4 DVAR chemical data assimilation of ENVISAT chemical

BASCOE: qualitative comparison Groundstations: total column Effect of horizontal resolution Validation by Model Assimilation

Comparison with MIPAS_NLE observations: § Constraining observations § Non-constraining observations (5 %): independent nonbiased

MIP_NLE O 3 Constraining observations Non-constraining observations: not used in assimilation Validation by Model

MIP_NLE H 2 O Constraining observations Non-constraining observations: not used in assimilation Validation by

Time evolution co-located H 2 O BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation

Time evolution co-located CH 4 BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or

Time evolution co-located HCl BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite

Quantitative comparison: co-located means + std deviation BASCOE, l HALOE sunrise Validation by Model

Quantitative comparison HALOE – BASCOE MIP_NLE: co-located mean difference + std deviation sunrise Validation

Quantitative comparison: co-located means + std deviation BASCOE, l HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation

Quantitative comparison HALOE – BASCOE MIP_NLE: co-located mean difference + std deviation Validation by

NRT validation: Cloud top height Thanks to Univ Leicester Validation by Model Assimilation and/or

Conclusions § Successful assimilation of MIP_NLE, representing MIPAS_NLE state § Ozone column compares well

Slides: 15

Download presentation

4 D-VAR chemical data assimilation of ENVISAT chemical products (BASCOE): validation support issues Authors: D. Fonteyn, S. Bonjean, S. Chabrillat, F. Daerden, Q. Errera BIRA-IASB bascoe. oma. be (soon) Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 1

4 D-VAR chemical data assimilation of ENVISAT chemical products (BASCOE): validation support issues § BASCOE: v 1. 01 (57 species, psc, 5° × 5°, 37 vertical levels) § MIPAS NLE: O 3, H 2 O § MIPAS NRT all chemical species: problems reading pds-files § ECMWF analysis § Background error covariance ›› observation error covariance § Spatial correlations Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 2

BASCOE: qualitative comparison Groundstations: total column Effect of horizontal resolution Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 3

Comparison with MIPAS_NLE observations: § Constraining observations § Non-constraining observations (5 %): independent nonbiased observations, representativeness of MIPAS Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 4

MIP_NLE O 3 Constraining observations Non-constraining observations: not used in assimilation Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 5

MIP_NLE H 2 O Constraining observations Non-constraining observations: not used in assimilation Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 6

Time evolution co-located H 2 O BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 7

Time evolution co-located CH 4 BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 8

Time evolution co-located HCl BASCOE MIP_NLE and HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 9

Quantitative comparison: co-located means + std deviation BASCOE, l HALOE sunrise Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 sunset Page 10

Quantitative comparison HALOE – BASCOE MIP_NLE: co-located mean difference + std deviation sunrise Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 sunset Page 11

Quantitative comparison: co-located means + std deviation BASCOE, l HALOE Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 12

Quantitative comparison HALOE – BASCOE MIP_NLE: co-located mean difference + std deviation Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 13

NRT validation: Cloud top height Thanks to Univ Leicester Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 14

Conclusions § Successful assimilation of MIP_NLE, representing MIPAS_NLE state § Ozone column compares well with groundstation observations § Quantitative comparison with HALOE: § Expectations of MIPAS recommendations: impatience § Cloud top height ! § Chlorine budget ! MIPAS potential § Ground segment ! Coverage! pds format! Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9– 13 December 2002 Page 15