Premium
Performance of Radiative Transfer Models in the Microwave Region
Author(s) -
Moradi Isaac,
Goldberg Mitchell,
Brath Manfred,
Ferraro Ralph,
Buehler Stefan A.,
Saunders Roger,
Sun Ninghai
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8996
pISSN - 2169-897X
DOI - 10.1029/2019jd031831
Subject(s) - radiative transfer , atmospheric radiative transfer codes , depth sounding , advanced microwave sounding unit , water vapor , microwave , brightness temperature , absorption (acoustics) , environmental science , remote sensing , physics , brightness , optics , meteorology , geology , oceanography , quantum mechanics
We compared two fast radiative transfer models, Community Radiative Transfer Model (CRTM) and Radiative Transfer for TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (RTTOV), with the LBL model Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Simulator (ARTS). We used the measurements from Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) and the Global Precipitation Measurement Microwave Imager (GMI) for evaluation of the radiative transfer models. The models in comparison with the observations and each other performed very well with a mean difference less than 0.5 K for the temperature sounding channels operating near the oxygen absorption band at 60 GHz. There was a difference of up to 1 K among the models as well as compared with the observations for humidity sounding channels operating around water vapor absorption line at 183 GHz. The mean difference between the simulations and observations was up to 6 K for surface sensitive channels. Water vapor and surface sensitive channels also showed to be more sensitive than the temperature sounding channels to the spectroscopy models used to calculate the absorption coefficients. There was a small difference, less than 0.1 K, between brightness temperatures calculated using traditional boxcar and actual Sensor or Spectral Response Functions, except for a difference of 0.25 K for ATMS Channel 6. Double difference technique showed about 1 K difference between water vapor channels from ATMS instruments onboard N20 and National Polar‐orbiting Partnership (NPP). However, comparison of a new version of ATMS/NPP observations recently generated using an enhanced calibration algorithm with ATMS/N20 observations showed that the differences between the two instruments are less than 0.5 K after improving the ATMS/NPP calibration.