1 / 24

ACE Comparisons

ACE Comparisons. Kaley Walker, Ashley Jones, Chris Boone, Chris Sioris, Felicia Kolonjari, Sean McLeod, Peter Bernath and Tom McElroy MOHAVE-2009 #2 Workshop - Bern, Switzerland - 20 October 2010. Talk Overview. Recap of ACE satellite and measurement technique

olympe
Download Presentation

ACE Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACE Comparisons Kaley Walker, Ashley Jones, Chris Boone, Chris Sioris, Felicia Kolonjari, Sean McLeod, Peter Bernath and Tom McElroy MOHAVE-2009 #2 Workshop - Bern, Switzerland - 20 October 2010

  2. Talk Overview • Recap of ACE satellite and measurement technique • ACE occultation measurements during MOHAVE • Comparisons with: • MIPAS and MLS • STROZ and ALVICE

  3. Launch date: August 12, 2003 Orbit: 74° inclination at 650 km Measurement mode: solar occultation ACE-FTS: FTIR spectrometer, 2-13 microns at 0.02 cm-1 resolution 2-channel visible/NIR imager, 0.525 and 1.02 microns MAESTRO: dual UV / visible / NIR grating spectrophotometer, 285 to 1030 nm at ~1-2 nm resolution Pointing: suntracker in ACE-FTS ACE on SCISAT-1 Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) Satellite Mission: Mission to measure atmospheric composition: profiles of trace gas species, cloud and aerosol extinction and temperature/pressure

  4. Technique: Solar Occultation Advantages: • Radiance of sun gives higher signal-to-noise than emission • Limb view gives longer path length ~500 km (lower detection limits) than nadir • “Self-calibrating” so excellent long-term accuracy and precision Disadvantages: • Modest global coverage • Samples only free troposphere

  5. Sunset 2245 12 Jan. 2004 9:50:23 UTC Lat: 67°S Lon: 168°W Occultation sequence

  6. ACE Latitude Coverage 2005/2006 Orbit allows repeat of measurement locations each year

  7. Beta Angle of Measurement • Beta is the angle between the orbit plane of the satellite and the Earth-Sun vector • The larger the beta angle the longer the occultation measurement and thus more frequent altitude sampling High beta Low beta Diagram shows beta angle as viewed from Sun

  8. Seven ACE occultations were measured near TMF during the MOHAVE-2009 campaign All are “Opportunity Science” observations - beta angle > 60° With higher beta angle, occultations are longer and cover larger ground tracks Plot shows ground-tracks of ACE occultations from 0 to 150 km in altitude (stretch over 10 º lat.!) Label location of occultation using 30 km point (geometric) ACE Measurements for MOHAVE TMF

  9. ACE Occultations • ACE Measurement times, locations and distances from TMF • Distance from TMF (34.4 N, 117.7 W) to location of ACE 30 km tangent altitude (as calculated geometrically) • Have profiles for all occultations from ACE-FTS and for two from MAESTRO (ss33239 and ss33254)

  10. ACE-FTS data processing • Raw data to atmospheric transmission spectra (Level 0 to 1) • Interferograms transmitted to Earth are Fourier transformed and transmission spectra are calculated using exo-atmospheric spectra • Spectra to atmospheric profiles (Level 1 to 2) • Temperature and pressure profiles are determined from global (non-linear least-squares) fit of CO2 transitions – relative line intensities give temperature and absolute line intensities give pressure • Then concentration profiles of atmospheric species are retrieved using microwindow approach • ACE-MAESTRO retrievals also use ACE-FTS pressure and temperature profiles

  11. ACE Water Vapour • ACE-FTS profiles (version 2.2 + O3, N2O5 & HDO updates): • Cloud tops to ~90 km depending on abundance • ~3-4 km vertical resolution from FTS field of view • H2O MWs • v2.2: ~60 from 950-975 cm-1 and 1360-2000 cm-1 • v3.0: ~40 from 935-945 cm-1 and 1195-1945 cm-1 • MAESTRO profiles: • H2O - research product - not part of current v1.2 distribution • Cloud tops to tropopause is best region for retrievals • ~1 km vertical from MAESTRO • Spectral range: 926 - 969.7 nm

  12. ACE H2O Validation M. Carleer et al., ACPD, 8, 4499-4559 (2008), still in revision • Comparisons with SAGE II, HALOE, POAM III, MIPAS and SMR • ACE-FTS v2.2 fitting errors generally better than 5% from 7 to 70 km and increasing above • In all comparisons except for POAM III, ACE-FTS typically biased high on order of 3-10 % from 15 to 70 km • Approximately constant wet bias of 0.4 ppmv for ACE-FTS versus SMR from 50 to 90 km • Largest differences for ACE-FTS at lowest altitudes - MAESTRO results seem better in upper troposphere • Vertical resolution effect?

  13. ACE Data Used for Comparisons • Using newest versions of ACE-FTS (v3.0) and MAESTRO (research) profiles (available in MOHAVE database) • ACE-FTS: now all seven occultations have processed • Challenges with large number of measurements in each occultation (because of high beta angle) • For highest beta, analyse every other measurement to deal with large amount of data (sr33350, ss33283, ss33254) • For slightly lower high beta, every measurement is analysed but small distance between them (< 1.5 km) can cause oscillations to occur (ss33269 and ss33365) • ACE-MAESTRO: two occultations available (ss33239 and ss33254) • Limited by number of spectra processed with new L1 code

  14. MAESTRO versus ACE-FTS ss33254, 2009-10-16 01:12UTC; (29.72N, 116.71W); beta 61.93; 528.7 km ACE-FTS gives fitting errors while MAESTRO calculates uncertainty for each altitude

  15. MAESTRO versus ACE-FTS Large error given for this value! ss33239, 2009-10-15 00:44UTC; (20.34N, 107.79W); beta 60.77; 1842.0 km

  16. Comparison Details • Starting with each ACE occultation, search for coincidences within: • 6 hours and 500 km for MLS (~same resolution) • 6 hours and 700 km for MIPAS (~same resolution) • 6 hours and 500 km for lidars (STROZ, ALVICE) • Employed smoothing technique to make vertical resolution of measurements comparable • Created 3 km wide weighting functions at ACE-FTS observation altitudes and convolved these with the individual lidar profiles - used in v2.2 validation! • Focus only on water vapour for these comparisons...

  17. ACE-FTS vs. MIPAS sr33365; 2009-10-23 14:23UTC; (36.10N, 121.23W); beta 60.97; 372.1 km Example of oscillations in profiles 1 ACE-FTS versus 3 MIPAS profiles See average comparisons in Gabi’s MIPAS talk! Non-LTE effects for MIPAS above 50 km

  18. ACE-FTS versus MLS Example of minimal oscillations in profiles 1 ACE-FTS vs. 6 MLS profiles Consistent with ACE-MLS v2.2 comparisons ±5% with no bias sr33351; 2009-10-22 15:33UTC; (45.02 N, 135.84W); beta 62.02; 1942.4 km

  19. ACE-FTS versus STROZ ss33254, 2009-10-16 01:12UTC; (29.72N, 116.71W); beta 61.93; 528.7 km Using 1 hour integ. STROZ Within (just) 6 hours! Smoothing generally makes profiles more comparable.

  20. ACE-FTS versus STROZ ss33254, 2009-10-16 01:12UTC; (29.72N, 116.71W); beta 61.93; 528.7 km Using 1 hour integ. STROZ Focusing on UTLS part of profile Challenge of comparing limb and vertical profiles!

  21. ACE-FTS versus STROZ ss33254, 2009-10-16 01:12UTC; (29.72N, 116.71W); beta 61.93; 528.7 km Using 1 hour integ. STROZ Now within ~3 hours UTLS more comparable when closer in time.

  22. ACE-FTS versus ALVICE ss33254, 2009-10-16 01:12UTC; (29.72N, 116.71W); beta 61.93; 528.7 km Using 1 hour integ. ALVICE within ~3 hours See larger differences than with STROZ Would be useful to look at T, O3

  23. Summary • Seven occultations were measured within 2000 km of TMF • ACE-FTS v3.0 and new MAESTRO profiles available from archive • All “Opportunity Science” Observations • Challenging to process because of high beta angle • Limited opportunities for statistical comparisons (unlike MIPAS, MLS) • So, how do we best to use ACE in MOHAVE comparisons? Funding for ACE provided by: • Canadian Space Agency (CSA) • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) • Environment Canada

  24. ACE-FTS versus HALOE v19 • 36 coincidences within 2 hours and 500 km; most northern polar summer occultations • Hygropause at same altitude but more rapid increase in H2O at lower altitudes for POAM III C. Randall (in ACE H2O validation paper)

More Related