A discussion of Radiative Transfer Models Thomas J
- Slides: 34
A discussion of Radiative Transfer Models Thomas J. Kleespies NOAA/NESDIS
Disclaimer • There will be some overlap between this presentation and this afternoon’s presentation • There will be some overlap between these two presentations and other speakers • This is good! • This presentation will be a broad brush overview of radiative transfer models relevant to data assimilation (i. e. fast and with adjoint)
Outline • • • Scattering vs absorption models Line vs fast models Generally available line models Generally available fast models Generally available scattering models Generally available general purpose models
Scattering vs Absorption models • Full radiative transfer equation – Surface emission – Atmospheric emission – Surface reflection • Downward atmospheric • Downward solar • Downward CBR – Single scattering – Multiple scattering – Solar and Thermal
Single vs Multiple Scattering
Atmospheric Emission Solar Single Scattering Atmospheric Multiple Scattering Surface Emission Surface Solar Reflection Surface diffuse reflection
General Types of Absorption Models • Line – by – Line models – Numerically integrate individual absorption lines to produce optical depth/transmittance profile as a function of wavelength • Band Models – fit to LBL at narrow spectral interval • Fast Models – Statistical fit to line-by-line model transmittance for diverse atmospheres for specific instrument bandpass
General Types of Scattering Models • Discrete Ordinate Models – Radiative intensity not a function of azimuth – N streams … bigger N, better result, more expensive • Adding/Doubling Models – Form of ray tracing with known transmission/ reflection of each layer. – Reflection and transmission of combined layers obtained by computing successive reflections between two layers. – If layers have same optical depth, referred to as doubling • Monte Carlo
Additional • Generally need a Mie code (spherical scatterers) or something like it to specify the scattering parameters • Need to pick a polydispersion of scatterers
• Multiple scattering Models generally too expensive for data assimilation • When scattering is included in data assimilation RTM, it is generally single scattering, or a few streams approximation. • This is the topic of very active research
Generally Available Scattering Models • DISORT – Discrete ordinate, N-stream plane parallel code • Fu-Liou – 2 and 4 stream radiative transfer solver • SHDOM – 1, 2, 3 D RTM , including adjoint
Steps in absorption/emission modeling • Spectroscopic Data Base – Absorber, line position, line strength, line half-width, etc. • Line model – Integrates individual lines over instrument spectral response. – Very expensive in infrared, almost trivial in microwave • Fast model – polynomial fit to LBL transmittances
Public molecular absorption databases • HITRAN – Rothman et al. – HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The original version was created at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960's). The database is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge MA, USA. • GEISA - Jacquinet-Husson et al. – GEISA is a computer-accessible spectroscopic database, designed to facilitate accurate forward radiative transfer calculations using a line-by-line and layer-by-layer approach. Maintained and developed at Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD) in France.
Absorption Lines near 15 mm
Absorption Lines Near 4. 3 mm
Microwave line absorption
Generally Available Line Models • LBLRTM – AER (Clough et al. ) – Based on FASCODE from AFGL – Supported by ARM – Widely used in US – Uses HITRAN • GENLEN 2 – Edwards – NCAR – Used in Europe – Europeans use GEISA or HITRAN
Generally available band models • MODTRAN – developed by AFGL – enhanced by private industry – based upon FASCODE/LBLRTM/HITRAN – extremely flexible in atmosphere, absorbers, geometry – extremely cumbersome data input – no adjoint available, too slow for DA – Do. D support waning
Generally Available Fast Models • Community Radiative Transfer Model-CRTM (OPTRAN) – used at NCEP/EMC, NASA, … • Radiative Transfer TOVS (RTTOV) – used at EUMETSAT, METOFFICE, others • AESFAST – used at Environment Canada • Optimal Spectral Sampling (OSS) – developed at AER, receiving some attention here
Why fast models? • Line-by-line models can take up to an hour to compute a single channel/atmosphere • Fast models take maybe a millisecond • Line-by-line models don’t have adjoints, have to do finite differencing • Fast models have analytic adjoints. We will see how to write them this afternoon.
CRTM • Based upon Optical Path TRANsmittance (Mc. Millin et al) • Includes thermal emittance, clouds, simplified scattering, CBR, solar influence, surface emissivity models, support for many instruments • Yong Han will discuss in detail on 8 Aug
OPTRAN • Predicts absorption coefficient on the absorber level (product of which is optical depth, negative exponential of that is transmittance) – arbitrary input profile • Zenith angle implicitly included in optical path • Fitted to LBLRTM/HITRAN and Leibe(89, 93) • Adjoint well developed
RTTOV • Predicts optical depth on fixed pressure levels – must interpolate input profile to the fixed levels • Must explicitly treat zenith angle • Includes thermal emittance, clouds, simplified scattering, CBR, solar influence, surface emissivity models, support for many instruments • Fitted to GENLN 2/MPM 89 -92/HITRAN (Kcarta for IASI) • Adjoint well developed
Which is better? • Depends on the situation/instrument • For a bit dated but still useful intercomparison of RTMs, see http: //collaboration. cmc. ec. gc. ca/science/ar ma/intercomparison/index. html
CRTM vs RTTOV • A friendly competition is very healthy, and results in improvements in both codes • Institutions generally like to use locally developed codes because of control issues.
Innovation This is the de-biased difference between the radiance observations and the radiances computed from the NWP model background Following statistics are from global assimilation systems, clear only.
NCEP Temperature
Metoffice Temperature
NCEP Water Vapor
Metoffice Water Vapour
ITWG Intercomparison Bias against RTM
ITWG Intercomparison
Summary • Overview of radiative transfer modeling • Emphasis on fast forward models • This afternoon I will discuss how the Jacobians are computed • You will have the opportunity to perform simple coding exercises to generate tangent linear/adjoint-jacobian code
- Jablonski diagram fluorescence
- Radiative equilibrium temperature
- Radiative equilibrium temperature
- Radiative forcing definition
- Radiative equilibrium temperature
- Introduction of fractional distillation
- What is the difference between models & semi modals?
- Thomas mocker and thomas stewart
- Skogestad half rule
- Disturbance that transfers energy
- In cold blood discussion questions
- Themes of the lady or the tiger
- Write an objective summary of "the pardoner's prologue."
- How to tell a true war story discussion questions
- Questioning and discussion techniques
- Discussion notes
- Night elie wiesel discussion questions
- The text presents the house with
- Chapter 15 a thousand splendid suns
- Simon sinek youtube golden circle
- Is beowulf italicized
- Minuhud
- Picture of dorian gray discussion questions
- Customer service discussion topics
- Effective group discussion: theory and practice
- Echo discussion questions
- Group discussion
- Thick description anthropology
- Questioning strategies to engage all learners
- De100 tma04
- Group discussion on food
- Discussion questions about god's love
- Discussion questions fahrenheit 451 part 2
- How to answer a discussion question
- Who is the judge in the crucible