ALBERT

Description: The main purpose of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center TROPospheric OZone DIfferential Absorption Lidar (GSFC TROPOZ DIAL) is to measure the vertical distribution of tropospheric ozone for science investigations. Because of the important health and climate impacts of tropospheric ozone, it is imperative to quantify background photochemical and aloft ozone concentrations, especially during air quality episodes. To better characterize tropospheric ozone, the Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) has recently been developed, which currently consists of five different ozone DIAL instruments, including the TROPOZ. This paper addresses the necessary procedures to validate the TROPOZ retrieval algorithm and develops a primary standard for retrieval consistency and optimization within TOLNet. This paper is focused on ensuring the TROPOZ and future TOLNet algorithms are properly quantifying ozone concentrations and the following paper will focus on defining a systematic uncertainty analysis standard for all TOLNet instruments. Although this paper is used to optimize the TROPOZ retrieval, the methodology presented may be extended and applied to most other DIAL instruments, even if the atmospheric product of interest is not tropospheric ozone (e.g. temperature or water vapor). The analysis begins by computing synthetic lidar returns from actual TROPOZ lidar return signals in combination with a known ozone profile. From these synthetic signals, it is possible to explicitly determine retrieval algorithm biases from the known profile, thereby identifying any areas that may need refinement for a new operational version of the TROPOZ retrieval algorithm. A new vertical resolution scheme is presented, which was upgraded from a constant vertical resolution to a variable vertical resolution, in order to yield a statistical uncertainty of

Description: The Measurements of Humidity in the Atmosphere and Validation Experiment (MOHAVE) 2009 campaign took place on 11–27 October 2009 at the JPL Table Mountain Facility in California (TMF). The main objectives of the campaign were to (1) validate the water vapor measurements of several instruments, including, three Raman lidars, two microwave radiometers, two Fourier-Transform spectrometers, and two GPS receivers (column water), (2) cover water vapor measurements from the ground to the mesopause without gaps, and (3) study upper tropospheric humidity variability at timescales varying from a few minutes to several days. A total of 58 radiosondes and 20 Frost-Point hygrometer sondes were launched. Two types of radiosondes were used during the campaign. Non negligible differences in the readings between the two radiosonde types used (Vaisala RS92 and InterMet iMet-1) made a small, but measurable impact on the derivation of water vapor mixing ratio by the Frost-Point hygrometers. As observed in previous campaigns, the RS92 humidity measurements remained within 5 % of the Frost-point in the lower and mid-troposphere, but were too dry in the upper troposphere. Over 270 h of water vapor measurements from three Raman lidars (JPL and GSFC) were compared to RS92, CFH, and NOAA-FPH. The JPL lidar profiles reached 20 km when integrated all night, and 15 km when integrated for 1 h. Excellent agreement between this lidar and the frost-point hygrometers was found throughout the measurement range, with only a 3 % (0.3 ppmv) mean wet bias for the lidar in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). The other two lidars provided satisfactory results in the lower and mid-troposphere (2–5 % wet bias over the range 3–10 km), but suffered from contamination by fluorescence (wet bias ranging from 5 to 50 % between 10 km and 15 km), preventing their use as an independent measurement in the UTLS. The comparison between all available stratospheric sounders allowed to identify only the largest biases, in particular a 10 % dry bias of the Water Vapor Millimeter-wave Spectrometer compared to the Aura-Microwave Limb Sounder. No other large, or at least statistically significant, biases could be observed. Total Precipitable Water (TPW) measurements from six different co-located instruments were available. Several retrieval groups provided their own TPW retrievals, resulting in the comparison of 10 different datasets. Agreement within 7 % (0.7 mm) was found between all datasets. Such good agreement illustrates the maturity of these measurements and raises confidence levels for their use as an alternate or complementary source of calibration for the Raman lidars. Tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and temperature measurements were also available during the campaign. The water vapor and ozone lidar measurements, together with the advected potential vorticity results from the high-resolution transport model MIMOSA, allowed the identification and study of a deep stratospheric intrusion over TMF. These observations demonstrated the lidar strong potential for future long-term monitoring of water vapor in the UTLS.

Description: Thirteen clear nights in October 2005 allowed successful intercomparison of the lidar operated since 1987 by the German Weather Service (DWD) at Hohenpeißenberg (47.8° N, 11.0° E) with the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) travelling standard lidar operated by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Both lidars provide ozone profiles in the stratosphere, and temperature profiles in the strato- and mesosphere. Additional ozone profiles came from on-site Brewer/Mast ozonesondes, additional temperature profiles from Vaisala RS92 radiosondes launched at Munich (65 km north-east), and from operational analyses by the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). The intercomparison confirmed a low bias for ozone from the DWD lidar in the 33 to 43 km region, by up to 10%. This bias is caused by the DWD ozone algorithm, and is consistent with previous comparisons of the DWD lidar with SAGE, GOMOS and other instruments. During HOPE, precision (repeatability) for ozone data from both lidars was better than 5% between 20 and 40 km altitude, dropping to 10% near 45 km, and to 50% near 50 km. These results are consistent with previous NDACC intercomparisons, and confirm the reliability of the NASA NDACC travelling standard lidar. Temperature from the DWD lidar showed a 1 to 2 K cold bias from 30 to 65 km against the NASA lidar, and a 2 to 4 K cold bias against radiosondes and NCEP. This is also consistent with previous intercomparisons. Temperature precision (repeatability) for the DWD lidar was better than 2 K from 30 to 50 km, decreasing to 10 K near 70 km. For the NASA lidar, precision is expected to be better than 1 K over the 30 to 70 km range. However, due to the much lower temperature precision of the DWD lidar, this could not be checked during HOPE. It was noted that the current DWD algorithm over-estimates temperature uncertainty, which should be reduced by a factor of 2.2 (e.g. from 22 K to 10 K near 70 km). The HOPE intercomparison did uncover a 290 m range error (upward shift) of the DWD lidar data. When this shift is removed, the bias of the ozone algorithm is corrected, and a better background estimation is used, ozone profiles from the DWD lidar agree very well with both the NASA lidar and SAGE. Systematic differences are then smaller than 3% between 20 and 44 km, and smaller than 5% between 17 and 47 km. These differences are close to zero, and are not (statistically) significant. The cold temperature bias against the NASA lidar also disappears when the DWD temperature processing is corrected for the 290 m range error, and more appropriate values for the Earth's gravity acceleration are used. Compared to the radiosondes or NCEP analyses, however, both lidars show 1 to 2 K lower temperatures over the entire 15 to 35 km range. Temperature and ozone variations are tracked well by both lidars, by ozone- and radiosondes, and by NCEP analyses. Correlations exceed 0.8 to 0.9 at most stratospheric levels. They decrease at levels above 40 km, especially for ozone or NCEP temperature. The ozone and temperature bias of the DWD lidar does not appear to have changed over time. Records of ozone and temperature from the DWD lidar should be consistent over the years. Nevertheless, the HOPE intercomparison was instrumental in uncovering and repairing several long-standing errors. HOPE also confirmed the reliability of the NASA lidar as a travelling standard. Now the entire DWD lidar data record needs to be reprocessed with the improved and revised algorithms.

Description: The Measurements of Humidity in the Atmosphere and Validation Experiment (MOHAVE) 2009 campaign took place on 11–27 October 2009 at the JPL Table Mountain Facility in California (TMF). The main objectives of the campaign were to (1) validate the water vapor measurements of several instruments, including, three Raman lidars, two microwave radiometers, two Fourier-Transform spectrometers, and two GPS receivers (column water), (2) cover water vapor measurements from the ground to the mesopause without gaps, and (3) study upper tropospheric humidity variability at timescales varying from a few minutes to several days. A total of 58 radiosondes and 20 Frost-Point hygrometer sondes were launched. Two types of radiosondes were used during the campaign. Non negligible differences in the readings between the two radiosonde types used (Vaisala RS92 and InterMet iMet-1) made a small, but measurable impact on the derivation of water vapor mixing ratio by the Frost-Point hygrometers. As observed in previous campaigns, the RS92 humidity measurements remained within 5% of the Frost-point in the lower and mid-troposphere, but were too dry in the upper troposphere. Over 270 h of water vapor measurements from three Raman lidars (JPL and GSFC) were compared to RS92, CFH, and NOAA-FPH. The JPL lidar profiles reached 20 km when integrated all night, and 15 km when integrated for 1 h. Excellent agreement between this lidar and the frost-point hygrometers was found throughout the measurement range, with only a 3% (0.3 ppmv) mean wet bias for the lidar in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). The other two lidars provided satisfactory results in the lower and mid-troposphere (2–5% wet bias over the range 3–10 km), but suffered from contamination by fluorescence (wet bias ranging from 5 to 50% between 10 km and 15 km), preventing their use as an independent measurement in the UTLS. The comparison between all available stratospheric sounders allowed to identify only the largest biases, in particular a 10% dry bias of the Water Vapor Millimeter-wave Spectrometer compared to the Aura-Microwave Limb Sounder. No other large, or at least statistically significant, biases could be observed. Total Precipitable Water (TPW) measurements from six different co-located instruments were available. Several retrieval groups provided their own TPW retrievals, resulting in the comparison of 10 different datasets. Agreement within 7% (0.7 mm) was found between all datasets. Such good agreement illustrates the maturity of these measurements and raises confidence levels for their use as an alternate or complementary source of calibration for the Raman lidars. Tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and temperature measurements were also available during the campaign. The water vapor and ozone lidar measurements, together with the advected potential vorticity results from the high-resolution transport model MIMOSA, allowed the identification and study of a deep stratospheric intrusion over TMF. These observations demonstrated the lidar strong potential for future long-term monitoring of water vapor in the UTLS.

Description: The main purpose of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center TROPospheric OZone DIfferential Absorption Lidar (GSFC TROPOZ DIAL) is to measure the vertical distribution of tropospheric ozone for science investigations. Because of the important health and climate impacts of tropospheric ozone, it is imperative to quantify background photochemical ozone concentrations and ozone layers aloft, especially during air quality episodes. For these reasons, this paper addresses the necessary procedures to validate the TROPOZ retrieval algorithm and confirm that it is properly representing ozone concentrations. This paper is focused on ensuring the TROPOZ algorithm is properly quantifying ozone concentrations, and a following paper will focus on a systematic uncertainty analysis. This methodology begins by simulating synthetic lidar returns from actual TROPOZ lidar return signals in combination with a known ozone profile. From these synthetic signals, it is possible to explicitly determine retrieval algorithm biases from the known profile. This was then systematically performed to identify any areas that need refinement for a new operational version of the TROPOZ retrieval algorithm. One immediate outcome of this exercise was that a bin registration error in the correction for detector saturation within the original retrieval was discovered and was subsequently corrected for. Another noticeable outcome was that the vertical smoothing in the retrieval algorithm was upgraded from a constant vertical resolution to a variable vertical resolution to yield a statistical uncertainty of

Description: Tropospheric ozone profiles have been retrieved from the new ground-based National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center TROPospheric OZone DIfferential Absorption Lidar (GSFC TROPOZ DIAL) in Greenbelt, MD (38.99° N, 76.84° W, 57 m a.s.l.), from 400 m to 12 km a.g.l. Current atmospheric satellite instruments cannot peer through the optically thick stratospheric ozone layer to remotely sense boundary layer tropospheric ozone. In order to monitor this lower ozone more effectively, the Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) has been developed, which currently consists of five stations across the US. The GSFC TROPOZ DIAL is based on the DIAL technique, which currently detects two wavelengths, 289 and 299 nm, with multiple receivers. The transmitted wavelengths are generated by focusing the output of a quadrupled Nd:YAG laser beam (266 nm) into a pair of Raman cells, filled with high-pressure hydrogen and deuterium, using helium as buffer gas. With the knowledge of the ozone absorption coefficient at these two wavelengths, the range-resolved number density can be derived. An interesting atmospheric case study involving the stratospheric–tropospheric exchange (STE) of ozone is shown, to emphasize the regional importance of this instrument as well as to assess the validation and calibration of data. There was a low amount of aerosol aloft, and an iterative aerosol correction has been performed on the retrieved data, which resulted in less than a 3 ppb correction to the final ozone concentration. The retrieval yields an uncertainty of 16–19% from 0 to 1.5 km, 10–18% from 1.5 to 3 km, and 11–25% from 3 to 12 km according to the relevant aerosol concentration aloft. There are currently surface ozone measurements hourly and ozonesonde launches occasionally, but this system will be the first to make routine tropospheric ozone profile measurements in the Baltimore–Washington, D.C. area.

Description: Tropospheric ozone profiles have been retrieved from the new ground based National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center TROPospheric OZone DIfferential Absorption Lidar (GSFC TROPOZ DIAL) in Greenbelt, MD (38.99° N, 76.84° W, 57 m a.s.l.) from 400 m to 12 km a.g.l. Current atmospheric satellite instruments cannot peer through the optically thick stratospheric ozone layer to remotely sense boundary layer tropospheric ozone. In order to monitor this lower ozone more effectively, the Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) has been developed, which currently consists of five stations across the US. The GSFC TROPOZ DIAL is based on the Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) technique, which currently detects two wavelengths, 289 and 299 nm. Ozone is absorbed more strongly at 289 nm than at 299 nm. The DIAL technique exploits this difference between the returned backscatter signals to obtain the ozone number density as a function of altitude. The transmitted wavelengths are generated by focusing the output of a quadrupled Nd:YAG laser beam (266 nm) into a pair of Raman cells, filled with high pressure hydrogen and deuterium. Stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS) within the focus generates a significant fraction of the pump energy at the first Stokes shift. With the knowledge of the ozone absorption coefficient at these two wavelengths, the range resolved number density can be derived. An interesting atmospheric case study involving the Stratospheric–Tropospheric Exchange (STE) of ozone is shown to emphasize the regional importance of this instrument as well as assessing the validation and calibration of data. The retrieval yields an uncertainty of 16–19% from 0–1.5 km, 10–18% from 1.5–3 km, and 11–25% from 3 km to 12 km. There are currently surface ozone measurements hourly and ozonesonde launches occasionally, but this system will be the first to make routine tropospheric ozone profile measurements in the Baltimore–Washington DC area.

Description: Thirteen clear nights in October 2005 allowed successful intercomparison of the stationary lidar operated since 1987 by the German Weather Service (DWD) at Hohenpeissenberg (47.8° N, 11.0° E) with the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) travelling standard lidar operated by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Both lidars provide ozone profiles in the stratosphere, and temperature profiles in the strato- and mesosphere. Additional ozone profiles came from on-site Brewer/Mast ozonesondes, additional temperature profiles from Vaisala RS92 radiosondes launched at Munich (65 km north-east), and from operational analyses by the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). The intercomparison confirmed a low bias for ozone from the DWD lidar in the 33 to 43 km region, by up to 10%. This bias is caused by the DWD ozone algorithm. It will be removed in a future version. Between 20 and 33 km, agreement between both lidars, and ozonesondes below 30 km, is good with ozone differences less than 3 to 5%. Results are consistent with previous comparisons of the DWD lidar with SAGE, GOMOS and other satellite instruments. The intercomparison did uncover a 290 m upward shift of the DWD lidar data. When this shift is removed, agreement with ozone from the NASA lidar improves below 20 km, with remaining differences usually less than 5%, and not statistically significant. Precision (repeatability) for the lidar ozone data is better than 5% between 20 and 40 km altitude, dropping to 10% near 45 km, and 50% near 50 km. Temperature from the DWD lidar has a 1 to 2 K cold bias from 30 to 65 km against the NASA lidar, and a 2 to 4 K cold bias against radiosondes and NCEP. This is consistent with previous intercomparisons against NCEP or radiosondes. The cold bias against the NASA lidar disappears when the DWD lidar data are corrected for the afore-mentioned 290 m range error, and more appropriate values for the Earth's gravity acceleration are used. Temperature precision (repeatability) for the DWD lidar is better than 2 K between 30 and 50 km , decreasing to 10 K near 70 km. It is over-estimated by the current DWD algorithm, and should be reduced by a factor of 2.2 (e.g. from 22 K to 10 K near 70 km). Temperature and ozone variations are tracked well by both lidars, by ozone- and radiosondes, and by NCEP analyses. Correlations exceed 0.8 to 0.9 at most stratospheric levels. They decrease at levels above 40 km, especially for ozone or NCEP temperature. The ozone and temperature bias of the DWD lidar does not appear to have changed over the years. Long-term records of ozone and temperature from the DWD lidar should be consistent. Nevertheless, the HOPE intercomparison was instrumental in uncovering several long-standing errors. These need to be fixed and the entire DWD lidar data record needs to be reprocessed.

Description: The Sodankyla Total Column Ozone Intercomparison (SAUNA) campaign took place at the Finnish Meteorological Institute Arctic Research Center (FMI-ARC) at Sodankyla, Finland (67.37 N) in two separate phases during early spring 2006, and winter 2007. These campaigns has several goals: to determine and improve the accuracy of total column ozone measurements during periods of low solar zenith angle and high total column ozone; to determine the effect of ozone profile shape on the total column retrieval; and to make validate satellite ozone measurements under these same conditions. The GSFC Stratospheric Ozone Lidar (STROZ), which makes profile measurements of ozone temperature, aerosols and water vapor participated in both phases of the campaign. During the deployments, more than 30 profile measurements were made by the lidar instrument, along with Dobson, Brewer, DOAS, ozonesonde, and satellite measurements. The presentation will concentrate on STROZ lidar results from the second phase of the campaign and comparisons with other instruments will be discussed. This will include both ground-based and satellite comparisons.