ACVT-GBMCD subgroup
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 44

ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets (bright/dark, star magnitude, star temperature). Yasjka Meijer, RIVM [email protected] Validation Team O 3 profiles. Validation teamPI-nameInstituteInstrument AO 153S. PalSAAI/MSCLidar

Download Presentation

ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


ACVT-GBMCD subgroup

GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets

(bright/dark, star magnitude, star temperature)

Yasjka Meijer, RIVM

[email protected]


Validation Team O3 profiles

Validation teamPI-nameInstituteInstrument

  • AO 153S. PalSAAI/MSCLidar

  • AO 158J.-C. LambertBIRAMicrowave/lidar/sondes

  • AO 179A. MatthewsNIWAMicrowave/sondes

  • AO 191T. BlumenstockINTAFTIR

  • AO 300 D. De MuerRMISondes

  • AO 360P. KeckhutCNRSLidar

  • AO 429E. KyroFMISondes

  • AO 1103A. PetritoliISACSondes

  • AO 9003D. SwartRIVMLidar


Intercomparison of Ozone Profiles

GOMOS data:

  • from ACRI prototype processor

  • added solar zenith angle at tangent point

GBMCD data:

  • collocations provided by AO-teams

  • all files available from NILU database

  • all data converted to ozone number density vs altitude

Geolocation criteria:

  • lidar (< 24 hrs, 1000 km)

  • sonde (< 24 hrs, 1000 km)

  • microwave radiometer (< 4 hrs, 1000 km)


Geolocation of GOMOS & GBMCD data

  • Total collocated GOMOS-GBMCD

  • paired profiles:226

  • no altitude overlap: - 13

  • missing files GOMOS:- 82

  • available for analysis 131


Example 1

Lauder lidar


Example 2

Toronto lidar


Example 3

Uccle sonde


Important GOMOS parameters

Sun position (SZA)

  • dark (110o-180o)

  • twilight (90o-110o)

  • bright (0o-90o)

Star magnitude (MV)

  • strong (-2 to 1)

  • weak (1 to 5)

Star temperature (K)

  • hot (7,000-100,000)

  • cold (1,000-7,000)

More straylight

Less signal from weaker stars

Less UV in colder stars


LIDAR measurements

vs GOMOS


Lidar

All data

N = 57


Lidar

BRIGHT

N = 4


Lidar

TWILIGHT

N = 13


Lidar

DARK

N = 40


Lidar

DARK

STRONG

N = 5


Lidar

DARK

weak

N = 35


Lidar

DARK

COLD

N = 19


Lidar

DARK

HOT

N = 21


Conclusions vs LIDAR:

  • bright limb ozone profiles: poor results

  • twilight limb ozone profiles: better than bright limb, but still large deviations (cause to be determined)

  • dark limb ozone profiles: good results

    • no systematic biases between 18-45 km

    • no clear influence of star magnitude or temperature


SONDE measurements

vs GOMOS


Sonde

All data

N = 39


Sonde

BRIGHT

N = 26


Sonde

DARK

N = 13


Sonde

Only 1 strong STAR (of 13), with MV<1


Sonde

DARK

COLD

N = 9


Sonde

DARK

HOT

N = 4


Conclusions vs SONDE:

  • bright limb ozone profiles: poor results

  • twilight limb ozone profiles: no cases

  • dark limb ozone profiles: good results

    • small systematic bias of 5-10% between 18-35 km (GOMOS lower)

    • star magnitude: no info

    • star temperature: below 22 km cold better than hot and above vice versa(?, more statistics needed)


MICROWAVE measurements

vs GOMOS


Microwave

Note: lower mesosphere included

All data

N = 35


Microwave

BRIGHT

N = 23


Microwave

DARK

N = 12


Microwave

NO strong STARS, with MV<1


Microwave

DARK

COLD

N = 4


Microwave

DARK

HOT

N = 8


Conclusions vs MICROWAVE:

  • bright limb ozone profiles: poor results

  • twilight limb ozone profiles: no cases

  • dark limb ozone profiles:

    • (all stars) 20-45 km bias within 20%

    • (cold stars) 45-65 km : poor results

    • (hot stars) 45-65 km bias within 20%

    • (hot stars) 45-65 km significant non-random bias suggests possibility for improvement

    • star magnitude: no info


All instruments

compared to GOMOS


All instruments

All data

N = 131


All instruments

BRIGHT

N = 53


All instruments

BRIGHT

STRONG

N = 9


All instruments

DARK

N = 65


All instruments

DARK

STRONG

N = 6


All instruments

DARK

weak

N = 59


All instruments

DARK

COLD

N = 32


All instruments

DARK

HOT

N = 33


Conclusions vs all GBMCD instruments:

  • bright limb ozone profiles:

    • only for bright (MV<1) stars and only above 30 km

    • GOMOS lower by 10 to 15% (30-50 km)

  • twilight limb ozone profiles:

    • needs further research

  • dark limb ozone profiles:

    • star magnitude: no clear influence

    • below 18 km: poor results

    • 18-45 km: bias 5 to 10% (all stars)

    • 45-65 km :  cold stars: poor results

      • hot stars: bias within 20%, significant non-random bias suggests possibility for improvement


  • Login