Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.668 IF 3.668
  • IF 5-year value: 3.707 IF 5-year
    3.707
  • CiteScore value: 6.3 CiteScore
    6.3
  • SNIP value: 1.383 SNIP 1.383
  • IPP value: 3.75 IPP 3.75
  • SJR value: 1.525 SJR 1.525
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 77 Scimago H
    index 77
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-207
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2020-207
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  13 Jul 2020

13 Jul 2020

Review status
This preprint is currently under review for the journal AMT.

Model estimations of geophysical variability between satellite measurements of ozone profiles

Patrick E. Sheese1, Kaley A. Walker1, Chris D. Boone2, Doug A. Degenstein3, Felicia Kolonjari4, David Plummer5, Douglas E. Kinnison6, Patrick Jöckel7, and Thomas von Clarmann8 Patrick E. Sheese et al.
  • 1University of Toronto, Department of Physics, Toronto, Canada
  • 2University of Waterloo, Department of Chemistry, Waterloo, Canada
  • 3University of Saskatchewan, ISAS, Department of Physics and Engineering, Saskatoon, Canada
  • 4Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, Canada
  • 5Environment and Climate Change Canada, Climate Research Branch, Montreal, Canada
  • 6National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry Observations & Modeling Laboratory, Boulder, USA
  • 7Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
  • 8Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe, Germany

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.

Patrick E. Sheese et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: open (until 07 Sep 2020)
Status: open (until 07 Sep 2020)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Patrick E. Sheese et al.

Patrick E. Sheese et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 131 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
91 34 6 131 8 5
  • HTML: 91
  • PDF: 34
  • XML: 6
  • Total: 131
  • BibTeX: 8
  • EndNote: 5
Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jul 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Jul 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 86 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 86 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 08 Aug 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation