2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
How Good are Ocean Buoy Observations of Radiative Fluxes?
R. T. Pinker, H. Wang, and Semyon A. Grodsky
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742
February 2009
For Submission to:
Geophysical Research Letters
35
36
37
Abstract
38
evaluated against ground observations over land but to a lesser extent over oceans that
39
cover larger portion of the Earth surface. In this study new surface radiative flux
40
estimates from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) are
41
evaluated against buoy measurements of downwelling SWR in the tropical oceans. As a
42
benchmark for achievable accuracies from satellites, similar evaluation is performed over
43
land against the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) observations, believed to
44
be of highest available quality. Comparable accuracy of the new satellite SWR data is
45
found over land and over oceans.
Satellite-derived surface shortwave radiation (SWR) has been extensively
46
47
1.
Introduction
48
Many attempts have been made to estimate surface shortwave radiation (SWR)
49
from satellite-observed radiances and atmospheric and surface variables, on both regional
50
and global scales [Pinker and Ewing, 1985; Ramanathan, 1986; Raschke et al., 1991;
51
Pinker and Lazlo, 1992; Zhang et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 1999; Mueller et al., 2004;
52
Rigollier et al., 2004]. Most methods are implemented with observations from
53
geostationary satellites that capture the diurnal variability of clouds but have coarser
54
spectral and spatial resolution than low temporal resolution polar orbiting satellites.
55
Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)
56
[Rossow and Schiffer, 1999] (version D1) are widely used for estimating surface radiative
57
fluxes at global scale. They are provided at a nominal resolution of 2.5◦ at 3-hourly time
58
intervals and use sampled pixels at 30 km spatial resolution. The inference schemes that
2
59
utilize the ISCCP data require auxiliary information from independent sources that are
60
not consistent in space and time with the satellites observations used to derive the SWR.
61
In this study we use three years (2003-2005) of global scale estimates of SWR
62
and Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) (0.4-0.7 µm) at 1ox1o grid cells as
63
derived from MODIS observations from Terra and Aqua satellites [Wang and Pinker,
64
2009]. They are evaluated against a comprehensive set of buoy observations over the
65
oceans (SWR only) and ground observations over land (SWR and PAR).
66
67
2.
Satellite estimates of surface SWR fluxes
68
2.1
Satellite observations
69
The MODIS instrument is a state-of-the-art sensor with 36 spectral bands with an
70
onboard calibration of both solar and infrared bands. The wide spectral range (0.41-14.24
71
µm), frequent global coverage (one to two days revisit), and high spatial resolution (250
72
m for two bands, 500m for five bands and 1000m for 29 bands), permit global
73
monitoring of atmospheric profiles, column water vapor amount, aerosol properties, and
74
clouds, at higher accuracy and consistency than previous Earth Observation Imagers
75
[King et al., 1992]. The largest uncertainties in satellite estimates of surface SWR are due
76
to inadequate information on cloud properties such as cloud fraction, cloud optical depth,
77
and cloud thermodynamic phase. Hence, improvements in estimating SWR greatly
78
depend on better detection of cloud properties.
79
The MODIS cloud mask is applied globally at single pixel resolution; it uses 17
80
spectral bands (visible at 250m and infrared at 1000m resolution) to improve cloud
81
detection and to mitigate past difficulties experienced by sensors with coarser spatial
3
82
resolution or with fewer spectral bands [Ackerman et al., 1998]. Three bands in the
83
infrared window regions of 8-11 µm and 11-12 µm are used to differentiate cloud phase.
84
Spectral bands, including window regions in the visible and near-infrared, as well as 1.6,
85
2.1 µm shortwave infrared bands and 3.7 µm mid-wave infrared bands are used for the
86
retrieval of cloud optical depth and cloud particle effective radius. Seven channels are
87
designed to measure aerosol properties over oceans and three bands over land.
88
We use Level-3 MODIS Atmosphere Daily Global Product (MOD08_D3,
89
MYD08_D3) model input parameters that include: Optical Depth for Land and Ocean,
90
Cloud Top Pressure Day, Cloud Optical Thickness Liquid, Cloud Optical Thickness Ice,
91
Cloud Effective Radius Liquid, Cloud Effective Radius Ice, Cloud Effective Radius
92
Undetermined, Cloud Fraction Liquid, Cloud Fraction Ice, Cloud Fraction Undetermined,
93
Cloud Optical Thickness Undetermined, Total Ozone, Atmospheric Water Vapor. Clouds
94
with undetermined phase are treated as water clouds in the computation of radiative
95
fluxes.
96
Since the MODIS atmospheric water vapor is retrieved only when at least 9 out
97
of 25 Field of Views are cloud free, precipitable water from the National Centers for
98
Environmental Prediction Reanalysis Data [Kistler et al., 2000] is used for conditions
99
with large cloud fraction. Missing aerosol optical depths under cloudy conditions and
100
over arid areas are filled with information from the Multi-angle Imaging Spectro-
101
Radiometer Component Global Aerosol Product [Martonchik et al., 2002)] and monthly
102
global aerosol climatology, derived from 'typical-year' aerosol transport model results
103
[Kahn, 2001]. Spectral surface albedo on 1ox1o grid cells is taken from the Filled Land
104
Surface Albedo Product provided by the MODIS project [Moody el al., 2005]. Monthly
4
105
mean sea ice extent on 1ox1o grids from the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager is
106
provided by the NOAA National Climate Data Center [Ferraro et al., 1997]. Daily snow
107
cover data are from MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Daily Global 0.25 Degree Geographic
108
Climate-Modeling Grid [Hall et al., 2002; Riggs et al., 2005]. Surface albedo of ice over
109
oceans in visible and near-infrared is set to 0.77 and 0.33, respectively. The surface
110
elevation on 1ox1o grid is calculated from the global Digital Elevation Model adopted in
111
the Penn State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research meso-scale model
112
(known as MM5).
113
2.2
Ground observations
114
2.2.1
Ground Observations over oceans
115
In-situ measurements from the Pilot Research Moored Array in the Tropical Atlantic
116
(PIRATA) moorings in the tropical Atlantic (Bourles et al., 2008), and the Tropical
117
Atmosphere Ocean/ Triangle Trans-Ocean Buoy Network (TAO/TRITON) moorings in
118
the tropical Pacific Ocean (McPhaden et al., 1998) are used for comparisons with the
119
satellite estimates. Downwelling SWR is detected by the Eppley Laboratory
120
pyranometers that have nominal resolution 0.4 W m-2 and relative accuracy of ±2% in the
121
0-1600 W m-2 interval in laboratory conditions [Cronin and McPhaden, 1997].
122
123
2.2.2
Ground observations over land
124
Over land we used eighteen BSRN sites [Ohmura et al., 1998] from the United States,
125
Europe and Africa. Since 1992 the BSRN stations provide data for the calibration of
126
satellite-based measurements of radiative fluxes and other climate applications such as
127
validation of radiative fluxes from numerical models. As of June 2008 there are 43
5
128
stations contributing to the BSRN. The BSRN stations over the United States (previously
129
known as SURFRAD [Augustine et al., 2005]) also use independent instruments to
130
measure PAR. These observations were used to evaluate the MODIS based PAR
131
estimates.
132
133
3.
Methodology
134
A forward inference scheme was developed to derive surface, Top of the
135
Atmosphere (TOA), and atmospheric spectral shortwave radiative fluxes at global scale
136
using satellite based information [Wang and Pinker, 2009]. The model takes into account
137
all atmospheric constituents and a multi-layered structure of the atmosphere that accounts
138
for surface elevation effects and the vertical distribution of radiative fluxes. Spectral
139
fluxes such as PAR and near-infrared radiation can also be estimated. The model is
140
implemented with products from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer
141
(MODIS) sensor both on Aqua and Terra at 1ox1o grid cells on global scale, for a three
142
year period (2003-2005). The new model (UMD/SRB_MODIS) takes into account both
143
water and ice clouds, the variation of cloud particle effective radius, and their
144
corresponding optical properties by adopting a new cloud parameterization scheme. In
145
the near-infrared band three spectral intervals are used so that characterization of spectral
146
change of water absorption and cloud optical properties could be incorporated. The
147
parameterization of water vapor absorption uses a scheme based on an extensive
148
spectroscopic database and incorporates a water vapor continuum model [Edwards and
149
Slingo, 1996]. The aerosol models used include several aerosol types following Hess et
150
al. [1998]. In addition, the layered structure of the new inference scheme facilitates the
6
151
treatment of surface elevation effects. The forward approach of the new inference
152
scheme avoids intermediate steps such as narrow to broadband conversions and angular
153
corrections needed if the original satellite radiance were to be used; instead, we utilize
154
geophysical parameters derived independently from MODIS.
155
Information on Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) (0.4-0.7 µm), is
156
needed for applications dealing with biogeochemical processes such as net primary
157
productivity and ecosystem modeling [Running et al., 1999; Platt, 1986; Prentice et al.,
158
1992, Nemani et al., 2003]. When implemented with MODIS products the
159
UMD/SRB_MODIS model can estimate SWR fluxes in several spectral intervals, one of
160
which is the PAR region.
161
Ground measurements of PAR are very limited. There are far fewer ground
162
stations measuring PAR than total SWR. Satellite observations are the only source of
163
consistent information on PAR. MODIS observations have been previously applied to
164
estimate PAR using simplified radiative transfer models over land and over oceans [Van
165
Laake and Sanchez-Azofeifa, 2004]. Those simplified models are limited in their
166
capability to deal with multiple scattering by clouds and aerosols and lack transferability
167
to global scale.
168
169
170
1.
Results
To illustrate products derived from from MODIS observations we show the global
171
distribution of the time-mean surface SWR on a 1ox1o grid averaged over 2003-2005
172
(Fig.1a), while the illustration for the PAR (Fig. 1b) focuses on the July mean (averaged
173
over the three Julys) that is the peak season for the northern Hemisphere (where te
7
174
ground truth comparison is done).. These three year data sets have been evaluated against
175
the best available observations both over tropical oceans and over land.
176
In Figure 2 we show results for daily mean surface SWR fluxes against PIRATA
177
and TAO/TRITON buoy observations. Small fraction of data are eliminated from the
178
comparisons (1.1% for PIRATA and 1.3% for TAO/TRITION). The removal of extreme
179
outliers was done by eliminating cases where the difference between estimated and
180
observed flux was larger than three times the standard deviation of the differences. After
181
averaging for each buoy network and averaging in time over the three years of records
182
the bias of the time-space mean of daily DSWR is 3 and 1 W/m2 for the tropical Atlantic
183
and the tropical Pacific, respectively. The difference between instantaneous daily satellite
184
and buoy data is better characterized by corresponding RMSE that is 25 and 36 W/m2,
185
respectively. If monthly average data is used instead of daily average data, the bias
186
remains low at 2 and -1 W/m2 for the Atlantic and Pacific, correspondingly, while the
187
RMSE is reduced to 13 and 11 W/m2 which is about 5 % from the observed mean values.
188
In Figure 3 we present evaluation of daily mean surface SWR fluxes estimated
189
with the UMD/SRB_MODIS model against measurements at 18 BSRN stations over land
190
for the same time period. For daily average data (IS THIS DAILY AVERAGE OR
191
INSTANTENEOUS???), the bias is -3 W/m2 while the RMSE is 21 W/m2. Both biases
192
and RMSE are similar for the ocean and land comparisons for downwelling SWR..
193
Similar good comparison is found for daily mean surface PAR fluxes against the
194
SURFRAD (BSRN) measurements over the United States for January, 2003 to December,
195
2005 (Fig. 4). No data were excluded from the analysis. The PAR estimates agree well
196
with ground measurements, with a correlation coefficient of 0.96, a bias of 0 Wm2 and a
8
197
RMSE of 11 W/m2 (14%) for the daily time scale and coefficient of 0.99, a bias of 0
198
Wm2 and a RMSE of 5 W/m2 (6%) on a monthly time scale.
199
200
201
4.
Summary
The need for improving air-sea fluxes in atmospheric re-analyses products, which
202
are widely used to study climatic changes in the ocean and the atmosphere, has been
203
recognized (e.g., US-CLIVAR Program). A major component of these fluxes are
204
radiative.. The advantages of using reanalysis fields in climate research are that they are
205
readily available and that they provide basin-wide coverage, but their quality must always
206
be tested by independent means. Radiative fluxes are particularly difficult to obtain from
207
global atmospheric analysis models, since their cloud schemes often are unrealistic,
208
especially when relatively high temporal and spatial resolution is desired (days and 50 to
209
100 km scales). Quality assessment of the reanalysis fluxes involves comparisons with in
210
situ and satellite observations. In situ observations are sparse, however, leaving satellite
211
observations as the only quality-control tool of the fluxes on a basin scale. Satellite
212
observations provide nearly global coverage and routine sampling. The objective of this
213
study was to evaluate comprehensively satellite based estimates of radiative fluxes over
214
the oceans using the most advanced buoy observational systems. It was demonstrated the
215
there are no significant differences between the validation results over oceans when
216
compared to land. It was also shown that PAR results over land are even in better
217
agreement with ground observations than the SWR fluxes. Therefore, it is reasonable to
218
assume that similar results can be obtained over oceans where PAR measurements are as
219
yet not available.
9
220
Acknowledgement
221
We thank NFS for providing support for this work under grant ATM0631685 to the
222
University of Maryland. Support for SG is provided by the NASA OWVST. The work
223
also benefited from support under NASA grant NNG05GB35G to the University of
224
Maryland. We are greatful to the NASA Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information
225
Services Center (GES DISC) Giovanni web system for providing excellent support with
226
the MODIS data and to the various teams that produced information used in this study.
227
We also thank the anonymous Reviewers for the sincere effort to improve this
228
contribution.
229
230
References
231
Ackerman, S. A., Strabala, K., Menzel, P., Frey, R., Moeller, C., Gumley, L., Baum, B.,
232
Seeman, S. W., and Zhang, H. (1998,) Discriminating clear-sky from cloud with
233
MODIS: algorithm theoretical basis document (MOD35), J. Geo. Res. Atmos.
234
V.103, Dec. 27, 1998.
235
Augustine, J. A., G. B. Hodges, C. R. Cornwall, J. J. Michalsky, C. I. Medina (2005), An
236
update on SURFRAD - The GCOS Surface Radiation budget network for the
237
continental United States, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 22 (10), 1460-1472.
238
Cronin, M. F. and M. J. McPhaden (1997), The upper ocean heat balance in the western
239
equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992, J. Geophys.
240
Res., 102, 8533-8553.
10
241
Edwards, J. M., and A. Slingo (1996), Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I:
242
choosing a configuration for a large-scale model, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 122,
243
689–719.
244
Gupta, S. K., N. A. Ritchey, A. C. Wilber, C. H. Whitlock, G. G. Gibson, and P. W.
245
Stackhouse Jr. (1999), a climatology of surface radiation budget derived from
246
satellite data, J. Climate, 12, 2691-2710.
247
248
249
Hess, M., P. Koepke, and I. Schultz (1998), Optical Properties of Aerosols and Clouds:
The software package OPAC, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 79, 831-844.
King, M. D., Kaufman, Y. J., Menzel, W. P., and Tanré, D. (1992), Remote sensing of
250
cloud, aerosol, and water vapor properties from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
251
Spectrometer (MODIS), IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,
252
30, 2-27.
253
Martonchik, J. V., D. J. Diner, R. Kahn, T. P. Ackerman, M. M. Verstraete,
254
B. Pinty, and H. R. Gordon (1998), Techniques for the retrieval of aerosol
255
properties over land and ocean using multi-angle imaging, Transactions on
256
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 36(4), 1212– 1227. McPhaden, M. J., and
257
Coauthors (1998), The Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere observing system: A
258
decade of progress, J. Geophys. Res., (C7), 14,169-14,240.
259
Moody, E. G., M. D. King, S. Platnick, C. B. Schaaf, and F. Gao, 2005: Spatially
260
complete global spectral surface albedos: Value-Added datasets derived from
261
Terra MODIS land products. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
262
Sensing, 43, 144-158.
263
264
Mueller, R.W., Dagestad, K. F., Ineichen, P., Schroedter, M., Cros, S., Dumortier, D.,
Kuhlemann, R., Olseth, J. A., Piernavieja, C., Reise, C., Wald, L. and Heinemann,
11
265
D. (2004), Rethinking satellite based solar irradiance modeling - The SOLIS clear
266
sky module, Remote Sensing of the Environment, Vol. 91, pp. 160 – 174
267
Nemani, R. R., Charles D. Keeling, Hirofumi Hashimoto, William M. Jolly, Stephen C.
268
Piper, Compton J. Tucker, Ranga B. Myneni, Steven W. Running (2003),
269
Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982
270
to 1999, Science, 300.
271
Ohmura A., E.G. Dutton, B. Forgan, C. Froelich, H. Gilgen, H. Hegner, A. Heimo, G.
272
Koenig-Langlo, B. McArthur, G. Mueller, R. Philipona, R. Pinker, C.H. Whitlock,
273
K. Dehne, M. Wild, 1998: Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN/WCRP):
274
New precision radiometry for climate research. Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 79, 2115-2136.
275
Galen, H., M. Wild and A. Ohmura, 1998: Means and trends of shortwave incoming
276
radiation at the surface estimated from Global Energy Balance Archive data, J. of
277
Climate, 11, 2042-2061.
278
279
280
281
282
Pinker, R. and J. Ewing (1985), Modeling surface solar radiation: Model formulation and
validation, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 24, 389-401.
Pinker, R. T. and I. Laszlo (1992), Modeling surface solar irradiance for satellite
application on a global scale, J. Appl. Meteor., 31, 194-211.
Platt, T. (1986), Primary production of the ocean water column as a function of surface
283
light intensity: Algorithms for remote sensing, Deep Sea Res., 33, 149-163.
284
Ramanathan, V. (1986), Scientific use of surface radiation budget data for climate
285
studies. Surface Radiation Budget for Climate Application, J. T. Suttles and G.
286
Ohring, Eds., NASA Reference Publication 1169, 58-86
12
287
Raschke, E., Stuhlmann R., Palz W., Steemers T. C. (1991), Solar Radiation Atlas of
288
Africa, Published for the Commission of the European Communities by A.
289
Balkema, Rotterdam, 155 p.
290
Rigollier C., Lef`evre M., and Wald L. (2004), The method Heliosat-2 for deriving
291
shortwave solar radiation data from satellite images, Solar Energy, 77(2), 159–
292
169, 2004.
293
Riggs, G. A., N. DiGirolamo, D. K. Hall (2005), Comparison of MODIS Daily Global
294
Fractional Snow Cover Maps at 0.05 and 0.25 Degree Resolutions, Proceedings
295
of the 62nd Eastern Snow Conference, 7-10 June 2005, Waterloo, ON, Canada
296
297
298
299
Rossow, W. B. and R. A. Schiffer (1999), Advances in Understanding Clouds from
ISCCP, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 2261-2287.
Running, S. W., Collatz, G. J., Washburne, J., S. Sorooshian (1999), Land Ecosystems
and Hydrology, EOS Science Plan 5:197- 260.
300
Van Laake, P. E. and Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A. (2005), Simplified atmospheric radiative
301
transfer modeling for estimating incident PAR using MODIS atmosphere
302
products, Remote Sens. Environ., 91 (1), 98-113.
303
Wang, H., R. T. Pinker (2009), Shortwave Radiative Fluxes from MODIS:
304
Model Development and Implementation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres, in
305
revision.
306
Zhang, Y. C., W. B Rossow, A. A. Lacis, V. Oinas, M. I. Mishchenko (2004),
307
Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to top of atmosphere based on
308
ISCCP and other global data sets: Refinements of the radiative transfer model and
309
the input data, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D19, D19105.
13
310
311
14
312
313
Figure 1a.
1ox1o grid cells as averaged over a three year period (2003-2005).
314
315
Figure 1b.
316
317
Annual mean downwelling SWR derived from MODIS observations at
July mean surface PAR derived from MODIS observations at 1ox1o grid
cells as averaged over a three year period (2003-2005).
Figure 2.
Evaluation of daily mean downwelling SWR estimated by
318
UMD/SRB_MODIS (2003-2005) against PIRATA and TAO/TRITON
319
buoy observations. PIRATA and TAO/TRITON data are available since
320
1997/1979, respectively. Cases eliminated: 1.1% (PIRATA); 1.3%
321
(TAO/TRITON).
322
Figure 3.
Evaluation of daily mean downwelling SWR flux estimated by
323
UMD/SRB_MODIS against BSRN measurements over land (January,
324
2003-December, 2005). Cases eliminated: 1.6%.
325
Figure 4.
Evaluation of daily mean surface downwelling PAR fluxes estimated with
326
the UMD/SRB_MODIS model against the SURFRAD (BSRN)
327
measurements over the United States for January, 2003 to December, 2005.
328
15
329
330
Table 1.
Summary of evaluation results for daily mean surface SWR and PAR
331
against tropical ocean buoy and BSRN observations for January 2003-
332
December 2005.
333
Mean of
Obs.
(W/m^2)
232
212
201
81
Region
Atlantic
Pacific
Land/SWR
Land/PAR
334
335
336
Table 2.
Corr.
Coef.
Bias (%)
(W/m^2)
RMSE (%)
(W/m^2)
Num. of
Obs.
0.89
0.86
0.98
0.96
3 (1)
1 (0)
-3 (2)
0 (0)
25 (11)
36 (17)
21 (11)
11 (14)
8478
16317
11439
4391
Summary of evaluation results for monthly mean surface SWR and PAR
337
against tropical ocean buoy and BSRN observations for January 2003-
338
December 2005.
339
Region
PIRATA
TAO/TRITON
Land/SWR
Land/PAR
Mean of
Obs.
(W/m^2)
232
219
198
81
Corr.
Coef.
Bias (%)
(W/m^2)
RMSE (%)
(W/m^2)
Num. of
Obs.
0.90
0.94
0.99
0.99
2 (1)
-1 (0)
-3 (2)
0 (0)
13 (5)
11 (5)
10 (5)
5 (6)
295
776
381
146
340
341
342
16
343
344
345
Figure 1.
Left: Annual mean downwelling SWR derived from MODIS observations
346
at 1ox1o grids as averaged over a three year period (2003-2005); Right:
347
July mean surface downwelling PAR derived from MODIS observations
348
at 1ox1o grids as averaged over a three year period (2003-2005).
349
350
351
17
352
353
354
Figure 2.
Evaluation of daily mean downwelling SWR estimated by
355
UMD/SRB_MODIS (2003-2005) against PIRATA and TAO/TRITON
356
buoy observations. PIRATA and TAO/TRITON data are available since
357
1997/1979, respectively. Cases eliminated: 1.1% (PIRATA); 1.3%
358
(TAO/TRITON).
359
18
360
361
362
Figure 3.
Evaluation of daily mean downwelling SWR flux estimated by
363
UMD/SRB_MODIS against BSRN measurements over land (January,
364
2003-December, 2005). Cases eliminated: 1.6%.
365
366
367
19
368
369
370
Figure 4.
Evaluation of daily mean surface downwelling PAR fluxes estimated with
371
the UMD/SRB_MODIS model against the SURFRAD (BSRN)
372
measurements over the United States for January, 2003 to December,
373
2005.
374
20