1 / 44

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

ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets (bright/dark, star magnitude, star temperature). Yasjka Meijer, RIVM yasjka.meijer@rivm.nl. Validation Team O 3 profiles. Validation team PI-name Institute Instrument AO 153 S. Pal SAAI/MSC Lidar

sovann
Télécharger la présentation

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACVT-GBMCD subgroup GOMOS ozone profiles, analysis of comparison with GMBCD datasets (bright/dark, star magnitude, star temperature) Yasjka Meijer, RIVM yasjka.meijer@rivm.nl

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. Geolocation of GOMOS & GBMCD data • Total collocated GOMOS-GBMCD • paired profiles: 226 • no altitude overlap: - 13 • missing files GOMOS: - 82 • available for analysis 131

  5. Example 1 Lauder lidar

  6. Example 2 Toronto lidar

  7. Example 3 Uccle sonde

  8. 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

  9. LIDAR measurements vs GOMOS

  10. Lidar All data N = 57

  11. Lidar BRIGHT N = 4

  12. Lidar TWILIGHT N = 13

  13. Lidar DARK N = 40

  14. Lidar DARK STRONG N = 5

  15. Lidar DARK weak N = 35

  16. Lidar DARK COLD N = 19

  17. Lidar DARK HOT N = 21

  18. 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

  19. SONDE measurements vs GOMOS

  20. Sonde All data N = 39

  21. Sonde BRIGHT N = 26

  22. Sonde DARK N = 13

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

  24. Sonde DARK COLD N = 9

  25. Sonde DARK HOT N = 4

  26. 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)

  27. MICROWAVE measurements vs GOMOS

  28. Microwave Note: lower mesosphere included All data N = 35

  29. Microwave BRIGHT N = 23

  30. Microwave DARK N = 12

  31. Microwave NO strong STARS, with MV<1

  32. Microwave DARK COLD N = 4

  33. Microwave DARK HOT N = 8

  34. 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

  35. All instruments compared to GOMOS

  36. All instruments All data N = 131

  37. All instruments BRIGHT N = 53

  38. All instruments BRIGHT STRONG N = 9

  39. All instruments DARK N = 65

  40. All instruments DARK STRONG N = 6

  41. All instruments DARK weak N = 59

  42. All instruments DARK COLD N = 32

  43. All instruments DARK HOT N = 33

  44. 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

More Related