Robin HoganJulien Delanoe
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
Variational methods for Variational methods for retrieving cloud, rain and retrieving cloud, rain and hail properties combining hail properties combining
radar, lidar and radiometersradar, lidar and radiometers
OutlineOutline• Increasingly in active remote sensing (radar and lidar), many
instruments are being deployed together, and individual instruments may measure many variables– We want to retrieve an “optimum” estimate of the state of the
atmosphere that is consistent with all the measurements– But most algorithms use at most only two instruments/variables
and don’t take proper account of instrumental errors
• The “variational” approach (a.k.a. optimal estimation theory) is standard in data assimilation and passive sounding, but has only recently been applied to radar retrieval problems– It is mathematically rigorous and takes full account of errors– Straightforward to add extra constraints and extra instruments
• In this talk, two applications will be demonstrated– Polarization radar retrieval of rain rate and hail intensity– Retrieving cloud microphysical profiles from the A-train of
satellites (the CloudSat radar, the Calipso lidar and the MODIS radiometer)
• Radiance at a particular wavelength has contributions from large range of heights
• A variational method is used to retrieve the temperature profile
PassivePassivesensingsensing Active sensingActive sensing
No attenuation With attenuation
• Isolated weighting functions (or Jacobians) so don’t need to bother with variational methods?
• With attenuation (e.g. spaceborne lidar) weighting functions are broader: variational method required
ChilboltoChilbolton 3GHz n 3GHz
radarradar: Z: Z
• We need to retrieve rain rate for accurate flood forecasts• Conventional radar estimates rain-rate R from radar reflectivity
factor Z using Z=aRb
– Around a factor of 2 error in retrievals due to variations in raindrop size and number concentration
– Attenuation through heavy rain must be corrected for, but gate-by-gate methods are intrinsically unstable
– Hail contamination can lead to large overestimates in rain rate
ChilboltoChilbolton 3GHz n 3GHz
radarradar: : ZZdrdr
• Differential reflectivity Zdr is a measure of drop shape, and hence drop size: Zdr = 10 log10 (ZH /ZV)– In principle allows rain rate to be retrieved to 25%– Can assist in correction for attenuation
• But– Too noisy to use at each range-gate– Needs to be accurately calibrated– Degraded by hail ZV
ZH
1 mm
3 mm
4.5 mm
ChilboltoChilbolton 3GHz n 3GHz
radarradar: : dpdp
phase shift
• Differential phase shift dp is a propagation effect caused by the difference in speed of the H and V waves through oblate drops– Can use to estimate attenuation– Calibration not required– Low sensitivity to hail
• But– Need high rain rate– Low resolution information:
need to take derivative but far too noisyto use at each gate: derivative can be negative!
• How can we make the best use of the Zdr and dp information?
Simple Simple ZZdrdr methodmethod
• Use Zdr at each gate to infer a in Z=aR1.5
– Measurement noise feeds through to retrieval
– Noise much worse in operational radars
Observations
Lookup
table
Noisy or Negative
Zdr Retrieval
Noisy or no retrievalRainrate
Variational methodVariational method• Start with a first guess of coefficient a in Z=aR1.5
• Z/R implies a drop size: use this in a forward model to predict the observations of Zdr and dp
– Include all the relevant physics, such as attenuation etc.
• Compare observations with forward-model values, and refine a by minimizing a cost function:
2
2
2
2
,,
12
2
,,
apdpdr a
api
fwdidpidp
n
i Z
fwdidridr aaZZ
J
Observational errors are explicitly included, and the
solution is weighted accordingly
For a sensible solution at low rainrate, add an a
priori constraint on coefficient a
+ Smoothness constraints
Finding the solutionFinding the solutionNew ray of dataFirst guess of x
Forward modelPredict measurements y and Jacobian H from state vector x using forward model H(x)
Compare measurements to forward modelHas the solution converged?2 convergence test Gauss-Newton iteration step
Predict new state vector: xi+1= xi+A-1{HTR-1[y-H(xi)]
+B-1(b-xi)}where the Hessian is
A=HTR-1H+B-1
Calculate error in retrievalThe solution error covariance matrix is S=A-1
No
Yes
Proceed to next ray
– In this problem, the observation vector y and state vector x are:
na
a
ln
ln 1
x
mdp
dp
mdr
dr
Z
Z
1
1
y
First guess of First guess of aa
First guess: a =200 everywhere
• Use difference between the observations and forward model to predict new state vector (i.e. values of a), and iterate
Rainrate
Final iterationFinal iteration• Zdr and dp are well fitted by forward model at
final iteration of minimization of cost function
Rainrate
• Retrieved coefficient a is forced to vary smoothly– Prevents random noise in measurements feeding through into
retrieval (which occurs in the simple Zdr method)
Enforcing smoothnessEnforcing smoothness• In range: cubic-spline basis functions
– Rather than state vector x containing “a” at every range gate, it is the amplitude of smaller number of basis functions
– Cubic splines solution is continuous in itself, its first and second derivatives
– Fewer elements in x more efficient!
Representing a 50-point function by 10 control points
• In azimuth: Two-pass Kalman smoother– First pass: use one ray as a constraint on the retrieval at the
next (a bit like an a priori)– Second pass: repeat in the reverse direction, constraining
each ray both by the retrieval at the previous ray, and by the first-pass retrieval from the ray on the other side
• Observations
• Retrieval– Note:
validation required!
Forward-model values at final iteration are essentially least-squares fits to the observations, but without instrument noise
Full scan from Full scan from ChilboltonChilbolton
Nominal Zdr error of ±0.2 dB Additional random error of ±1 dB
Response to observational Response to observational errorserrors
What if we What if we use only use only ZZdrdr
or or dp dp ? ? Very similar retrievals: in moderate rain rates, much more useful information obtained from Zdr than dp
Zdr
only
dp
only
Zdr
and
dp
Retrieved a Retrieval error
Where observations provide no information, retrieval tends to a priori value (and its error)
dp only useful where there is appreciable gradient with range
• Observations
• Retrieval
Difficult case: differential attenuation of 1 dB and differential phase shift of 80º
Heavy Heavy rain andrain and
hailhail
How is hail How is hail retrieved?retrieved?
• Hail is nearly spherical– High Z but much lower Zdr than
would get for rain– Forward model cannot match both
Zdr and dp
• First pass of the algorithm– Increase error on Zdr so that rain
information comes from dp
– Hail is where Zdrfwd-Zdr
> 1.5 dB and Z > 35 dBZ
• Second pass of algorithm– Use original Zdr error
– At each hail gate, retrieve the fraction of the measured Z that is due to hail, as well as a.
– Now the retrieval can match both Zdr and dp
Distribution of Distribution of hailhail
– Retrieved rain rate much lower in hail regions: high Z no longer attributed to rain
– Can avoid false-alarm flood warnings
– Use Twomey method for smoothness of hail retrieval
Retrieved a Retrieval error Retrieved hail fraction
SummarySummary• New scheme achieves a seamless transition
between the following separate algorithms:
– Drizzle. Zdr and dp are both zero: use a-priori a coefficient
– Light rain. Useful information in Zdr only: retrieve a smoothly varying a field (Illingworth and Thompson 2005)
– Heavy rain. Use dp as well (e.g. Testud et al. 2000), but weight the Zdr and dp information according to their errors
– Weak attenuation. Use dp to estimate attenuation (Holt 1988)
– Strong attenuation. Use differential attenuation, measured by negative Zdr at far end of ray (Smyth and Illingworth 1998)
– Hail occurrence. Identify by inconsistency between Zdr and dp measurements (Smyth et al. 1999)
– Rain coexisting with hail. Estimate rain-rate in hail regions from dp alone (Sachidananda and Zrnic 1987)
• Could be applied to new Met Office polarization radars– Testing required: higher frequency higher attenuation!
Hogan (2006, submitted to J. Appl. Meteorol.)
TheTheA-trainA-train
• The CloudSat radar and the Calipso lidar were launched on 28th April 2006
• They join Aqua, hosting the MODIS, CERES, AIRS and AMSU radiometers
• An opportunity to tackle questions concerning role of clouds in climate
• Need to combine all these observations to get an optimum estimate of global cloud properties
13.10 UTC 13.10 UTC June 18June 18thth
Scotland EnglandLakedistrict
Isle of Wight France
MODIS RGB composite
Scotland EnglandLakedistrict
Isle of Wight France
MODIS Infrared window
13.10 UTC 13.10 UTC June 18June 18thth
Scotland EnglandLakedistrict
Isle of Wight France
Met Office rain radar network
13.10 UTC 13.10 UTC June 18June 18thth
Eastern RussiaJapanSea of JapanEast China Sea
• Calipso lidar
• CloudSat radar
Molecular scattering
Aerosol from China?
CirrusMixed-phase
altocumulus
Drizzling stratocumulus
Non-drizzling stratocumulus
Rain
7 June 2006
5500 km
MotivationMotivation• Why combine radar, lidar and radiometers?
– Radar ZD6, lidar ’D2 so the combination provides particle size– Radiances ensure that the retrieved profiles can be used for
radiative transfer studies
• Some limitations of existing radar/lidar ice retrieval schemes (Donovan et al. 2000, Tinel et al. 2005, Mitrescu et al. 2005)– They only work in regions of cloud detected by both radar and lidar– Noise in measurements results in noise in the retrieved variables– Eloranta’s lidar multiple-scattering model is too slow to take to
greater than 3rd or 4th order scattering– Other clouds in the profile are not included, e.g. liquid water clouds– Difficult to make use of other measurements, e.g. passive radiances – Difficult to also make use of lidar molecular scattering beyond the
cloud as an optical depth constraint– Some methods need the unknown “lidar ratio” to be specified
• A “unified” variational scheme can solve all of these problems
Why not invert the lidar Why not invert the lidar separately?separately?
• “Standard method”: assume a value for the extinction-to-backscatter ratio, S, and use a gate-by-gate correction – Problem: for optical depth >2 is excessively sensitive to choice of S– Exactly the same instability identified for radar in 1954
• Better method (e.g. Donovan et al. 2000): retrieve the S that is most consistent with the radar and other constraints– For example, when combined with radar, it should produce a profile of
particle size or number concentration that varies least with range
Implied optical depth is infinite
Formulation of variational Formulation of variational schemescheme
m
m
m
n
I
I
Z
Z
0.127.8
7.8
1
1
ln
ln
y
aer1
liq1
1
ice
ice1
ice1
ln
ln
LWP
ln
ln
ln
ln
N
S
N
N
m
n
x
• Observation vector • State vector– Elements may be missing– Logarithms prevent unphysical negative values
Attenuated lidar backscatter profile
Radar reflectivity factor profile (on different grid)
Ice visible extinction coefficient profile
Ice normalized number conc. profile
Extinction/backscatter ratio for ice
Visible optical depth
Aerosol visible extinction coefficient profile
Liquid water path and number conc. for each liquid layer
Infrared radiance
Radiance differenceMicrowave radiances for precipitation?
Radar forward model and Radar forward model and a a prioripriori• Create lookup tables
– Gamma size distributions– Choose mass-area-size relationships– Mie theory for 94-GHz reflectivity
• Define normalized number concentration parameter– “The N0 that an exponential
distribution would have with same IWC and D0 as actual distribution”
– Forward model predicts Z from extinction and N0
– Effective radius from lookup table
• N0 has strong T dependence– Use Field et al. power-law as a-priori– When no lidar signal, retrieval
relaxes to one based on Z and T (Liu and Illingworth 2000, Hogan et al. 2006)
Field et al. (2005)
Lidar forward model: multiple Lidar forward model: multiple scatteringscattering
• 90-m footprint of Calipso means that multiple scattering is a problem
• Eloranta’s (1998) model – O (N m/m !) efficient for N
points in profile and m-order scattering
– Too expensive to take to more than 3rd or 4th order in retrieval (not enough)
• New method: treats third and higher orders together– O (N 2) efficient – As accurate as Eloranta
when taken to ~6th order– 3-4 orders of magnitude
faster for N =50 (~ 0.1 ms)
Hogan (Applied Optics, 2006). Code: www.met.rdg.ac.uk/clouds
Ice cloud
Molecules
Liquid cloud
Aerosol
Narrow field-of-view:
forward scattered
photons escape
Wide field-of-view:
forward scattered
photons may be returned
Radiance forward modelRadiance forward model• MODIS solar channels provide an estimate of optical depth
– Only very weakly dependent on vertical location of cloud so we simply use the MODIS optical depth product as a constraint
– Only available in daylight– Likely to be degraded by 3D cloud effects
• MODIS, Calipso and SEVIRI each have 3 thermal infrared channels in atmospheric window region– Radiance depends on vertical distribution of microphysical
properties– Single channel: information on extinction near cloud top– Pair of channels: ice particle size information near cloud top
• Radiance model uses the 2-stream source function method– Efficient yet sufficiently accurate method that includes scattering– Provides important constraint for ice clouds detected only by lidar– Ice single-scatter properties from Anthony Baran’s aggregate model– Correlated-k-distribution for gaseous absorption (from David
Donovan and Seiji Kato)
Ice cloud: non-variational Ice cloud: non-variational retrievalretrieval
• Donovan et al. (2000) algorithm can only be applied where both lidar and radar have signal
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Retrieval is accurate but not perfectly stable where lidar loses signal
Aircraft-simulated profiles with noise (from Hogan et al. 2006)
Variational radar/lidar Variational radar/lidar retrievalretrieval
• Noise in lidar backscatter feeds through to retrieved extinction
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Lidar noise matched by retrieval
Noise feeds through to other variables
……add smoothness constraintadd smoothness constraint
• Smoothness constraint: add a term to cost function to penalize curvature in the solution ( J’ = id2i/dz2)
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Retrieval reverts to a-priori N0
Extinction and IWC too low in radar-only region
……add a-priori error add a-priori error correlationcorrelation
• Use B (the a priori error covariance matrix) to smooth the N0 information in the vertical
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Vertical correlation of error in N0
Extinction and IWC now more accurate
……add visible optical depth add visible optical depth constraintconstraint
• Integrated extinction now constrained by the MODIS-derived visible optical depth
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Slight refinement to extinction and IWC
……add infrared radiancesadd infrared radiances
• Better fit to IWC and re at cloud top
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Poorer fit to Z at cloud top: information here now from radiances
ConvergenceConvergence• The solution generally
converges after two or three iterations– When formulated in terms
of ln(), ln(’) rather than ’ the forward model is much more linear so the minimum of the cost function is reached rapidly
Radar-only retrievalRadar-only retrieval
• Retrieval is poorer if the lidar is not used
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Profile poor near cloud top: no lidar for the small crystals
Use a priori as no other information on N0
Radar plus optical depthRadar plus optical depth
• Note that often radar will not see all the way to cloud top
Observations
State variables
Derived variables
Optical depth constraint distributed evenly through the cloud profile
Observed94-GHz
radar reflectivity
Observed 905-nm
lidar backscatter
Forward model radar
reflectivity
Forward model lidar backscatter
Ground-based exampleGround-based example
Lidar fails to penetrate deep ice cloud
Retrieved extinction
coefficient
Retrieved effective radius re
Retrieved normalized
number conc.
parameter N0
Error in retrieved
extinction
Lower error in regions with both radar and lidar
Radar only: retrieval tends towards a-priori
Conclusions and ongoing Conclusions and ongoing workwork
• Variational methods have been described for retrieving cloud, rain and hail, from combined active and passive sensors– Appropriate choice of state vector and smoothness constraints
ensures the retrievals are accurate and efficient– Could provide the basis for cloud/rain data assimilation
• Ongoing work: cloud– Test radiance part of cloud retrieval using geostationary-satellite
radiances from Meteosat/SEVIRI above ground-based radar & lidar– Retrieve properties of liquid-water layers, drizzle and aerosol– Incorporate microwave radiances for deep precipitating clouds– Apply to A-train data and validate using in-situ underflights– Use to evaluate forecast/climate models– Quantify radiative errors in representation of different sorts of cloud
• Ongoing work: rain– Validate the retrieved drop-size information, e.g. using a
distrometer– Apply to operational C-band (5.6 GHz) radars: more attenuation!– Apply to other radar problems, e.g. the radar refractivity method
SdSd
Banda SeaAn island of Indonesia
Antarctic ice sheet
Southern Ocean
Top Related