Measurement intercomparison of the JPL and GSFC stratospheric ozone lidar systems

Is, McDermid; Sm, Godin; Lo, Lindqvist; Td, Walsh; Burris, J.; Butler, James J.; Ferrare, R. A.; Whiteman, David N.; Tj, McGee

doi:10.1364/ao.29.004671

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The JPL lidar made measurements during the 3 hours of darkness preceding local (PDT) midnight, 0400-0700 UT, which then allowed the GSFC lidar to operate from midnight until dawn. As we have described previously [McDermid et al, 1990c], it was not possible to operate the lidars simultaneously because the asynchronous observation of laser pulses from the other system caused nonrandom fluctuations in the background levels. The only exception to this timetable was on the final day, August 2, when a problem with one of the laser amplifiers delayed the start time of the JPL experiment to 0930 UT.…”

Section: Results Blind Intercomparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complete details of the JPL TMF differential absorption lidar system and the data analysis procedures have been published elsewhere [McDermid and Godin, 1989;McDermid et al, 1990d, e] and only a brief overview will be presented here. A high-power (100 W) xenon chloride (XeC1) excimer laser provides directly the absorbed, probe wavelength at 308 nm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory stratospheric ozone lidar during STOIC 1989

McDermid¹,

Godin²,

Walsh³

1995

J. Geophys. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stratospheric ozone concentration profiles measured by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory differential absorption lidar system during the Stratospheric Ozone Intercomparison Campaign in July/August 1989 are presented. These profiles are compared with the mean profiles based on all of the measurements made by the different participating instruments. The results from the blind intercomparison showed that the lidar results agreed with the overall Stratospheric Ozone Intercomparison Campaign average profile to better than 5% between 21 and 45 km altitude. At 20 km the difference was ∼10%, as it was also in the region from 47 to 50 km altitude. Some systematic features were observed in the comparison of the blind results and these were subsequently investigated. The results of this investigation allowed the analysis algorithm to be refined and improved. The changes made are discussed and the comparison of the refined results showed agreement with the STOIC average to better than 4% from 18 to 48 km altitude. For both cases the results above 45 km altitude are subject to the greatest uncertainty and error and are of questionable value even though they agree within 10% with the STOIC average. Examples of comparisons of individual lidar profiles with each of the other instruments are also presented.

show abstract

Section: Results Blind Intercomparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory stratospheric ozone lidar during STOIC 1989

McDermid¹,

Godin²,

Walsh³

1995

J. Geophys. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) provides time-height measurements of ozone from the planetary boundary layer (PBL) to the top of the troposphere at multiple locations for satellite validation, model evaluation, and scientific research (Newchurch et al, 2016; http://www-air. larc.nasa.gov/missions/TOLNet/).…”

Section: Tolnetmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Lidar Intercomparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wang¹,

Newchurch²,

Alvarez³

et al. 2017

Atmos. Meas. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) is a unique network of lidar systems that measure highresolution atmospheric profiles of ozone. The accurate characterization of these lidars is necessary to determine the uniformity of the network calibration. From July to August 2014, three lidars, the TROPospheric OZone (TROPOZ) lidar, the Tunable Optical Profiler for Aerosol and oZone (TOPAZ) lidar, and the Langley Mobile Ozone Lidar (LMOL), of TOLNet participated in the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ) mission and the Front Range Air Pollution and Photochemistry Éxperiment (FRAPPÉ) to measure ozone variations from the boundary layer to the top of the troposphere. This study presents the analysis of the intercomparison between the TROPOZ, TOPAZ, and LMOL lidars, along with comparisons between the lidars and other in situ ozone instruments including ozonesondes and a P-3B airborne chemiluminescence sensor. The TOLNet lidars measured vertical ozone structures with an accuracy generally better than ±15 % within the troposphere. Larger differences occur at some individual altitudes in both the near-field and far-field range of the lidar systems, largely as expected. In terms of column average, the TOLNet lidars measured ozone with an accuracy better than ±5 % for both the intercomparison between the lidars and between the lidars and other instruments. These results indicate that these three TOLNet lidars are suitable for use in air quality, satellite validation, and ozone modeling efforts.

show abstract

“…A first lidar inter-comparison campaign between the fixed JPL stratospheric lidar and the GSFC lidar was organized in October-November 1988, by McDermid et al 28,29 The two lidars used the same wavelength and so, to reduce the possible interferences, both instruments were operated alternatively for several hours each. While a global agreement of ¡5% was obtained from 30 to 40 km, outside this altitude range, the campaign revealed some instrumental problems associated with algorithm errors and signal-induced-noise effects.…”

Section: Ozone Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of ozone and temperature lidar validations performed within the framework of the Network for the Detection of Stratospheric Change

Keckhut¹,

McDermid

Swart

et al. 2004

J. Environ. Monitor.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of assimilation tools for satellite validation requires true estimates of the accuracy of the reference data. Since its inception, the Network for Detection of Stratospheric Change (NDSC) has provided systematic lidar measurements of ozone and temperature at several places around the world that are well adapted for satellite validations. Regular exercises have been organised to ensure the data quality at each individual site. These exercises can be separated into three categories: large scale intercomparisons using multiple instruments, including a mobile lidar; using satellite observations as a geographic transfer standards to compare measurements at different sites; and comparative investigations of the analysis software. NDSC is a research network, so each system has its own history, design, and analysis, and has participated differently in validation campaigns. There are still some technological differences that may explain different accuracies. However, the comparison campaigns performed over the last decade have always proved to be very helpful in improving the measurements. To date, more efforts have been devoted to characterising ozone measurements than to temperature observations. The synthesis of the published works shows that the network can potentially be considered as homogeneous within ¡2% between 20-35 km for ozone and ¡1 K between 35-60 km for temperature. Outside this altitude range, larger biases are reported and more efforts are required. In the lower stratosphere, Raman channels seem to improve comparisons but such capabilities were not systematically compared. At the top of the profiles, more investigations on analysis methodologies are still probably needed. SAGE II and GOMOS appear to be excellent tools for future ozone lidar validations but need to be better coordinated and take more advantage of assimilation tools. Also, temperature validations face major difficulties caused by atmospheric tides and therefore require intercomparisons with the mobile systems, at all sites.

show abstract

Measurement intercomparison of the JPL and GSFC stratospheric ozone lidar systems

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

Results from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory stratospheric ozone lidar during STOIC 1989

Results from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory stratospheric ozone lidar during STOIC 1989

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

Review of ozone and temperature lidar validations performed within the framework of the Network for the Detection of Stratospheric Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About