scilov-10 validation of sciamachy limb operational no 2 product f. azam, k. weigel, ralf bauer, a....
TRANSCRIPT
SCILOV-10Validation of SCIAMACHY limb
operational NO2 product
F. Azam, K. Weigel, Ralf Bauer, A. Rozanov, M. Weber, H. Bovensmann and J. P. Burrows
ESA/ESRIN, Frascati, Italy27-02-2014
Contents:
SCIAMACHY ESA vs IUP (datasets)
Validation Strategy
Validations:
ESA/DLR - IUP Inter-comparisons
Validation with occultation instruments
Validation with limb instrument OSIRIS
Conclusion/Outlook
1
ESA /DLR vs IUP NO2: main retrieval differences
2
ESA/DLR IUPProcessors: Speed Optimized Precision optimized
Pre-processing no yes auxiliary spectral fits for each tangent height independently, (improves quality of spectra)
Spectral range 420-470 nm 420-450 nm
See for details; Rozanov et al, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 4, 1319–1359, 2011
Regularization Optimal regularization weak statistical parameter using L- curve regularization method (smoothness constrain)
* L-curve: too strong regularization with deteriorating vertical resolution and large smoothing errors
Validation StrategySCIAMACHY limb coverage:
Profiles/day:1500 profiles for Aug 2002 - Apr 2012: above 4.5 million (a single measurement is performed for four azimuths of each limb state)
Data versions: ESA/DLR NO2 version 5.02 and IUP version 3.1
Sub-sampling:ESA SCIAMACHY Sub-sampling (allows for faster computation):
Distance between two profiles is set larger than 5000 km
A profile is not allowed in the same 5° latitude band as any of 26 profiles before
Each latitude band is limited to 20% more profiles than the average
3
Validation StrategySubsampling results in 3% of the entire datasets well distributed over all latitudes, longitudes and time
ESA – IUP Collocation criteria: time = 0.001 h, distance = 60 km
Reason: although same measurements but the determination of the horizontal positions of the tangent point is different for both datasets.
4
Statistics
5
Du
puy
et a
l. (2
00
9)
Mean relative difference
Standard deviation of the bias corrected difference
Standard error of the mean (too small to be visible on plots)
Results will be shown as profiles, annual cycles and time series comparisons for 30° latitude bins.
ESA/DLR v5.02 – IUP v3.1
6
ESA/DLR vs IUP Profile comparisons
Tropics
Near global
NH mid lat.
SH mid lat.
NH high lat.
SH high lat.
meanrelative
differences
7
Annual cycle
90S to 60S60N to 90N
Annual cycles comparisons for high lat. show large differences in winter month
(low NO2 concentrations)
7
Time series30S to 30N
60N to 90N 90S to 60S
ESA/DLR v5.02 – Occultation instruments
Occultation instruments and their NO2 datasets:
ACE-FTS: version 3.0 (2002-2010)
HALOE: version 19 (2002-2005)
SAGE II: version 6.2 (2002-2005)
Note: SAGE II sunrise (SR) and sunset (SS) events are separately compared sunrise events suffer from instrumental problem (Bauer et al., 2012). The sunset events have a better quality but are mainly restricted to the northern mid and high latitudes
ESA – Occultation instruemnts Collocation criteria:
time = 6 h, distance = 1000 km
9
10
Comparisons with occultation instruments
To Consider:
1)- Strong diurnal variation of NO2: pronounced at sunrise and sunset, SZA ≥ 90 largely effected
diurnal effect error
usually larger for occultation instruments below 25 km (e.g. Bauer et al., 2012McLinden et al., 2006)
a)- Changing illumination conditions (SZA) along the line of sight
b)- Different instruments measure at different SZA
Photochemical correction needed
11
Photochemical Correction Application:
Look up table with precalculated diurnal cycles provided by Chris McLinden, model from the University of California (McLinden et al, 2000, Prather 1992)
2 km vertical resolution and 2.5° latitude grid size.
For each collocation pair, matching geolocations and SZAs read in look- up-table
Calculation of scaling factors by dividing profile from look up table at SCIAMACHY SZA by the profile corresponding to the SZA of the other instrument
Scaling factors applied to the NO2 profile of the other instrument
Estimated errors introduced by this photochemical correction ~ 20% Bracher et al. 2005
12
To Consider:
2)- Avoid comparison of profiles at different vortex conditions and air masses Strong horizontal gradients at the edge of the polar vortex
Modified potential vorticity (MPV) calculated from ECMWF-Interim
Profiles polewards of 35° latitude are excluded, if:
- the MPV is > 30 and < 40 PVU (vortex edge)
- their MPV differs by more than 3 PVU
13
ESA/DLR vs Occultation profile comparisons
14
ESA/DLR vs Occultation profile comparisons
ESA/DLR v5.02 – OSIRIS
OSIRIS version 3.0 is used.
OSIRIS coverage is near global with the exception of the winter hemispheres
ESA –OSIRIS Collocation criteria:
time = 12 h, distance = 1000 km (OSIRIS performs measurements in a sun-synchronous orbit with an equator crossing time of the ascending node at 18:00 local solar time)
Note: Based on OSIRIS comparisons with other instruments, the precision of OSIRIS NO2 measurements is observed to be16% for 15–25 km and 6% between 25 and 35 kmReference: (http://osirus.usask.ca/?q=node/245)
15
6
ESA/DLR vs OSIRIS profile comparisons
Tropics
Near global
NH mid lat.
SH mid lat.
NH high lat.
SH high lat.
meanrelative
differences
7
Time series30S to 30N
60N to 90N 90S to 60S
Summary time series plots
18
Tropics
Time series
19
NH high lat.
Time series
20
SH high lat.
Time series
ConclusionsESA-IUPLarge differences observed in the high latitude winter, elsewhere agreement within a few percentsRetrieval differences (regularization) probable cause of the differences
ESA-Occultation
25–35 km:-
ACE-FTS ~10% , HALOE ~15% and SAGE II ~20% on the average
20 -25 km:- differences with the instruments may approach 50%.
Below 20 km and above 40 km: large biases observed
Diurnal effect error a potential dominant source of differences below 25
ESA-OSIRIS
Good agreement within the precision limit of OSIRIS
21
23
Outlook/Recommendations
For ESA/DLR limb NO2, retireval should be precision optimized, studies on the choice of photochemical correction should be part of future validation activities
Extra Slides
NH mid.lat
Time series
SH mid lat.
Time series
ResultsProfile comparisons: mean relative differences plots with the standard deviation of the bias corrected differences for 20-35 km
Annual cycles:annual cycle vs altitude plots as monthly mean absolute amounts, monthy mean percental difference and the monthly mean percental differences for selected altitudes (20, 24, 27 and 31 km)
Time Series:compared for 20–35 km on a monthly grid. For the selected altitudes (20, 24, 27 and 31 km), comparisons carried out on 30 days running averages if more than 10 collocations are found
Photochemical correction effect: Mean latitude-altitude cross section (monthly averages in 10° bins)
Mean latitude-altitude cross section (monthly averages in 10° bins)
MPV criteria effect: