the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Intercomparison of FY-3 and AIRS Gravity Wave Parameter Extraction Based on Three Methods
Abstract. Two types of temperature profile products from the FY-3 (FengYun-3) satellite system, using GNOS and VASS, together with AIRS operational Level 2 data, are used to compare and analyze gravity wave parameters. The advantages and disadvantages of these three types of temperature profile data for gravity wave parameter extraction are determined, based on three extraction methods: vertical sliding average, double-filter and single-filter. By comparing the three methods, the conditions under which each dataset can be applied are obtained. Accurate gravity wave disturbance profiles cannot be obtained using the vertical sliding average method. The double-filter method can extract gravity waves in a vertical wavelength range from 2 to 10 km. The single-filter method can obtain gravity wave disturbances with vertical wavelengths less than 8 km. For all three gravity wave parameter extraction methods, the GNOS temperature profile product performs better in the lower layer of 5–35 km. From 35 to 65 km the AIRS temperature profile product is better than GNOS. Using the single-filter method, GNOS and AIRS filter out the vertical linear trend in the disturbance profile well, reflecting the advantages of a single filter. The vertical resolution of VASS is lower, but larger vertical scale components are retained.
- Preprint
(1728 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
-
RC1: 'Interactive comments on “Intercomparison of FY-3 and AIRS Gravity Wave Parameter Extraction Based on Three Methods” by Shujie Chang et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to referee #1', Shujie Chang, 10 Oct 2019
-
RC2: 'Review of Chang et al. 2019', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2019
- AC2: 'Reply to referee #2', Shujie Chang, 18 Oct 2019
-
RC1: 'Interactive comments on “Intercomparison of FY-3 and AIRS Gravity Wave Parameter Extraction Based on Three Methods” by Shujie Chang et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to referee #1', Shujie Chang, 10 Oct 2019
-
RC2: 'Review of Chang et al. 2019', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2019
- AC2: 'Reply to referee #2', Shujie Chang, 18 Oct 2019
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
643 | 226 | 63 | 932 | 86 | 87 |
- HTML: 643
- PDF: 226
- XML: 63
- Total: 932
- BibTeX: 86
- EndNote: 87
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1