slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44

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


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 team PI-name Institute Instrument AO 153 S. Pal SAAI/MSC Lidar

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets ' - sovann


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
slide1

ACVT-GBMCD subgroup

GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets

(bright/dark, star magnitude, star temperature)

Yasjka Meijer, RIVM

[email protected]

slide2

Validation Team O3 profiles

Validation team PI-name Institute Instrument

  • AO 153 S. Pal SAAI/MSC Lidar
  • AO 158 J.-C. Lambert BIRA Microwave/lidar/sondes
  • AO 179 A. Matthews NIWA Microwave/sondes
  • AO 191 T. Blumenstock INTA FTIR
  • AO 300 D. De Muer RMI Sondes
  • AO 360 P. Keckhut CNRS Lidar
  • AO 429 E. Kyro FMI Sondes
  • AO 1103 A. Petritoli ISAC Sondes
  • AO 9003 D. Swart RIVM Lidar
slide3

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)
slide4

Geolocation of GOMOS & GBMCD data

  • Total collocated GOMOS-GBMCD
  • paired profiles: 226
  • no altitude overlap: - 13
  • missing files GOMOS: - 82
  • available for analysis 131
slide5

Example 1

Lauder lidar

slide6

Example 2

Toronto lidar

slide7

Example 3

Uccle sonde

slide8

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

slide10

Lidar

All data

N = 57

slide11

Lidar

BRIGHT

N = 4

slide12

Lidar

TWILIGHT

N = 13

slide13

Lidar

DARK

N = 40

slide14

Lidar

DARK

STRONG

N = 5

slide15

Lidar

DARK

weak

N = 35

slide16

Lidar

DARK

COLD

N = 19

slide17

Lidar

DARK

HOT

N = 21

slide18

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
slide20

Sonde

All data

N = 39

slide21

Sonde

BRIGHT

N = 26

slide22

Sonde

DARK

N = 13

slide23

Sonde

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

slide24

Sonde

DARK

COLD

N = 9

slide25

Sonde

DARK

HOT

N = 4

slide26

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)
slide28

Microwave

Note: lower mesosphere included

All data

N = 35

slide29

Microwave

BRIGHT

N = 23

slide30

Microwave

DARK

N = 12

slide31

Microwave

NO strong STARS, with MV<1

slide32

Microwave

DARK

COLD

N = 4

slide33

Microwave

DARK

HOT

N = 8

slide34

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
slide35

All instruments

compared to GOMOS

slide36

All instruments

All data

N = 131

slide37

All instruments

BRIGHT

N = 53

slide38

All instruments

BRIGHT

STRONG

N = 9

slide39

All instruments

DARK

N = 65

slide40

All instruments

DARK

STRONG

N = 6

slide41

All instruments

DARK

weak

N = 59

slide42

All instruments

DARK

COLD

N = 32

slide43

All instruments

DARK

HOT

N = 33

slide44

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
ad