Abstract

Abstract. In order to validate satellite measurements of atmospheric composition, it is necessary to understand the range of random and systematic uncertainties inherent in the measurements. On occasions where measurements from two different satellite instruments do not agree within those estimated uncertainties, a common explanation is that the difference can be assigned to geophysical variability, i.e., differences due to sampling the atmosphere at different times and locations. However, the expected geophysical variability is often left ambiguous and rarely quantified. This paper describes a case study where the geophysical variability of O3 between two satellite instruments – ACE-FTS (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment – Fourier Transform Spectrometer) and OSIRIS (Optical Spectrograph and InfraRed Imaging System) – is estimated using simulations from climate models. This is done by sampling the models CMAM (Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model), EMAC (ECHAM/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry), and WACCM (Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model) throughout the upper troposphere and stratosphere at times and geolocations of coincident ACE-FTS and OSIRIS measurements. Ensemble mean values show that in the lower stratosphere, O3 geophysical variability tends to be independent of the chosen time coincidence criterion, up to within 12 h; and conversely, in the upper stratosphere geophysical variation tends to be independent of the chosen distance criterion, up to within 2000 km. It was also found that in the lower stratosphere, at altitudes where there is the greatest difference between air composition inside and outside the polar vortex, the geophysical variability in the southern polar region can be double of that in the northern polar region. This study shows that the ensemble mean estimates of geophysical variation can be used when comparing data from two satellite instruments to optimize the coincidence criteria, allowing for the use of more coincident profiles while providing an estimate of the geophysical variation within the comparison results.

Highlights

  • A significant uncertainty when comparing concentrations of trace species measured from different satellite instruments is the difference due to the satellites sampling the atmosphere at different times and locations (“coincident” measurements are never truly coincident)

  • This study used three different chemistry–climate models – Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM), EMAC, and Whole Atmosphere Community Chemistry Model (WACCM) – that were run in specifieddynamics mode; i.e., meteorological fields were nudged towards observational data

  • The averages of the simulated values were taken in order to obtain ensemble mean values of the geophysical variation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A significant uncertainty when comparing concentrations of trace species measured from different satellite instruments is the difference due to the satellites sampling the atmosphere at different times and locations (“coincident” measurements are never truly coincident). This uncertainty can be called “geophysical variability”, “natural variability”, or “coincident location uncertainty” – this study uses the term geophysical variability. It is often the case that validation studies involving satellite-based atmospheric measurements will choose coincidence criteria without discussing the geophysical justification of the criteria

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call