4.7 Article

Validation of northern latitude Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer stare ozone profiles with ARC-IONS sondes during ARCTAS: sensitivity, bias and error analysis

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
Volume 10, Issue 20, Pages 9901-9914

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-10-9901-2010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compare Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) versions 3 and 4, V003 and V004, respectively, nadirstare ozone profiles with ozonesonde profiles from the Arctic Intensive Ozonesonde Network Study (ARCIONS, http://croc.gsfc.nasa.gov/arcions/) during the Arctic Research on the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS) field mission. The ozonesonde data are from launches timed to match Aura's overpass, where 11 coincidences spanned 44 degrees N to 71 degrees N from April to July 2008. Using the TES stare observation mode, 32 observations are taken over each coincidental ozonesonde launch. By effectively sampling the same air mass 32 times, comparisons are made between the empirically-calculated random errors to the expected random errors from measurement noise, temperature and interfering species, such as water. This study represents the first validation of high latitude (>70 degrees) TES ozone. We find that the calculated errors are consistent with the actual errors with a similar vertical distribution that varies between 5% and 20% for V003 and V004 TES data. In general, TES ozone profiles are positively biased (by less than 15%) from the surface to the upper-troposphere (similar to 1000 to 100 hPa) and negatively biased (by less than 20%) from the upper-troposphere to the lower-stratosphere (100 to 30 hPa) when compared to the ozonesonde data. Lastly, for V003 and V004 TES data between 44 degrees N and 71 degrees N there is variability in the mean biases (from -14 to +15%), mean theoretical errors (from 6 to 13%), and mean random errors (from 9 to 19%).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available