Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: F. J. Schmidlin x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Thomas J. Ballinger
,
Thomas W. Schmidlin
, and
Daniel F. Steinhoff

Abstract

As an additional classification to Köppen’s climate classification for polar (E) climates, the Polar Marine (EM) climate was presented nearly five decades ago and is revisited in this paper. The EM climate was traced to the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern Ocean and recognized as wet, cloudy, and windy, especially during winter. These areas by definition are encompassed by monthly mean air temperatures of −6.7°C (20°F) and 10°C (50°F) in the coldest and warmest months of the annual cycle, respectively. Here three global reanalyses [ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim), Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), and Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) 25-yr reanalysis (JRA-25)] are used to produce a modern depiction of EM climate. General agreement is found between original and new EM boundaries, for which the poleward boundary can be approximated by the winter sea ice maximum and the equatorward boundary by the warmest month SSTs. Variability of these parameters is shown to largely dictate the EM area. A downward trend in global EM areal extent for 1979–2010 (−42.4 × 109 m2 yr−1) is dominated by the negative Northern Hemisphere (NH) EM trend (−45.7 × 109 m2 yr−1), whereas the Southern Hemisphere (SH) EM areal trend is insignificant. This observed reduction in NH EM areal extent of roughly 20% over the past three decades, largely from losses at the equatorward boundaries of these biologically rich EM zones, may not be fully compensated by poleward shifts in the EM environment due to projected warming and sea ice decline in the twenty-first century.

Full access
V. Mattioli
,
E. R. Westwater
,
D. Cimini
,
J. C. Liljegren
,
B. M. Lesht
,
S. I. Gutman
, and
F. J. Schmidlin

Abstract

During 9 March–9 April 2004, the North Slope of Alaska Arctic Winter Radiometric Experiment was conducted at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program’s (ARM) “Great White” field site near Barrow, Alaska. The major goals of the experiment were to compare microwave and millimeter wavelength radiometers and to develop forward models in radiative transfer, all with a focus on cold (temperature from 0° to −40°C) and dry [precipitable water vapor (PWV) < 0.5 cm] conditions. To supplement the remote sensors, several radiosonde packages were deployed: Vaisala RS90 launched at the ARM Duplex and at the Great White and Sippican VIZ-B2 operated by the NWS. In addition, eight dual-radiosonde launches were conducted at the Duplex with Vaisala RS90 and Sippican GPS Mark II, the latter one modified to include a chilled mirror humidity sensor. Temperature comparisons showed a nighttime bias between VIZ-B2 and RS90, which reached 3.5°C at 30 hPa. Relative humidity comparisons indicated better than 5% average agreement between the RS90 and the chilled mirror. A bias of about 20% for the upper troposphere was found in the VIZ-B2 and the Mark II measurements relative to both RS90 and the chilled mirror.

Comparisons in PWV were made between a microwave radiometer, a microwave profiler, a global positioning system receiver, and the radiosonde types. An RMS agreement of 0.033 cm was found between the radiometer and the profiler and better than 0.058 cm between the radiometers and GPS. RS90 showed a daytime dry bias on PWV of about 0.02 cm.

Full access
R. A. Ferrare
,
S. H. Melfi
,
D. N. Whiteman
,
K. D. Evans
,
F. J. Schmidlin
, and
D. O'C. Starr

Abstract

This paper examines the calibration characteristics of the NASA/GSFC Raman water vapor lidar during three field experiments that occurred between 1991 and 1993. The lidar water vapor profiles are calibrated using relative humidity profiles measured by AIR and Vaisala radiosondes. The lidar calibration computed using the AIR radiosonde, which uses a carbon hygristor to measure relative humidity, was 3%–5% higher than that computed using the Vaisala radiosonde, which uses a thin film capacitive element. These systematic differences were obtained for relative humidities above 30% and so cannot be explained by the known poor low relative humidity measurements associated with the carbon hygristor. The lidar calibration coefficient was found to vary by less than 1% over this period when determined using the Vaisala humidity data and by less than 5% when using the AIR humidity data. The differences between the lidar relative humidity profiles and those measured by these radiosondes are also examined. These lidar–radiosonde comparisons are used in combination with a numerical model of the lidar system to assess the altitude range of the GSFC lidar. The model results as well as the radiosonde comparisons indicate that for a lidar located at sea level measuring a typical midlatitude water vapor profile, the absolute error in relative humidity for a 10-min, 75-m resolution profile is less than 10% for altitudes below 8.5 km. Model results show that this maximum altitude can be extended to 10 km by increasing the averaging time and/or reducing the range resolution.

Full access
J. R. Wang
,
S. H. Melfi
,
P. Racette
,
D. N. Whitemen
,
L. A. Chang
,
R. A. Ferrare
,
K. D. Evans
, and
F. J. Schmidlin

Abstract

Simultaneous measurements of atmospheric water vapor were made by the Millimeter-wave Imaging Radiometer (MIR), Raman lidar, and rawinsondes. Two types of rawinsonde sensor packages (AIR and Vaisala) were carried by the same balloon. The measured water vapor profiles from Raman lidar, and the Vaisala and AIR sondes were used in the radiative transfer calculations. The calculated brightness temperatures were compared with those measured from the MIR at all six frequencies (89, 150, 183.3 ± 1, 183.3 ±3, 183.3 ±7, and 220 GHz). The results show that the MIR-measured brightness temperatures agree well (within ±K) with those calculated from the Raman lidar and Vaisala measurements. The brightness temperatures calculated from the AIR sondes differ from the MIR measurements by as much as 10 K, which can be attributed to low sensitivity of the AIR sondes at relative humidity less than 20%. Both calculated and the MIR-measured brightness temperatures were also used to retrieve water vapor profiles. These retrieved profiles were compared with those measured by the Raman lidar and rawinsondes. The results of these comparisons suggest that the MIR can measure the brightness of a target to an accuracy of at most ±K and is capable of retrieving useful water vapor profiles.

Full access
R. A. Ferrare
,
E. V. Browell
,
S. Ismail
,
S. A. Kooi
,
L. H. Brasseur
,
V. G. Brackett
,
M. B. Clayton
,
J. D. W. Barrick
,
G. S. Diskin
,
J. E. M. Goldsmith
,
B. M. Lesht
,
J. R. Podolske
,
G. W. Sachse
,
F. J. Schmidlin
,
D. D. Turner
,
D. N. Whiteman
,
D. Tobin
,
L. M. Miloshevich
,
H. E. Revercomb
,
B. B. Demoz
, and
P. Di Girolamo

Abstract

Water vapor mass mixing ratio profiles from NASA's Lidar Atmospheric Sensing Experiment (LASE) system acquired during the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)–First International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) Regional Experiment (FIRE) Water Vapor Experiment (AFWEX) are used as a reference to characterize upper-troposphere water vapor (UTWV) measured by ground-based Raman lidars, radiosondes, and in situ aircraft sensors over the Department of Energy (DOE) ARM Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in northern Oklahoma. LASE was deployed from the NASA DC-8 aircraft and measured water vapor over the ARM SGP Central Facility (CF) site during seven flights between 27 November and 10 December 2000. Initially, the DOE ARM SGP Cloud and Radiation Testbed (CART) Raman lidar (CARL) UTWV profiles were about 5%–7% wetter than LASE in the upper troposphere, and the Vaisala RS80-H radiosonde profiles were about 10% drier than LASE between 8 and 12 km. Scaling the Vaisala water vapor profiles to match the precipitable water vapor (PWV) measured by the ARM SGP microwave radiometer (MWR) did not change these results significantly. By accounting for an overlap correction of the CARL water vapor profiles and by employing schemes designed to correct the Vaisala RS80-H calibration method and account for the time response of the Vaisala RS80-H water vapor sensor, the average differences between the CARL and Vaisala radiosonde upper-troposphere water vapor profiles are reduced to about 5%, which is within the ARM goal of mean differences of less than 10%. The LASE and DC-8 in situ diode laser hygrometer (DLH) UTWV measurements generally agreed to within about 3%–4%. The DC-8 in situ frost point cryogenic hygrometer and Snow White chilled-mirror measurements were drier than the LASE, Raman lidars, and corrected Vaisala RS80H measurements by about 10%–25% and 10%–15%, respectively. Sippican (formerly VIZ Manufacturing) carbon hygristor radiosondes exhibited large variabilities and poor agreement with the other measurements. PWV derived from the LASE profiles agreed to within about 3% on average with PWV derived from the ARM SGP microwave radiometer. The agreement between the LASE and MWR PWV and the LASE and CARL UTWV measurements supports the hypotheses that MWR measurements of the 22-GHz water vapor line can accurately constrain the total water vapor amount and that the CART Raman lidar, when calibrated using the MWR PWV, can provide an accurate, stable reference for characterizing upper-troposphere water vapor.

Full access