Elena Elena MasciadriMasciadri

INAFINAF--Osservatorio Osservatorio AstrofisicoAstrofisico didi ArcetriArcetriFlorence ItalyFlorence Italy

Dome C for optical astronomyDome C for optical astronomyA new site testing approachA new site testing approach

Franck Franck LascauxLascaux Jeff Jeff StoeszStoesz Susanna Susanna HagelinHagelin

Rome - June 2007 Photo Travauillon

Rome - June 2007

OutlineOutline

Dome C challenges for Astronomy Dome C challenges for Astronomy

The new site testing approach by The new site testing approach by ForOTForOT

What we know and what we STILL would like to knowWhat we know and what we STILL would like to know

A A ldquoldquoNew ProjectNew Projectrdquordquo to be carried out at Dome Cto be carried out at Dome C

International collaborationInternational collaborationCrossCross--field (astronomy field (astronomy ndashndash physics of the atmosphere) collaborationphysics of the atmosphere) collaboration

F Lascaux et al - talk on Meso-Nh simulations ndash 13 Juin

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

DC Lawrence et al 2004()

MK Tokovinin et al 2005()

CT amp CP Tokovinin et al 2003

MG EgnerMasciadriMcKenna 2007

IsoplanaticIsoplanatic angleangle θ

Seeing Seeing ε [700mprop]

Dome C challenges for AstronomyDome C challenges for Astronomy

Rome - June 2007

Dome C

Dome C

Mt Graham

Mt Graham

() Data kindly provided by M Chun() Data kindly provided by JStorey

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

0-30m 30m-1km 1km-20km

DC Lawrence et al 2004MG Egner Masciadri McKenna 2007

Mt GrahamDome C

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

OutlineOutline

Dome C challenges for Astronomy Dome C challenges for Astronomy

The new site testing approach by The new site testing approach by ForOTForOT

What we know and what we STILL would like to knowWhat we know and what we STILL would like to know

A A ldquoldquoNew ProjectNew Projectrdquordquo to be carried out at Dome Cto be carried out at Dome C

International collaborationInternational collaborationCrossCross--field (astronomy field (astronomy ndashndash physics of the atmosphere) collaborationphysics of the atmosphere) collaboration

F Lascaux et al - talk on Meso-Nh simulations ndash 13 Juin

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

DC Lawrence et al 2004()

MK Tokovinin et al 2005()

CT amp CP Tokovinin et al 2003

MG EgnerMasciadriMcKenna 2007

IsoplanaticIsoplanatic angleangle θ

Seeing Seeing ε [700mprop]

Dome C challenges for AstronomyDome C challenges for Astronomy

Rome - June 2007

Dome C

Dome C

Mt Graham

Mt Graham

() Data kindly provided by M Chun() Data kindly provided by JStorey

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

0-30m 30m-1km 1km-20km

DC Lawrence et al 2004MG Egner Masciadri McKenna 2007

Mt GrahamDome C

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

DC Lawrence et al 2004()

MK Tokovinin et al 2005()

CT amp CP Tokovinin et al 2003

MG EgnerMasciadriMcKenna 2007

IsoplanaticIsoplanatic angleangle θ

Seeing Seeing ε [700mprop]

Dome C challenges for AstronomyDome C challenges for Astronomy

Rome - June 2007

Dome C

Dome C

Mt Graham

Mt Graham

() Data kindly provided by M Chun() Data kindly provided by JStorey

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

0-30m 30m-1km 1km-20km

DC Lawrence et al 2004MG Egner Masciadri McKenna 2007

Mt GrahamDome C

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

0-30m 30m-1km 1km-20km

DC Lawrence et al 2004MG Egner Masciadri McKenna 2007

Mt GrahamDome C

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

Above 20Above 20--30 m 30 m the quality of the atmosphere at the quality of the atmosphere at Dome C is better than above any other site in the worldDome C is better than above any other site in the world

MID-LATITUDE SITE DOME C

1 km

BOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

~ 30 mBOUNDARY LAYER

FREE ATMOSPHERE

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

0-30m 30m-1km 1km-20km

DC Lawrence et al 2004MG Egner Masciadri McKenna 2007

Mt GrahamDome C

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

How to quantify the Dome C excellence

MID-LATITUDE SITE

ε[30mprop] ~ [047rdquo ndash 065rdquo]

Rome - June 2007

Reference

DOME C ndash Winter Time

ε[30mprop] ~ 027rdquo

ε[30mprop] ~ 04rdquoAgabi et al 2006

Lawrence et al 2004

εGAIN ~ [02rdquo ndash 038rdquo]

εGAIN ~ [007rdquo ndash 025rdquo]

ε[030m] ~ 01rdquo

Masciadri Avila Sanchez 2004 RMxAAVernin amp Tunon-Munoz 1994 AampA

Weaker contribution

Horizontal unhomogeneity (local orographiceffects)

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

New Site Testing approach by

MesoMeso--scale model simulationsscale model simulations

To perform a To perform a climatologyclimatology of the optical turbulence extended over of the optical turbulence extended over decades (access to decades (access to ldquoldquopastpastrdquordquo))

To To forecastforecast the optical turbulence the optical turbulence flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

No other tools of No other tools of investigationinvestigation

for these scientific goalsfor these scientific goals

To reconstruct To reconstruct 3D C3D CNN22 mapsmaps in a region around a telescopein a region around a telescope

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

ANTARCTIC PLATEAUMt GRAHAM

LBT

FOROT - Core Project

DOME C

30 km 6000 km

MESO-NHmodel

Main goalMain goalForecasting Forecasting forfor flexibleflexible--schedulingscheduling

Main goalMain goalSite independent calibrationSite independent calibrationforfor sites searchessites searches

∆x = 500 m ∆x = 100 km

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Site on which the WHOLE International community showed great interest

Several site testing campaigns are on-going measurements feasible verification of simulations

Possibility to answer to critical scientific questions

- Discrimination between sites- Characterization of large number of sites in short time- Turbulence characterization when and where is required without

expensive site testing campaigns- A model can access amp characterize uncontaminated site (Dome A)

Not required horizontal resolution gt 1 km

WHY ANTARCTICA

- 2 m class telescope community already convinced - ELT

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Worries

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

SSSGS

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

diams

diams

diams diams

CN2(h)∆hx10-14 m13 CN

2(h)∆hx10-14 m13

diams

5 510 1015 1520 2000km km

Generalized Scidar Single Star Scidar

21 July 2002

5

10

0

15

20

25

15 km

3 km

OHP Site Testing Campaign

66

25

325

15 15

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

SSS Balloons

021855113153

38

H (km) RelErr ()

14281

40061

ltSSSgt - ltBalloonsgt

ltBalloonsgtRel Err =

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique 6 385)

Rome - June 2007

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

1 To collect as many as possible elements useful to constrain simulations

Key points for FOROT

~ 50 discrepancy

2 To quantify the measurements ACCURACY in our case the dispersion between measurements provided by different instruments

θ0 = 47 ldquo

- Some instruments are prototypes They need a careful validation (SSS) - It is suitable a comparison with other instruments taken as a reference- Results published so far not enough 3 balloons vs SSS (1 night)

GS vs SSS (1 night)

MASS Balloons and SSS never run simultaneously

Measurements show discrepancies sometime (Agabi et al 2006)

h gt 85 m

h gt 85 m

DIMM

Balloons

θ0 = 27 ldquo

Worries

EX

(Habib et al 2005 CRAS Paris Physique6385)

(16 balloons)ALL balloons

θ0 = 53 ldquo

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF Analyses ndash Catalog MARS

- 60 levels

- 05ordm ~ 50 km

- Up to 01 hPa

- (75ordmE 123ordmS)

- 0000 UT

- 2003-2004

Wind speed Wind direction

Absolute Temperature Potential Temperature

[30 m infin)

GOALS

1 Yearly meteorological parameters analysis summer amp winter

2 Probability to trigger optical turbulence

3 ECMWF analyses quality to initialize meso-scale models

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

Summer-Dome C Winter-Dome C

Winter-San Pedro Martir

Summer-San Pedro Martir

Wind speed DOME C versus MID-LATITUDE sites

Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006 118 1048

Summer October-MarchWinter April-September

35

53 20

0

~ ( ) ( )NV h C hτminusinfin⎛ ⎞

sdot⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠int

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for wind speed

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

A day in SUMMER time A day in WINTER time

Rome - June 2007

INTERPRETATION POLAR VORTEX

15 km 15 km

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Rome - June 2007

KATABATIC WIND

Dome C

South Pole

Coast

5

Dome C [wwwclimantartideit] - PNRASouth Pole [ftpamrcssecwiscedupubsouthpoleradiosonde]

January 2006 July 2006

5 m4 times larger

5 m

South Pole South PoleDome C

Dome C

150 150

100

50

100

50

2 msec

105 150 15100

(m) (m)

Radiosoundings Radiosoundings

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

2iVzg

z

Rϑ

ϑ

part⎛ ⎞⎜ ⎟part⎝

part

⎠

part

=

THERMIC AND DYNAMIC INSTABILITY

RICHARDSON NUMBER

potential temperature

STABLE Ri gt 025

INSTABLE Ri lt 025

wind speedθ V

1zϑpart

lepart

amp

TURBULENCE INSTABLE CONDITIONS

2

0Vz

part⎛ ⎞ gtgt⎜ ⎟part⎝ ⎠

h1

h2

0zθpart

ltpart

~ 0zθpart

part0

zθpart

gtpart

instable stableneutralVan Zandt et al 1978Masciadri amp Garfias 2001

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

DOME C - 1RICHARDSON NUMBER [30mprop) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

APRIL MAY JUNE

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

The larger 1R the higher is the probability to trigger turbulence

θ0 = 68rdquo summer time (Aristidi et al 2005)

θ0 = 27rdquo winter time (Agabi et al 2006)

same instrument

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

The method proposed in Geissler amp Masciadri PASP 2006

Ri probability to trigger OT

is definitively provedWe can rank all sites in the world

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

2005

In the free atmosphere (h gt 1km)

Sites Rank

1ordm South Pole2ordm Dome A3ordm Dome C

for ALL astroclimatic parameters

The range [30 m 1 km] is fundamental to decide on the future of Dome C

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Comparison South Pole Dome C and Dome A in the first 150 musing ECMWF analyses Can we retrieve any information on

Surface layer thickness

Atmosphere stability

Probability to trigger turbulence in the surface layer

Hagelin et al 2007

Rome - June 2007

ECMWF analyses to discriminate Sites on the Antarctic PlateauNEAR THE SURFACE

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

∆h = 100 m

∆h = 10 m

partθparth

partθparth

(partvparth)2

(partvparth)2

Dome C ndash ECMWF analyses

South Pole ndash ECMWF analysesDome C - Radiosoundings

South Pole - Radiosoundings

S Hagelin et al (FOROT Team)

WINTER

ECMWF analyses can partially be used to discriminate sitescharacteristcs near the surface

Justify the use of meso-scale models such as Meso-Nh

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

J Stoesz et al 2007 Symposium on Seeing Kona Hawaii(FOROT Team)

∆ = 05m∆ = 01 m

Dome CMt Graham

5 5 1010 15 15 2020 θ (ldquo) θ (ldquo)00

01

02

03

04EE50 (ldquo) EE50 (ldquo)

EE50 = Size (ldquo) in which the 50 of PSF energy is included

∆ = actuator pitch size

GLAO simulations

D = 8 m

4 Guide Stars

quartilesmedian

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Project Dome C

Site testing campaign extended on at least 3 winter time seasons

Quantification of seeing in different atmospheric slabs

Different vertical profilers SIMULTANEOUSLY

To confirm the typical seeing above 30 m and its evolution on long time scales

Scientific Goals

To estimate typical thickness of the surface layer and its temporal evolution

To quantify the ldquoaccuracyrdquo of measurements at different heights

Main Framework

To provide further and new insights on the turbulence spectrum characterization

ldquoldquoForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome CForecast OT vertical distribution above Dome Crdquordquo

Rome - June 2007

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Team amp Instrumentation

PI E Masciadri (INAF-OAA Italian)

J Storey (UNSW Australian)A Pellegrini (PNRA Italian)

Microthermal sensors for CN2 measurements mounted on balloons

MASS

2 Mini-SODARs (Lawrence Argentini)Instrumentation for ldquoSTABLEDOCrdquo (Argentini (PI) Masciadri Rizza)

Sonic Anemometer (Travouillon)

- Radiometers - Anemometer

SHABAR (LawrenceTokovinin andor BussoMoore)

Schedule ballaunches done lsquotaking into accountrsquo parallel programs

GMME (CNRM French)

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

Conclusions

Acknowledgments This work has been funded by the ldquoMarie Curie Excellence Grantrdquo MEXT-CT-2005-023878

The Internal Antarctic plateau is promising but several unknowns STILLexist - I motivated the necessity of further measurements

We are ready to submit a Project to answer to the worriesdoubts permitting us to conclude our ForOT project

I indicated an alternative method (based on ECMWF analyses) tocheck measurements constrain simulations and characterize OTclimatology above Dome C

ForOT research activity already gave a number of answers

Sites rank for wind speed at h gt 1 km

Sites rank for optical turbulence at h gt 1 km

Necessity of mesoscale models (GCM not enough) to characterize the surface

END

END