| 1. |
- Clerbaux, C., et al.
(författare)
-
CO measurements from the ACE-FTS satellite instrument: data analysis and validation using ground-based, airborne and spaceborne observations
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 8, s. 2569-2594
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) mission was launched in August 2003 to sound the atmosphere by solar occultation. Carbon monoxide (CO), a good tracer of pollution plumes and atmospheric dynamics, is one of the key species provided by the primary instrument, the ACE-Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS). This instrument performs measurements in both the CO 1-0 and 2-0 ro-vibrational bands, from which vertically resolved CO concentration profiles are retrieved, from the mid-troposphere to the thermosphere. This paper presents an updated description of the ACE-FTS version 2.2 CO data product, along with a comprehensive validation of these profiles using available observations (February 2004 to December 2006). We have compared the CO partial columns with ground-based measurements using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and millimeter wave radiometry, and the volume mixing ratio profiles with airborne (both high-altitude balloon flight and airplane) observations. CO satellite observations provided by nadir-looking instruments (MOPITT and TES) as well as limb-viewing remote sensors (MIPAS, SMR and MLS) were also compared with the ACE-FTS CO products. We show that the ACE-FTS measurements provide CO profiles with small retrieval errors (better than 5% from the upper troposphere to 40 km, and better than 10% above). These observations agree well with the correlative measurements, considering the rather loose coincidence criteria in some cases. Based on the validation exercise we assess the following uncertainties to the ACE-FTS measurement data: better than 15% in the upper troposphere (8–12 km), than 30% in the lower stratosphere (12–30 km), and than 25% from 30 to 100 km.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hopfner, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of MIPAS ClONO2 measurements
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 7, s. 257-281
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Altitude profiles of ClONO2 retrieved with the IMK (Institut fur Meteorologie und Klimaforschung) science-oriented data processor from MIPAS/Envisat (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding on Envisat) mid-infrared limb emission measurements between July 2002 and March 2004 have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne (Mark IV, FIRS2, MIPAS-B), airborne (MIPAS-STR), ground-based (Spitsbergen, Thule, Kiruna, Harestua, Jungfraujoch, Izana, Wollongong, Lauder), and spaceborne (ACE-FTS) observations. With few exceptions we found very good agreement between these instruments and MIPAS with no evidence for any bias in most cases and altitude regions. For balloon-borne measurements typical absolute mean differences are below 0.05 ppbv over the whole altitude range from 10 to 39 km. In case of ACE-FTS observations mean differences are below 0.03 ppbv for observations below 26 km. Above this altitude the comparison with ACE-FTS is affected by the photochemically induced diurnal variation of ClONO2. Correction for this by use of a chemical transport model led to an overcompensation of the photochemical effect by up to 0.1 ppbv at altitudes of 30-35 km in case of MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons while for the balloon-borne observations no such inconsistency has been detected. The comparison of MIPAS derived total column amounts with ground-based observations revealed no significant bias in the MIPAS data. Mean differences between MIPAS and FTIR column abundances are 0.11 +/- 0.12 x 10(14) cm(-2) (1.0 +/- 1.1%) and -0.09 +/- 0.19 x 10(14) cm(-2) (-0.8 +/- 1.7%), depending on the coincidence criterion applied. chi(2) tests have been performed to assess the combined precision estimates of MIPAS and the related instruments. When no exact coincidences were available as in case of MIPAS-FTIR or MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons it has been necessary to take into consideration a coincidence error term to account for chi(2) deviations. From the resulting chi(2) profiles there is no evidence for a systematic over/underestimation of the MIPAS random error analysis.
|
|
