ALBERT

Description: We compare Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) versions 3 and 4, V003 and V004, respectively, nadir-stare 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° N to 71° 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°) 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 (~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° N and 71° 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%).

Description: The composition of residual particles from evaporated cirrus ice crystals near the tropical tropopause as well as unfrozen aerosols were measured with a single particle mass spectrometer. Subvisible cirrus residuals were predominantly composed of internal mixtures of neutralized sulfate with organic material and were chemically indistinguishable from unfrozen sulfate-organic aerosols. Ice residuals were also similar in size to unfrozen aerosol. Heterogeneous ice nuclei such as mineral dust were not enhanced in these subvisible cirrus residuals. Biomass burning particles were depleted in the residuals. Cloud probe measurements showing low cirrus ice crystal number concentrations were inconsistent with conventional homogeneous freezing. Recent laboratory studies provide heterogeneous nucleation scenarios that may explain tropopause level subvisible cirrus formation.

Description: The AquaVIT-1 intercomparison of atmospheric water vapor measurement techniques was conducted at the aerosol and cloud simulation chamber AIDA (Aerosol Interaction and Dynamics in the Atmosphere) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, in October 2007. The overall objective was to intercompare state-of-the-art and prototype atmospheric hygrometers with each other and with independent humidity standards under controlled conditions. This activity was conducted as a blind intercomparison with coordination by selected referees. The effort was motivated by persistent discrepancies found in atmospheric measurements involving multiple instruments operating on research aircraft and balloon platforms, particularly in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, where water vapor reaches its lowest atmospheric values (less than 10 ppm). With the AIDA chamber volume of 84 m3, multiple instruments analyzed air with a common water vapor mixing ratio, by extracting air into instrument flow systems, by locating instruments inside the chamber, or by sampling the chamber volume optically. The intercomparison was successfully conducted over 10 days during which pressure, temperature, and mixing ratio were systematically varied (50 to 500 hPa, 185 to 243 K, and 0.3 to 152 ppm). In the absence of an accepted reference instrument, the absolute accuracy of the instruments was not established. To evaluate the intercomparison, the reference value was taken to be the ensemble mean of a core subset of the measurements. For these core instruments, the agreement between 10 and 150 ppm of water vapor is considered good with variation about the reference value of about ±10% (±1σ). In the region of most interest between 1 and 10 ppm, the core subset agreement is fair with variation about the reference value of ±20% (±1σ). The upper limit of precision was also derived for each instrument from the reported data. The implication for atmospheric measurements is that the substantially larger differences observed during in-flight intercomparisons stem from other factors associated with the moving platforms or the non-laboratory environment. The success of AquaVIT-1 provides a template for future intercomparison efforts with water vapor or other species that are focused on improving the analytical quality of atmospheric measurements on moving platforms.

Description: The EOS (Earth Observing System) Aura Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) retrieves the atmospheric HDO / H2O ratio in the mid-to-lower troposphere as well as the planetary boundary layer. TES observations of water vapor and the HDO isotopologue have been compared with nearly coincident in situ airborne measurements for direct validation of the TES products. The field measurements were made with a commercially available Picarro L1115-i isotopic water analyzer on aircraft over the Alaskan interior boreal forest during the three summers of 2011 to 2013. TES special observations were utilized in these comparisons. The TES averaging kernels and a priori constraints have been applied to the in situ data, using version 5 (V005) of the TES data. TES calculated errors are compared with the standard deviation (1σ) of scan-to-scan variability to check consistency with the TES observation error. Spatial and temporal variations are assessed from the in situ aircraft measurements. It is found that the standard deviation of scan-to-scan variability of TES δD is ±34.1‰ in the boundary layer and ± 26.5‰ in the free troposphere. This scan-to-scan variability is consistent with the TES estimated error (observation error) of 10–18‰ after accounting for the atmospheric variations along the TES track of ±16‰ in the boundary layer, increasing to ±30‰ in the free troposphere observed by the aircraft in situ measurements. We estimate that TES V005 δD is biased high by an amount that decreases with pressure: approximately +123‰ at 1000 hPa, +98‰ in the boundary layer and +37‰ in the free troposphere. The uncertainty in this bias estimate is ±20‰. A correction for this bias has been applied to the TES HDO Lite Product data set. After bias correction, we show that TES has accurate sensitivity to water vapor isotopologues in the boundary layer.

Description: The EOS Aura Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) retrieves the atmospheric HDO/H2O ratio in the mid-to-lower troposphere as well as the planetary boundary layer. TES observations of water vapor and the HDO isotopologue have been compared with nearly coincident in situ airborne measurements for direct validation of the TES products. The field measurements were made with a commercially available Picarro L1115-i isotopic water analyzer on aircraft over the Alaskan interior boreal forest during the three summers of 2011 to 2013. TES special observations were utilized in these comparisons. The TES averaging kernels and a priori constraints have been applied to the in situ data, using Version Five (V005) of the TES data. TES calculated errors are compared with the standard deviation (1-σ) of scan-to-scan variability to check consistency with the TES observation error. Spatial and temporal variations are assessed from the in situ aircraft measurements. It is found that the standard deviation of scan-to-scan variability of TES δD is ±34.1‰ in the boundary layer, and ±26.5‰ in the free troposphere. This scan-to-scan variability is consistent with the TES estimated error (observation error) of 10–18‰ after accounting for the atmospheric variations along the TES track of ±16‰ in the boundary layer, increasing to ±30‰ in the free troposphere observed by the aircraft in situ measurements. We estimate that TES V005 δD is biased high by an amount that decreases with pressure: approximately +12.3% at 1000 hPa, +9.8% in the boundary layer, and +3.7% in the free troposphere. The uncertainty in this bias estimate is ±2%. After bias correction, we show that TES has accurate sensitivity to water vapor isotopologues in the boundary layer.

Description: The AquaVIT-1 Intercomparison of Atmospheric Water Vapor Measurement Techniques was conducted at the aerosol and cloud simulation chamber AIDA at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, in October 2007. The overall objective was to intercompare state-of-the-art and prototype atmospheric hygrometers with each other and with independent humidity standards under controlled conditions. This activity was conducted as a blind intercomparison with coordination by selected referees. The effort was motivated by persistent discrepancies found in atmospheric measurements involving multiple instruments operating on research aircraft and balloon platforms, particularly in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where water vapor reaches its lowest atmospheric values (less than 10 ppm). With the AIDA chamber volume of 84 m3, multiple instruments analyzed air with a common water vapor mixing ratio, either by extracting air into instrument flow systems, locating instruments inside the chamber, or sampling the chamber volume optically. The intercomparison was successfully conducted over 10 days during which pressure, temperature, and mixing ratio were systematically varied (50 to 500 hPa, 185 to 243 K, and 0.3 to 152 ppm). In the absence of an accepted reference instrument, the reference value was taken to be the ensemble mean of a core subset of the measurements. For these core instruments, the agreement between 10 and 150 ppm of water vapor is considered good with variation about the reference value of about ±10% (±1σ). In the region of most interest between 1 and 10 ppm, the core subset agreement is fair with variation about the reference value of ±20% (±1σ). The upper limit of precision was also derived for each instrument from the reported data. These results indicate that the core instruments, in general, have intrinsic skill to determine unknown water vapor mixing ratios with an accuracy of at least ±20%. The implication for atmospheric measurements is that the substantially larger differences observed during in-flight intercomparisons stem from other factors associated with the moving platforms or the non-laboratory environment. The success of AquaVIT-1 provides a template for future intercomparison efforts with water vapor or other species that are focused on improving the analytical quality of atmospheric measurements on moving platforms.