4.5 Article

Recent divergences in stratospheric water vapor measurements by frost point hygrometers and the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 4447-4457

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-4447-2016

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA's Climate Program Office
  2. US Global Climate Observing System Program
  3. NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Program
  4. NOAA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Balloon-borne frost point hygrometers (FPs) and the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) provide high-quality vertical profile measurements of water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). A previous comparison of stratospheric water vapor measurements by FPs and MLS over three sites - Boulder, Colorado (40.0 degrees-N); Hilo, Hawaii (19.7 degrees-N); and Lauder, New Zealand (45.0 degrees-S) - from August 2004 through December 2012 not only demonstrated agreement better than 1-% between 68 and 26-hPa but also exposed statistically significant biases of 2 to 10-% at 83 and 100-hPa (Hurst et al., 2014). A simple linear regression analysis of the FP-MLS differences revealed no significant long-term drifts between the two instruments. Here we extend the drift comparison to mid-2015 and add two FP sites - Lindenberg, Germany (52.2 degrees-N), and San Jos,, Costa Rica (10.0 degrees-N) - that employ FPs of different manufacture and calibration for their water vapor soundings. The extended comparison period reveals that stratospheric FP and MLS measurements over four of the five sites have diverged at rates of 0.03 to 0.07 ppmv year(-1) (0.6 to 1.5-% year(-1)) from similar to 2010 to mid-2015. These rates are similar in magnitude to the 30-year (1980-2010) average growth rate of stratospheric water vapor (similar to 1-% year(-1)) measured by FPs over Boulder (Hurst et al., 2011). By mid-2015, the FP-MLS differences at some sites were large enough to exceed the combined accuracy estimates of the FP and MLS measurements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据