss on the 32-per-scan grid in the GOME-2 product with our own calculations
Interpolated viewing and solar angles to the 256-readouts-per-scan grid
Calculated (Q/I)ss on the 256-readouts-per-scan grid
[sheet “1”]
4
BAND 1 : 311 nmBAND 1 : 311 nm
distribution largely outside “physical regime”(where 0≤Q/I≤(Q/I)ss)
there is an offset problem
~70% of the data points outside interval [-1,1]
these data points ALWAYS have the same value of –2147.4836
reported wavelengths: same value when wrong
reported errors: ALWAYS equal to 0.065535
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
5
BAND 2 : 314 nmBAND 2 : 314 nm
offset problem smaller
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
6
BAND 3 : 319 nmBAND 3 : 319 nm
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
7
BAND 4 : 325 nmBAND 4 : 325 nm
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
8
BAND 5 : 332 nmBAND 5 : 332 nm
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
9
BAND 6 : 354 nmBAND 6 : 354 nm
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
10
BAND 7 : 381 nmBAND 7 : 381 nm
distribution again outside “physical regime”, even for (Q/I)ss far from 0
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
11
BAND 8 : 413 nmBAND 8 : 413 nm
similar
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
12
BAND 9 : 482 nmBAND 9 : 482 nm
looks pretty ok
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
13
BAND 10 : 558 nmBAND 10 : 558 nm
Looks ok: not a lot of measurements in the unphysical regime, and spread around Q=0 is smaller than before
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
14
BAND 11 : 621 nmBAND 11 : 621 nm
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
15
BAND 12 : 749 nmBAND 12 : 749 nm
again somewhat out of physical regime…
“outliers” : rainbow?unphysical
regime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
16
BAND 13 : 761 nmBAND 13 : 761 nm
offset
“outliers”unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
17
BAND 14 : 795 nmBAND 14 : 795 nm
offset problem
outliersunphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
18
BAND 15 : 842 nmBAND 15 : 842 nm
offset problems are quite severe
again a lot of outliers
BAND 15 was not working at all for older versions of the data (06-DEC-2006)
unphysicalregime
unphysicalregime
data from 13-APR-2007
19
Conclusion Q/I versus (Q/I)Conclusion Q/I versus (Q/I)ss:ss:
• At first sight, the data generally look okAt first sight, the data generally look ok• Data outside interval [-1,1] : algorithm gives up too soon?Data outside interval [-1,1] : algorithm gives up too soon?
BAND 01 (311 nm) : 69.8 % outBAND 02 (314 nm) : 38.5 % outBAND 03 (319 nm) : 27.7 % outBAND 04 (325 nm) : 21.0 % outBAND 05 (332 nm) : 18.5 % outBAND 06 (354 nm) : 17.2 % outBAND 07 (381 nm) : 16.8 % outBAND 08 (413 nm) : 14.0 % outBAND 09 (482 nm) : 12.6 % outBAND 10 (558 nm) : 12.8 % outBAND 11 (621 nm) : 13.1 % outBAND 12 (749 nm) : 12.8 % outBAND 13 (761 nm) : 13.0 % outBAND 14 (795 nm) : 13.4 % outBAND 15 (842 nm) : 13.6 % out
(and having a value of –2147.4836)
• Reported errors on Q/I are always equal to 0.065535 (for all measurements, for all bands)Reported errors on Q/I are always equal to 0.065535 (for all measurements, for all bands)• Offset-like problems can be seenOffset-like problems can be seen
20
2: Verification: forward scan versus backward scan2: Verification: forward scan versus backward scan
21
Sometimes the forward-scan measurement fails while the backward-scan measurement is ok; sometimes it is the backward-scan that is at fault.
Why are there so many errors and where do they come from? (TBD)
22
)35.1/5.4()/()/(1
1
NIQIQN
i
forwardiN
BACKWARD
non-homogeneous but otherwise normal scene:
Binning:
rather inhomogeneous scene:
Good correlation for mildly inhomogeneous scene; spread probably also determined by improper binning of ratios instead of intensities. Inhomogeneous scene: the higher the wavelength, the worse the correlation.
In conclusion, no problems related to scan direction.
23
3: Verification: PMD readouts versus 187.5 ms subpixels3: Verification: PMD readouts versus 187.5 ms subpixels
Binning:
Conclusion: As far as we can tell, there don’t appear to be any obvious problems in the mapping of the measured polarisation values of the PMD readouts (256 scan-1, 23.4 ms) to 187.5 ms subpixels (32 scan-1).
)832/256()/()/(1
1
NIQIQN
i
smalliN
BIG
24
4: Special geometries where Q/I = 04: Special geometries where Q/I = 0
1.1. Situations where cos(2Situations where cos(2χχssss) = 0 ) = 0 [or: [or: χχssss=45° or 135°] =45° or 135°]
++ many situations are found along virtually the entire orbit (because of the many situations are found along virtually the entire orbit (because of the large range of viewing angles and the small pixel sizes in scan direction)large range of viewing angles and the small pixel sizes in scan direction)
–– no physical link with data, selection of points determined by choice of no physical link with data, selection of points determined by choice of reference plane (which is the local meridian plane)reference plane (which is the local meridian plane)
–– these are special situations where (U/Q)these are special situations where (U/Q)ssss is undetermined, and the data is undetermined, and the data processor treats these situations in a special way (!!)processor treats these situations in a special way (!!)
2.2. Backscatter situations (Backscatter situations (ΘΘ = 180°) = 180°)
++ does not depend on the definition of a reference planedoes not depend on the definition of a reference plane
++ rainbow and sunglint situations are automatically filtered outrainbow and sunglint situations are automatically filtered out
–– situations are only found “around the equator” (situations are only found “around the equator” (φφ––φφ00≈180°)≈180°)
DependenciesDependencies: pixel number, VZA, SZA, VAZI, SAZI, RAZI, SCAT, CHI_SS: pixel number, VZA, SZA, VAZI, SAZI, RAZI, SCAT, CHI_SS
To be done: dependency on PMD-p and PMD-s intensityTo be done: dependency on PMD-p and PMD-s intensity
25
4.1 cos(24.1 cos(2χχssss) = 0 : pixel number (index)) = 0 : pixel number (index) [sheet “2”][sheet “2”]
half-way orbit
symmetrical... geometrical effect…?
26
4.1 cos(24.1 cos(2χχssss) = 0 : VZA) = 0 : VZA [sheet “3”][sheet “3”]
?
Viewing angle dependence?
Or just indirect?
noisy +
stable branch
27
4.1 cos(24.1 cos(2χχssss) = 0 : SCATTERING ANGLE) = 0 : SCATTERING ANGLE [sheet “5”][sheet “5”]
Indirect dependence on VZA, SZA, …?
stable branch turns into noisy branch
28
4.2 BACKSCATTERING (4.2 BACKSCATTERING (ΘΘ = 180°) = 180°): pixel number (index): pixel number (index) [sheet “6”][sheet “6”]
Mind the small range in pixel number
(compare with sheet “1”…)
Complete agreement with cos(2χss) = 0 method over the entire mutual pixel number range!
29
4.2 4.2 ΘΘ = 180° = 180°: DIRECTION OF POLARISATION CHI_SS: DIRECTION OF POLARISATION CHI_SS [sheet “8”][sheet “8”]
We find no strange behaviour at the points where χss=45° or χss=135°.
data having this geometry, where cos(2χss) = 0 and (U/Q)ss does not exist, behave similar to other data, despite alternative treatment of data processor.
therefore, the cos(2χss) = 0 method appears to be a reliable tool.
χss=45° χss=135°
Clearly, more analyses are needed to sort out the problems…
Recommended