GSICS in CMA. Peng ZHANG, Xiuqing Hu, Ling Sun, Lin Chen, Na Xu, Yuan Li, Chengli Qi, Qiang Guo etc

Transcription

1 GSICS in CMA Peng ZHANG, Xiuqing Hu, Ling Sun, Lin Chen, Na Xu, Yuan Li, Chengli Qi, Qiang Guo etc National Satellite Meteorological Center, CMA July 15-16, Tokyo, Japan

2 Outline GSICS history in CMA Current tasks for calibration Latest progress Future Plan National Satellite Meteorological Center,CMA

3 1. GSICS history in CMA The CMA GSICS Processing and Research Center (GPRC) was established in Actions have been taken in response to CGMS recommendations to establish the near real-time monitoring for the instrument performance. to provide explanation for significant discrepancies in satellite inter-calibration. to generate long-term satellite-based climatology

4 Before 2005: The FY-2A/2B IR calibration based on Vicarious Calibration using Qinghai Lake had no real-time/near real-time operational calibration. 2005: FY-2C is operationally calibrated based on inter-calibration using AVHRR and HIRS since : FY-2D is operationally calibrated based on inter-calibration using AVHRR and HIRS. 2009: FY-2C/2D GSICS IR calibration experiment using the AIRS and IASI since Oct., 2009.Development of onboard half-optical BB calibration model based on GSICS reference standard. 2011: FY-2D/2E operational calibration monitoring test using GSICS IR calibration since May, : FY-2E GSICS GEO-LEO IASI results has become the operational input of L1 calibration LUT instead of AVHRR/HIRS.FY-2F operational calibration has been based on onboard blackbody and moon observation with diurnal change since July, : All FY-2 serials satellites will be calibrated using on-board blackbody and these operational calibration. GSICS calibration is still used to monitoring the calibration bias using AIRS/IASI or CrIS

5 2. Current Tasks for Calibration GEO (VNIR, TIR) GSICS Predictor for FY-2C/D/E (old in operation) CIBLE Method with onboard blackbody for FY-2D/E/F (new in operation) GSICS correction for archived data as monitoring method VNIR inter-calibration baseline algorithm / hierarchical procedure LEO (UV, VNIR, TIR, MW) Diffuser onboard for UV on SBUS and TOU in operation Inter-calibrating SBUS, TOU of the FY-3A/B with SBUV/TOMS Inter-calibrating VIRR, MERSI of the FY-3A/B with AVHRR/MODIS/MERIS Onboard blackbody calibration with warm mirror correction for MWRI of the FY-3B Inter-calibrating MWRI of the FY-3B with AMSR etc. Onboard blackbody calibration for VASS (IRAS/MWTS/MWHS) of the FY- 3A/B Inter-calibrating VASS of the FY-3A/B with ATOVS Inter-calibrating ERM and SIM of the FY-3A/B with CERES

6 Field Campaign field campaign each year for VNIR, TIR and MW Pre-launch calibration standard procedure for the flight model of each instruments (UV, VNIR, TIR, MW) Others Vicarious calibration with RTM simulations for all bands DCC for VNIR bands Global Multi-site Monitoring for VNIR bands O-B

7 Field Campaign Desert Gobi (VNIR) Canopy June 15-16, Puer Tokyo, Japan (MW) Lake Qinghai (TIR)

8 Benchmark measurements in Beijing Atmospheric Spectrum Observation Laboratory Integral Sphere Reference Lamp Reference Diffuser

9 3. Latest progress CMA GSICS website The new CMA GPRC website ( ) is opened in March All information about the FY satellite sensors and calibration can be obtained from this website

10 Instrument Performance Monitoring

11 Satellite SNO Orbit Prediction

12 FY-2E Satellite Operational Calibration Accuracy Monitoring Cross-Calibration with AVHRR/HIRS Cross-Calibration with IASI Recommended by GSICS

13 FY 2D/2E/VISSR calibration bias with respect to Aqua/AIRS reference. The bias of IR1,IR2 and IR3 are shown by red, green, and blue points in 290 K (IR1 and IR2) or 250K (IR3) reference scene

14 Calibration of Inner Blackbody corrected by Lunar Emission (CIBLE) Lunar Obs. in TIR band Latest Progress since July, = CIBLE Inner Blackbody Important Milestones for the Operational Calibration (OC) of FY-2 Serial Satellites CIBLE has been in operation for FY-2F satellite since 21 July, 2012 CIBLE has been in operation for FY-2E satellite since 27 March, 2013 CIBLE has been in operation for FY-2D satellite since 21 May, 2013 The latest calibration results of CIBLE can be acquired in two ways: S-VISSR stream at the beginning of No.201 scanning line. (about 2 minutes later) NOM file (*.hdf) at the calibration data layer

15 FY-2E Satellite IR1 CIBLE Accuracy Monitoring in 2012 Cal. Bias:

16 FY 2E Shielded by the Moon FY 2D Radiant Cooler Switched (93K 100K) Shielded by the Moon operation

17 FY-3 3 GSICS Activity

18 TBB-FY3B+IRAS /K TBB-FY3B+IRAS /K Y= X R2= linear Langley Regression:sample number= TBB-MetopA+IASI /K linear Langley Regression:sample number=1293 Y= X R2= TBB-MetopA+IASI /K TBB Comparison offy3b+iras-metopa+iasi@12-nov-2012~30-nov TBB Bias / K um TBB-IASI / K TBB Comparison offy3b+iras-metopa+iasi@12-nov-2012~30-nov TBB Bias / K um TBB-IASI / K FY3B/IRAS-METOPA/IASI CH1~10 Left: intercomparison regression Right: BT bias Time: ~

19 FY3B/IRAS-METOPA/IAS CH11~20 Left: intercomparison regression Right: BT bias Time: ~

20 FY-3B/IRAS Inter-Cal results with IASI TBB Bias / K channel number

21 Nonlinear Evaluation of FY3 VIRR by IASI InterCal FY3A/VIRR Large Nonlinearity of FY-3A/VIRR leads to significant error of BTD11-12 FY3A/VIRR FY3B/VIRR Nonlinearity of FY-3B/VIRR is much smaller than FY-3A FY3B/VIRR

22 MERSI Multisite calibration Monitoring Gobi and desert targets: Dunhuang, Libya1, Libya4 and Arabia2; ocean site: Lanai (MOBY). TOA radiation calculation similar as CRCS VC, but without in situ measurements Dunhuang ( N, E) Libya1 (24.42 N, E) Libya4 (28.55 N, E) Arab2 (20.13 N, E) Lanai (20.49 N, E)

23 Calibration reference evaluation B1 645nm Y=0.99X+0.01 R 2 =0.99 M=0.008 S=0.007 N= B2 858nm Y=0.99X+0.01 R 2 =1.00 M=0.004 S=0.008 N= RefFactor est Dunhuang Libya1 0.1 Libya4 Arabia RefFactor mea RefFactor est Dunhuang 0.2 Libya1 0.1 Libya4 Arabia RefFactor mea 100*(Ref est -Ref mea )/Ref mea B1(645nm): Mean=2.87 Std=2.93 B2(858nm): Mean=1.34 Std=2.63 B3(469nm): Mean=3.64 Std=3.61 B4(555nm): Mean=5.00 Std=3.08 B5(1240nm): Mean=0.70 Std=2.72 B6(1640nm): Mean=2.10 Std=2.00 B7(2130nm): Mean=4.04 Std=2.81 B8(412nm): Mean=-2.40 Std=4.38 B9(443nm): Mean=-1.80 Std=3.68 B10(488nm): Mean=3.64 Std= Band RefFactor est B3 469nm Y=1.00X+0.01 R 2 =0.95 M=0.006 S=0.007 N=865 Dunhuang 0.1 Libya1 Libya4 Arabia RefFactor mea RefFactor est B4 555nm Y=0.99X+0.01 R 2 =0.99 M=0.011 S=0.006 N=865 Dunhuang 0.1 Libya1 Libya4 Arabia RefFactor mea The mean relative bias is within 5% for the first ten bands with central wavelengths from 0.4 to 2.1 um, and the standard deviation ranges from 2% to 4% with relatively large variances in the blue spectral region. Sun, L., Hu, X., Guo, M.,et al., IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, 50(12), /TGRS (2012)

24 MERSI Degradation monitoring using Multisite Wavelength decreasing,0.41~0.86um Wavelength decreasing,0.41~0.86um um 1.03 um The sensor response presents a linear varying trend with seasonal patterns. For most bands from green to near infrared, the responses tend to be lower from November to February than from May to August, especially for the red and near infrared spectral region, e.g., band 3 (650 nm), 4 (865 nm), 13 (650 nm), 14 (685 nm), 15 (765 nm), and 16 (865 nm). However, the phenomenon tends to be different for blue bands, e.g., bands 1 (470 nm), 8 (412 nm), and 9 (443 nm)

25 Normalized Response Normalized Response Degradation monitoring using DCC method DCC can be identified by MERSI infrared brightness temperature (< 205 K) within ± 20 N, and the response degradation of MERSI RSBs are derived by DCC monitoring on a monthly basis Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Month Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. Sep.Nov Jan.Mar.May Jul. B B B B B B B B B11 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B20 CW(um) CW(um) Chen, L., Hu, X., Xu N., et al., Twenty eighth Chinese Meteorological Society Annual Meeting Proceedings (2011). (in Chinese)

26 O-B Method MWTS/FY-3A Channel 2 Bias Observation Simulation with BC

27 FY3 data (MWTS, MWHS, IRAS, MWRI) simulation bias by ECMWF IFS and comparison with EOS and Metop

28 IRAS/FY-3B HIRS/NOAA-18 brightness temperature observation minus CRTM simulation (O-B)

29 IRAS to HIRS

30 4. Future Plan CMA GPRC Website Framework & Status With in the near future, we will focus on FY-3 inter-calibration analysis and stable targets monitoring. Green: Completed; Blue : Partly Completed; Red : Under Building;

31 Unified Calibration Strategy and Dream for all of FY Sensors

32