HR: 10:35h
AN: A11H-02    [PDF]
TI: Intercomparison of in situ ice water measurements on the WB-57 with radar measurements from the ER-2 during CRYSTAL-FACE
AU: * Sayres, D S
EM: sayres@huarp.harvard.edu
AF: Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St. Link 261, Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
AU: Pittman, J V
EM: vellovic@huarp.harvard.edu
AF: Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St. Link 261, Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
AU: Smith, J
EM: jxsmith@huarp.harvard.edu
AF: Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St. Link 261, Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
AU: Weinstock, E M
EM: elliot@huarp.harvard.edu
AF: Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St. Link 261, Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
AU: Anderson, J G
EM: anderson@huarp.harvard.edu
AF: Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, 12 Oxford St. Link 261, Cambridge, MA 02138 United States
AU: Heymsfield, G
EM: gerald.heymsfield@nasa.gov
AF: Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, East Campus, Bld 33, Rm A405, Greenbelt, MD 20771 United States
AU: Li, L
EM: lihua@agnes.gsfc.nasa.gov
AF: Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, East Campus, Bld 33, Rm A405, Greenbelt, MD 20771 United States
AB: One of the major goals of the 2002 CRYSTAL-FACE mission was to intercompare and validate measurements of microphysical quantities -- ice crystal size distributions, ice mass, and water vapor - by a variety of remote and \textit{in-situ} instruments. However, a direct comparison of remote and \textit{in-situ }measurements is difficult because they involve very different fields of view. CRYSTAL-FACE provided an opportunity for assessing how well such intercomparisons can be made and for determining the type of flight plans that will be necessary for validation of future satellite instruments. During CRYSTAL-FACE, remote and in-situ instruments were placed on different aircraft (NASA's ER-2 and WB-57), and the two planes flew in tandem so that the \textit{in-situ} payload flew along the field of view of the remote instruments. We show here, however, that even with this type of careful flight planning, it is not always possible to guarantee with certainty that remote and \textit{in-situ} instruments are viewing the same air parcel. We use ice water data from the \textit{in-situ} Harvard Total Water and Water Vapor instruments, and the remote Goddard Cloud Radar System (CRS), for the flight of July 16, 2002. This date provided the best opportunity for comparison because the planes made multiple passes through cirrus thick enough to be detected by CRS. We show that agreement between Harvard ice water and CRS is a strong function of the horizontal separation and the time delay between the aircraft transects. This type of analysis should guide flight planning for future intercomparison efforts, whether for aircraft-borne or satellite instrumentation.
DE: 0300 ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE
SC: Atmospheric Sciences [A]
MN: 2003 Fall Meeting