MAPS-L Archives

Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc.

MAPS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Johnnie D. Sutherland" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:37:50 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (100 lines)
This message is from Fred Schaff.--------------------Johnnie
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:43:30 -0500
>From: fred schaff <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: QUERY: Comparison of Solar Atlases
 
 
        I'm sending this reply directly to the requestor but I, too, have a
problem and would hope that someone in MAP-L might have an answer or another
place to try.
        Thanks,
        Fred Schaff, Spring Grove, PA, <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
Elaine,
        How about going back a few years in time but staying at your own
home office?? I use a NASA Document, NASA SP-8005, Solar Electromagnetic
Radiation, by Dr. M. P. Thekaekara, May 1971. It has a table "V", "Solar
Spectral Irradiance at 1 AU, (solar constant of 135.30 w/cm=B2)" with
wavelength in increments of a few percent of local value from 0.120 =B5m to
100.0 =B5m with "average irradiance in the increment", "area under the=
 curve,
0 to lamda", and "portion of solar constant with wavelength less than
lamda". While he uses a "mean" value of 135.30 w/cm=B2, he shows a monthly
range between aphelion of 130.9 to perihelion of 139.9 where I assume that
the spectral shape is nominally constant with only total energy level
shifting. Then, include various solar cycles plus transient events and one
would expect both total energy and spectral shape to change between various
measurement on the order of a few percent if that is the difference between
your two references.
        Finally, all of this is above the atmosphere. From the satellite to
the sea is where the real spectral modifications come into play and they
change from solar time of day, off-axis scan angle of the satellite sensor,
and solar angle. Are the two atlases really that different??
        On the other hand, perhaps we can help each other. I would be glad
to make a copy of all or part of Thekaekara's document, (33 pages), in
return for the UV to FIR data from the two references that you mention.
Also, I have a similar problem for which I cannot receive an answer even to
the possibility that the measurement has been made. I want the "Solar
Spectral Irradiance at 1AU" during a total solar eclipse, at least from
Lyman Alpha to 15 =B5m. I can get lots of pictures of eclipses plus=
 elemental
line spectra from NASA, Kitt Peak, Sacamento Peak, but no one admitts to
taking hard spectral data over the entire energy shape.
        Good luck to us both.
                Fred Schaff, Spring Grove, PA, <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
At 04:43 PM 12/2/96 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I am a scientific technical editor at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. A
>colleague of mine came to me with a question I thought someone on this list
>might be able to help with (I was referred to this list through a different
>list).  As background, he's an astronomer working on calibrating an ocean
>color remote sensing satellite instrument (the same project I work on).
>His question revolves around the differences between two solar atlases
>which were published around the same time.  Here are the citations:
>
>Neckel, H., and D. Labs, 1984: The solar radiation between 3300 and 12500
>A. Solar Physics, 90, 205--258.
>
>Kurucz, R.L., I. Furenlid, J. Brualt, and L. Testerman, 1984: Solar Flux
>Atlas from 296 to 1300 nm. National Solar Observatory Atlas No. 1.
>
>Around here on my project, most authors---when citing solar radiation
>references---cite Neckel and Labs.  My colleague wants to know how come?
>Is it because Solar Physics is a peer-reviewed journal and the NSO document
>is, although published, primarily in internal NSO publication and therefore
>not widely read?  Or, are there actual differences within the two
>manuscripts that are significant?
>
>Any and all answers would be welcome.
>
>If you can't help me directly, could you possibly point me in another
>direction for getting the answers this colleague needs? Please send all
>replies replies to me directly since I am not subscribed to your list.
>
>TIA.
>
>Elaine Firestone
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Elaine R. Firestone, AESE    Voice: (301) 286-4553
>Senior Technical Editor      Fax:   (301) 286-1775
>Records&Information Manager  Net:   [log in to unmask]
>NASA/GSFC/GSC/Code 970.2            [log in to unmask]
>Bldg. 28, Rm. W128
>Greenbelt, MD 20771      "I'm not trying to change the world...
>USA                                just make it more readable."
>                                               --E.R. Firestone
>
>SeaWiFS Home Page:  http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEAWIFS.html
>________________________________________________________________
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2