Intercomparison of ground-based ozone and NO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; measurements during the MANTRA 2004 campaign

Fraser, A.; Bernath, P. F.; Blatherwick, R. D.; Drummond, J. R.; Fogal, P. F.; Fu, Dejian; Goutail, Florence; Kerzenmacher, Tobias; McElroy, C. T.; Midwinter, C.; Olson, J. R.; Strong, Kimberly; Walker, Kaley A.; Wunch, Debra; Young, I. J.

doi:10.5194/acp-7-5489-2007

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean relative difference for GBS minus SAOZ ozone is −3.2 ± 0.3 % (see third section of Table 3). This is well within the combined error of the two instruments and is comparable to the values of −6.9 % to −2.3 % found by Fraser et al (2008Fraser et al ( , 2009Fraser et al ( ) for 2005Fraser et al ( -2007, when SAOZ and GBS data were retrieved by the same analysis group, using the same analysis software. This demonstrates that, even when implemented independently with slight differences in the analysis settings and software, the new NDACC data standards are sufficient to produce a homogeneous ozone dataset.…”

Section: Comparisons With Ndacc Doas Measurementssupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Furthermore, the UT-GBS and SAOZ both met NDACC standards during the 2009 Cabauw Intercomparison of Nitrogen Dioxide measuring Instruments (Roscoe et al, 2010). GBS and SAOZ ozone and NO 2 measurements have been compared during several Arctic and mid-latitude campaigns using the same analysis settings and the same software (Fraser et al, 2007(Fraser et al, , 2009.…”

Section: Doas Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO2 measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Optical Spectrograph and Infra-Red Imager System (OSIRIS) and the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) have been taking measurements from space since 2001 and 2003, respectively. This paper presents intercomparisons between ozone and NO 2 measured by the ACE and OSIRIS satellite instruments and by groundbased instruments at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL), which is located at Eureka, Canada (80 • N, 86 • W) and is operated by the Canadian Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Change (CANDAC). The ground-based instruments included in this study are four zenith-sky differential optical absorption spectroscopy (DOAS) instruments, one Bruker Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) and four Brewer spectrophotometers.Ozone total columns measured by the DOAS instruments were retrieved using new Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) guidelines and agree to within 3.2 %. The DOAS ozone columns agree with the Brewer spectrophotometers with mean relative differences that are smaller than 1.5 %. This suggests that for these instruments the new NDACC data guidelines were successful in producing a homogenous and accurate ozone dataset at 80 • N. Satellite 14-52 km ozone and 17-40 km NO 2 partial columns within 500 km of PEARL were calculated for ACE-FTS Version 2.2 (v2.2) plus updates, ACE- C. Adams et al.: Validation of ACE and OSIRISand Optimal Estimation v3.0 NO 2 data products. The new ACE-FTS v3.0 and the validated ACE-FTS v2.2 partial columns are nearly identical, with mean relative differences of 0.0 ± 0.2 % and −0.2 ± 0.1 % for v2.2 minus v3.0 ozone and NO 2 , respectively. Ozone columns were constructed from 14-52 km satellite and 0-14 km ozonesonde partial columns and compared with the ground-based total column measurements. The satellite-plus-sonde measurements agree with the ground-based ozone total columns with mean relative differences of 0.1-7.3 %. For NO 2 , partial columns from 17 km upward were scaled to noon using a photochemical model. Mean relative differences between OSIRIS, ACE-FTS and ground-based NO 2 measurements do not exceed 20 %. ACE-MAESTRO measures more NO 2 than the other instruments, with mean relative differences of 25-52 %. Seasonal variation in the differences between NO 2 partial columns is observed, suggesting that there are systematic errors in the measurements and/or the photochemical model corrections. For ozone spring-time measurements, additional coincidence criteria based on stratospheric temperature and the location of the polar vortex were found to improve agreement between some of the instruments. For ACE-FTS v2.2 minus Bruker FTIR, the 2007-2009 spring-time mean relative difference improved from −5.0 ± 0.4 % to −3.1 ± 0.8 % with the dynamical selection criteria. This was the largest improvement, likely because both instruments measure direct sunlight and therefore have well-characterized lines-of-sight compared with scattered sunlight measurements. For NO 2 , the addition of a ±1 • latitude co...

show abstract

Section: Comparisons With Ndacc Doas Measurementssupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Doas Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO2 measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 has been deployed since 2010 for year-round sunlit measurements. SAOZ and UT-GBS TCO data have been compared during several mid-latitude and Arctic campaigns (Adams et al, 2012;Fraser et al, 2007Fraser et al, , 2008Fraser et al, , 2009Roscoe et al, 2010).…”

Section: Saozmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies have compared WMO-GAW Dobson or Brewer TCO (hereafter referred to as DB TCO) with NDACC UV-visible zenith-sky TCO (referred to as ZS TCO) (Fraser et al, 2007;Hendrick et al, 2011;Høiskar et al, 1997;Kyrö, 1993;Roscoe et al, 1994Roscoe et al, , 2001Van Roozendael et al, 1998;Vaughan et al, 1997). In general, it has been found that ZS TCO retrievals have advantages, such as weak temperature dependence of ozone cross sections (in the visible band), the ability to measure at large SZAs (e.g., during polar sunrise and sunset), and limited sensitivity to clouds compared to DB TCO (Daumont et al, 1992;Hendrick et al, 2011;Scarnato et al, 2009;Van Roozendael and Hendrick, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of clouds on ground-based UV–visible total column ozone measurements in the high Arctic

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Zenith-Sky scattered light Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (ZS-DOAS) has been used widely to retrieve total column ozone (TCO). ZS-DOAS measurements have the advantage of being less sensitive to clouds than direct-sun measurements. However, the presence of clouds still affects the quality of ZS-DOAS TCO. Clouds are thought to be the largest contributor to random uncertainty in ZS-DOAS TCO, but their impact on data quality still needs to be quantified. This study has two goals: (1) to investigate whether clouds have a significant impact on ZS-DOAS TCO, and (2) to develop a cloud-screening algorithm to improve ZS-DOAS measurements in the Arctic under cloudy conditions. To quantify the impact of weather, 8 years of measured and modelled TCO have been used, along with information about weather conditions at Eureka, Canada (80.05∘ N, 86.41∘ W). Relative to direct-sun TCO measurements by Brewer spectrophotometers and modelled TCO, a positive bias is found in ZS-DOAS TCO measured in cloudy weather, and a negative bias is found for clear conditions, with differences of up to 5 % between clear and cloudy conditions. A cloud-screening algorithm is developed for high latitudes using the colour index calculated from ZS-DOAS spectra. The quality of ZS-DOAS TCO datasets is assessed using a statistical uncertainty estimation model, which suggests a 3 %–4 % random uncertainty. The new cloud-screening algorithm reduces the random uncertainty by 0.6 %. If all measurements collected during cloudy conditions, as identified using the weather station observations, are removed, the random uncertainty is reduced by 1.3 %. This work demonstrates that clouds are a significant contributor to uncertainty in ZS-DOAS TCO and proposes a method that can be used to screen clouds in high-latitude spectra.

show abstract

Section: Doas Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO2 measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Adams¹,

Strong²,

Batchelor³

et al. 2012

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Optical Spectrograph and Infra-Red Imager System (OSIRIS) and the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) have been taking measurements from space since 2001 and 2003, respectively. This paper presents intercomparisons between ozone and NO2 measured by the ACE and OSIRIS satellite instruments and by ground-based instruments at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL), which is located at Eureka, Canada (80° N, 86° W) and is operated by the Canadian Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Change (CANDAC). The ground-based instruments included in this study are four zenith-sky differential optical absorption spectroscopy (DOAS) instruments, one Bruker Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR) and four Brewer spectrophotometers. Ozone total columns measured by the DOAS instruments were retrieved using new Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) guidelines and agree to within 3.2%. The DOAS ozone columns agree with the Brewer spectrophotometers with mean relative differences that are smaller than 1.5%. This suggests that for these instruments the new NDACC data guidelines were successful in producing a homogenous and accurate ozone dataset at 80° N. Satellite 14–52 km ozone and 17–40 km NO2 partial columns within 500 km of PEARL were calculated for ACE-FTS Version 2.2 (v2.2) plus updates, ACE-FTS v3.0, ACE-MAESTRO (Measurements of Aerosol Extinction in the Stratosphere and Troposphere Retrieved by Occultation) v1.2 and OSIRIS SaskMART v5.0x ozone and Optimal Estimation v3.0 NO2 data products. The new ACE-FTS v3.0 and the validated ACE-FTS v2.2 partial columns are nearly identical, with mean relative differences of 0.0 ± 0.2% for ozone and −0.2 ± 0.1% for v2.2 minus v3.3 NO2. Ozone columns were constructed from 14–52 km satellite and 0–14 km ozonesonde partial columns and compared with the ground-based total column measurements. The satellite-plus-sonde measurements agree with the ground-based ozone total columns with mean relative differences of 0.1–7.3%. For NO2, partial columns from 17 km upward were scaled to noon using a photochemical model. Mean relative differences between OSIRIS, ACE-FTS and ground-based NO2 measurements do not exceed 20%. ACE-MAESTRO measures more NO2 than the other instruments, with mean relative differences of 25–52%. Seasonal variation in the differences between partial columns is observed, suggesting that there are systematic errors in the measurements, the photochemical model corrections, and/or in the coincidence criteria. For ozone spring-time measurements, additional coincidence criteria based on stratospheric temperature and the location of the polar vortex were found to improve agreement between some of the instruments. For ACE-FTS v2.2 minus Bruker FTIR, the 2007–2009 spring-time mean relative difference improved from −5.0 ± 0.4% to −3.1 ± 0.8% with the dynamical selection criteria. This was the largest improvement, likely because both instruments measure direct sunlight and therefore have well-characterized lines-of-sight compared with scattered sunlight measurements. For NO2, the addition of a ±1° latitude coincidence criterion improved spring-time intercomparison results, likely due to the sharp latitudinal gradient of NO2 during polar sunrise. The differences between satellite and ground-based measurements do not show any obvious trends over the missions, indicating that both the ACE and OSIRIS instruments continue to perform well.

show abstract

Intercomparison of ground-based ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements during the MANTRA 2004 campaign

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Assessing the impact of clouds on ground-based UV–visible total column ozone measurements in the high Arctic

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Intercomparison of ground-based ozone and NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; measurements during the MANTRA 2004 campaign

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Assessing the impact of clouds on ground-based UV–visible total column ozone measurements in the high Arctic

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Intercomparison of ground-based ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements during the MANTRA 2004 campaign

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N

Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO<sub>2</sub> measurements using ground-based instruments at 80° N