Intercomparison of stratospheric ozone and temperature profiles during the October 2005 Hohenpeißenberg Ozone Profiling Experiment (HOPE)

Abstract

Abstract. Thirteen clear nights in October 2005 allowed successful intercomparison of the lidar operated since 1987by 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 Correspondence to: W. Steinbrecht (wolfgang.steinbrecht@dwd.de) (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 overestimates 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. The...

Intercomparison of stratospheric temperature profiles from a ground-based microwave radiometer with other techniques

“…The initial version 1.5 (v1. has provided one of the longer NDACC time series (Steinbrecht et al, 2009). It emits intense ultraviolet light pulses at 353 nm generated from a xenon chloride excimer laser and a hydrogen Raman cell.…”

“…The lidar-derived temperature has a small bias of about 2 K between 30 and 50 km, which is not well understood. See Steinbrecht et al (2009) for details. Figure 3 shows different ranges of measurements of each instrument used in this study (radiosondes, TEMPERA radiometer, MLS satellite and lidar).…”

“…The Rayleigh lidar has been shown to be a powerful tool for monitoring temperatures in the middle atmosphere with a high spatial and temporal resolution (Hauchecorne and Chanin, 1980;Keckhut et al, 2001;Steinbrecht et al, 2009). However, its main drawback is that it cannot be operated during daytime, or under cloudy or rainy conditions.…”

Comparison of ozone profiles from DIAL, MLS, and chemical transport model simulations over Río Gallegos, Argentina, during the spring Antarctic vortex breakup, 2009

“…O 3 measurements from DIAL have a high vertical resolution and measurements have shown long-term stability (Nair et al, 2012;Hubert et al, 2016), owing to the stratospheric ozone lidar sites of NDACC (e.g., Leblanc and McDermid, 2000;Brinksma et al, 2002;Godin-Beekmann et al, 2003;Steinbrecht et al, 2009). To target the stratosphere, O 3 number density is usually retrieved between 15 and 45 km in geometric altitude.…”

Quantifying TOLNet ozone lidar accuracy during the 2014 DISCOVER-AQ and FRAPPÉ campaigns

“…They were only a few hundreds of meters away from each other and were within 5 m of the same elevation (see measurement locations in Table 1). Unlike stratospheric ozone lidars that focus on integrating hours of observations (Steinbrecht et al, 2009;McDermid et al, 1990), tropospheric ozone lidars need to detect ozone variations with timescales on the order of minutes, when considering ozone's shorter lifetime, smallerscale transport, and mixing processes within the PBL and free troposphere. Therefore, we processed all lidar data on a 5 min temporal scale (signal integration time).…”