<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Research article}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-22-15559-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Vertical structure of the lower-stratospheric <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> moist bias in the ERA5
reanalysis and <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> its connection to mixing processes</article-title><alt-title>Vertical structure of the lower-stratospheric moist bias</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Vertical structure of the lower-stratospheric moist bias}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{K. Kr\"{u}ger et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Krüger</surname><given-names>Konstantin</given-names></name>
          <email>konstantin.krueger@dlr.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0778-9756</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Schäfler</surname><given-names>Andreas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6165-6623</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wirth</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5951-2252</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Weissmann</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-1791</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Craig</surname><given-names>George C.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für
Physik der Atmosphäre, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Meteorologisches Institut München,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universität Wien,
Vienna, Austria</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Konstantin Krüger (konstantin.krueger@dlr.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>12</day><month>December</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>23</issue>
      <fpage>15559</fpage><lpage>15577</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>15</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>11</day><month>November</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>17</day><month>November</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e138">Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are known to possess a distinct
moist bias in the mid-latitude lower stratosphere, which is expected to affect
the ability to accurately predict weather and climate. This paper
investigates the vertical structure of the moist bias in the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) latest global reanalysis ERA5
using a unique multi-campaign data set of highly resolved water vapour
profiles observed with a differential absorption lidar (DIAL) on board the
High Altitude and LOng range research aircraft (HALO). In total, 41 flights
in the mid-latitudes from six field campaigns provide roughly 33 000 profiles
with humidity varying by 4 orders of magnitude. The observations cover
different synoptic situations and seasons and thus are suitable to
characterize the strong vertical gradients of moisture in the upper
troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). The comparison to ERA5 indicates
high positive and negative deviations in the UT, which on average lead to a
slightly positive bias (15 %–20 %). In the LS, the moist bias rapidly
increases up to a maximum of 55 % at 1.3 km altitude above the thermal
tropopause (tTP) and decreases again to 15 %–20 % at 4 km altitude. Such a
vertical structure is frequently observed, although the magnitude varies
from flight to flight. The layer depth of increased moist bias is smaller at
high tropopause altitudes and larger when the tropopause is low. Our results
also suggest a seasonality of the moist bias, with the maximum in summer
exceeding autumn by up to a factor of 3. During one field campaign, collocated
ozone and water vapour profile observations enable a classification of
tropospheric, stratospheric, and mixed air using water vapour–ozone
correlations. It is revealed that the moist bias is high in the mixed air
while being small in tropospheric and stratospheric air, which highlights
that excessive transport of moisture into the LS plays a decisive role for
the formation of the moist bias. Our results suggest that a better
representation of mixing processes in NWP models could lead to a reduced LS
moist bias that, in turn, may lead to more accurate weather and climate
forecasts. The lower-stratospheric moist bias should be borne in mind for
climatological studies using reanalysis data.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e150">Water vapour is one of the most important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and plays a key role for accurately predicting the Earth's weather (Gray et
al., 2014; Shepherd et al., 2018) and climate (Forster and Shine, 2002;
Riese et al., 2012). In the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS),
defined as a layer located <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km around the thermal tropopause (tTP)
(Gettelman et al., 2011), rapidly decreasing water vapour concentrations in
the vertical (e.g. Kiemle et al., 2012; Kaufmann et al., 2018) are of key
relevance to a net cooling near and above the tropopause (Randel et al.,
2007). The radiative modulation of the vertical temperature gradients may
influence the near-tropopause potential vorticity (PV) gradient (Chagnon et
al., 2013) that acts as a waveguide for Rossby waves (Martius et al., 2010)
and thus may affect downstream weather development in the mid-latitudes.
Hence, an accurate representation of UTLS water vapour in numerical weather
prediction (NWP) and climate models is essential.</p>
      <p id="d1e163">In the extratropical UTLS, the distribution of water vapour is driven by
transport and mixing processes related to baroclinic waves and associated
synoptic- and meso-scale weather systems, which are interacting with chemical
processes (e.g. Gettelman et al., 2011; Schäfler et al., 2022). The
increased static stability above the tropopause (Birner et al., 2002)
impedes water vapour from being vertically transported. Correspondingly, the
sharpest decline of water vapour is found just above the tropopause.
Exchange processes affect the water concentration around the tropopause
(Holton et al., 1995; Stohl et al., 2003) and create the extratropical
transition layer (ExTL; Pan et al., 2004; Hoor et al., 2010) with influences
of the troposphere and the stratosphere. In particular quasi-isentropic
exchange near the polar and subtropical jet streams (Haynes and Shuckburgh,
2000) and cross-isentropic mixing, for instance, through overshooting
convection (e.g. Dessler and Sherwood, 2004; Homeyer et al., 2014), are
major contributors to increased humidity above the tropopause. Furthermore,
tropopause folds are related to mass exchange between the UT and the LS
(Shapiro, 1980). Above the ExTL, the concentration of water vapour
approaches a low and vertically constant background value (e.g. Hintsa et
al., 1994), which is determined by the stratospheric transport from tropics
(Fueglistaler et al., 2009) within the Brewer–Dobson circulation (e.g. Dobson et al., 1946; Brewer, 1949) on timescales from months to years
(Birner and Bönisch, 2011). The complexity of transport and mixing
processes is mirrored in the high water vapour variability in the
extratropical UTLS on synoptic and seasonal timescales (e.g. Pan et al.,
2000; Randel and Wu, 2010; Zahn et al., 2014; Dyroff et al., 2015; Bland et
al., 2021; Schäfler et al., 2022).</p>
      <p id="d1e166">The sharp vertical gradients of trace species, PV, wind, and temperature at
the extratropical tropopause are challenging to resolve for state-of-the-art
NWP models (e.g. Stenke et al., 2008; Schäfler et al., 2020). Current
NWP analyses and forecasts are known to possess a distinct moist bias in the
extratropical LS (e.g. Kaufmann et al., 2018), which is causing a collocated
cold bias at the same altitudes (Stenke et al., 2008; Diamantakis and
Flemming, 2014; Shepherd et al., 2018). Recently, Bland et al. (2021) used
radiosonde observations of a 2-month period in autumn and confirmed the
earlier documented moist bias (about 70 % in the LS) in current
operational analyses of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecast System (IFS) and the Met Office's
Unified Model (METUM). They also showed that radiative effects related to
the moist bias cause a collocated cold bias in the LS that grows with
forecast lead time. For a comprehensive overview of the studies that
quantified the LS moist bias in different NWP systems, the interested reader
is referred to Table 1 in Bland et al. (2021). The vertical structure of the
moist bias is characterized by a small positive bias below the thermal
tropopause, followed by a vertical increase in the LS to a maximum at 1–2 km
above the tropopause (e.g. Dyroff et al., 2015; Bland et al., 2021).
However, different shapes of the LS moist bias above its maximum have been
reported. Bland et al. (2021) show an opposing vertical structure of the
moist bias beyond 2 km above the tTP using two different radiosonde types.
Woiwode et al. (2020) compare humidity cross sections of an airborne passive
infrared imager and present a case with vertically increasing moist bias, one with
constant bias, and two cases with vertically decreasing moist bias in IFS analysis
and forecast data.</p>
      <p id="d1e169">The origin of the wet model bias is still under debate: one hypothesis is
that it is caused by misrepresented dynamical transport and mixing processes
(Kunz et al., 2014; Shepherd et al., 2018), for example, overshooting convection
leading to excessive water vapour injection into the LS. Another potential
source of overestimated transport of moisture into the LS is numerical
diffusion and insufficient model resolution in the semi-Lagrangian advection
scheme used in the ECMWF model, leading to an excessive diffusive transport
of moisture across strong gradients from high to low mixing ratios (Stenke
et al., 2008; Kunz et al., 2014; Dyroff et al., 2015; Shepherd et al.,
2018). However, a LS moist bias of similar order is also found for
“Eulerian”-formulated models (Jiang et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2017).
Moreover, Woiwode et al. (2020) confirm that the bias is already present in
the initial conditions and demonstrate a low response of the moist bias to
variable vertical or temporal resolutions.</p>
      <p id="d1e173">The above-mentioned studies used a variety of observation techniques to
quantify the moist bias. Radiosonde or dropsonde humidity observations
provide temporally continuous series of profiles at the same location, but
their reliability is limited <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km above the tTP (e.g. Bland
et al., 2021). In situ aircraft observations, even though very accurate and
highly resolved, provide profile information only during start and landing
and on flight routes of commercial or research aircraft (Zahn et al., 2014;
Kunz et al., 2014; Dyroff et al., 2015; Kaufmann et al., 2018). Conversely, spaceborne microwave sounders provide humidity information across
the entire globe but are limited in vertical resolution (e.g. Hegglin et
al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2015; Khosrawi et al., 2018). In between the in
situ and satellite observations, profile data from active and passive remote
sensing instruments on board research aircraft demonstrated the potential to
characterize humidity across the tropopause (Ehret et al., 1999; Flentje et
al., 2007; Woiwode et al., 2020; Schäfler et al., 2021), combining high
spatial coverage, high accuracy, and high vertical resolution (Bhawar et al.,
2011). Since 2013, the active Differential Absorption Lidar (DIAL) WAter
vapour and Lidar Experiment in Space (WALES; Wirth et al., 2009) has been
deployed in several research campaigns on board the High Altitude and LOng
range research aircraft (HALO; Krautstrunk and Giez, 2012) for water vapour
profile measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e186">The goal of this paper is to evaluate the LS moist bias in the ECMWF's most
recent global reanalysis ERA5. The model analyses are compared against a
comprehensive data set of water vapour profiles observed by the airborne
DIAL WALES in the mid-latitude UTLS. Collocated water vapour and ozone
profiles are used to identify tropospheric, stratospheric, and mixed air and
to individually assess the moist bias as we suspect that mixing processes
affect the vertical structure of the moist bias. The following three
specific questions are addressed:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e191">Can the multi-campaign DIAL data set robustly quantify the LS moisture bias
in ERA5?</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e195">What is the vertical structure of the LS moist bias in ERA5, particularly at
high altitudes?</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e199">Is the moist bias correlated to the distribution of mixed air masses in the
UTLS?</p></list-item></list>
This paper is outlined as follows: Sect. 2 provides an overview of the
water vapour DIAL observations (Sect. 2.1), the ERA5 reanalysis (Sect. 2.2),
and the methods utilized to compare the observational and model data (Sect. 2.3). In Sect. 3.1 an example cross section of specific humidity and the
bias are illustrated for a mid-latitude jet stream crossing, which is followed
by a statistical tropopause-relative evaluation of the vertical structure of
the bias and its variability in Sect. 3.2. The relationship between the
vertical structure of the moist bias and the distribution tropospheric,
stratospheric, and mixed air is presented in Sect. 3. Thereafter, Sect. 4
provides a discussion of the results. The key conclusions are summarized in
Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Data and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>The WALES data set</title>
      <p id="d1e218">The DIAL WALES (Wirth et al., 2009) was developed at the German Aerospace
Center (DLR) and has been operated on board the German research aircraft HALO
since 2010. The instrument design is based on two identical laser systems
that generate four wavelengths in the near-infrared (NIR) absorption band of
water vapour between 935 and 936 nm, allowing for water vapour observations from
the planetary boundary layer up to the stratosphere. WALES furthermore
operates two polarization-sensitive channels at 1064 nm and at 532 nm. The
latter channel comprises a high spectral resolution lidar (HSRL;
Esselborn et al., 2008), enabling extinction coefficient observations and
thus aerosol characterization (Groß et al., 2013). WALES and its
underlying DIAL technique is briefly introduced in the following, and a more
detailed description can be found in Wirth et al. (2009).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e223">Map of HALO flight sections with WALES DIAL water vapour
observations during the research campaigns NARVAL, NARVAL2, NAWDEX, WISE,
EUREC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>A, and CIRRUS-HL (for a detailed overview, see Sect. 2.1).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e244">Overview of all considered campaigns with DIAL
observations. The number of DIAL profiles refers to all profiles that were
sampled during 41 flights. The number of DIAL profiles in the LS corresponds
to all profiles with measurements in the LS.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Campaign</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Month and year</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Season</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">No. of flights</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Flight distance</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">No. of DIAL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">No. of DIAL</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(hours)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">profiles</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">profiles in the LS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NARVAL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Dec–Jan 2013/2014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Winter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7 (41)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">31 157</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10 973</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5288</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NARVAL2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aug 2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Summer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 (9)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7729</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2395</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">485</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NAWDEX</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sep–Oct 2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Autumn</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">11 (75)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">55 695</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">19 139</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">12 062</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WISE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sep–Oct 2017</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Autumn</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14 (105)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">83 041</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">13 557</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9493</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">EUREC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>A</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Jan–Feb 2020</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Winter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 (8)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">7011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2307</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1009</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CIRRUS-HL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Jun–Jul 2021</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Summer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7 (30)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23 675</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6777</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4568</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">41 (268)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">208 308</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">55 148</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">32 905</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e504">The four NIR wavelengths are separated into three online channels (strongly
absorbed by water vapour) and one offline channel (weakly absorbed). The
number concentration of water vapour in the probed volume is derived from
the ratio of the backscattered light of the on- and offline wavelengths and
then converted to specific humidity. The online channels are sensitive to
different trace gas concentrations and in turn to different altitude levels.
The exact wavelengths are selected such that they are optimally aligned to
the moist boundary layer, the UT, and the dry LS. Note that the WALES humidity profiles are only available in cloud-free regions or
regions with optically thin clouds. In optically thick clouds the extinction
by cloud particles is so strong that no water vapour information can be
retrieved within or below the cloud.</p>
      <p id="d1e507">Due to the photon statistics of the backscattered light as well as detector
and background light noise, the retrieved water vapour profiles undergo
statistical variations, which are effectively reduced by temporal (i.e.
horizontal) and vertical averaging. Thus, the retrieved DIAL water vapour
profiles are averaged over 12 s or approximately 3 km in the horizontal. In
the vertical, data are available every 15 m, although the effective vertical
resolution is 300 m according to the full width of half maximum of the
averaging kernel. It should be stressed that the averaging kernel of the
WALES DIAL is exactly zero outside of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msqrt><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msqrt></mml:math></inline-formula> times the effective
resolution. This is in sharp contrast to most passive remote sensing
techniques, where the side modes of the kernels can lead to erroneous dry or
wet layers in the retrieved humidity profile. In the DIAL data retrieval,
the statistical error of the observed volume is different for each flight
and depends on the water vapour distribution and the background light. To
remove high noise, typically occurring in dry air lying underneath moist
air, for example, in the vicinity of stratospheric intrusions (Trickl et al.,
2016), we filtered 5 % of the noisiest data for each individual flight.
This threshold turned out to be useful but reduced the data
availability in the lower- to mid-troposphere. Furthermore, Rayleigh–Doppler
beam broadening, laser spectral impurity, and uncertainties in spectral
databases are sources of systematic errors, which are compensated for in
the retrieval algorithm. The total systematic error was found to be in the
order of 5 % (Kiemle et al., 2008). The high reliability of WALES was
demonstrated in various intercomparisons, for example, with Lyman-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in situ
hygrometers (Kiemle et al., 2008), comparable airborne and ground-based DIAL
instruments (Bhawar et al., 2011), and radiosondes with a frost point
hygrometer (Trickl et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e525">In this study, we use DIAL observations from six campaigns from 2013–2021
that provide almost 33 000 water vapour profiles obtained during 41 research
flights. The profiles were sampled along the flight track and extend from
the surface up to about 14 km altitude, corresponding to the maximum flight
level of the HALO aircraft (Krautstrunk and Giez, 2012). As the focus of
this study is the mid-latitude UTLS, we only consider flights that provide a
significant amount of data across the tropopause. The majority (25) of these
flights took place in the northern hemispheric autumn season during the North
Atlantic Waveguide Downstream impact EXperiment (NAWDEX; Schäfler et
al., 2018) and the Wave-driven ISentropic Exchange campaign (WISE; Kunkel et
al., 2019). As part of the campaigns ElUcidating the RolE of
Cloud-Circulation Coupling in ClimAte (EUREC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>A; Stevens et al., 2021),
the Next-generation Aircraft Remote sensing for VALidation studies (NARVAL;
Klepp et al., 2014), and NARVAL2 (Stevens et al., 2019) measurements were
taken during eight flights in the winter season. In addition, the Cirrus in
High-Latitudes (CIRRUS-HL) mission provides observations in summer. Figure 1
depicts the parts of HALO research flights where DIAL observations were
obtained. Most flights were carried out over the North Atlantic between
48 and 66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, the North Sea and central to western
Europe. Additionally, the subtropics (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) and
the Arctic were covered by individual flights as well.</p>
      <p id="d1e564">During the WISE campaign, WALES was operated in a different setup to measure
both water vapour and ozone, concurrently. For this purpose, two of the
935 nm NIR water vapour channels were replaced by two ultraviolet (UV)
channels covering the 300–305 nm ozone absorption line (Fix et al., 2019).
The use of two instead of four channels per trace gas leads to a reduced
vertical coverage, which was optimized so that the selected NIR wavelengths
cover the tropopause region. Increased statistical noise required averaging
over a period of 24 s (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6 km horizontally), while the
effective vertical resolution remains approximately 300 m (Fix et al.,
2019).</p>
      <p id="d1e574">The number of observations with respect to latitude (Fig. 2a) illustrates
the high data availability in the mid-latitudes, which is the region of
interest in this study. This data set that covers humidity observations in a
broad spectrum of synoptic situations is considered to be representative of
mid-latitude weather. Figure 2b shows the distribution of the water vapour
observations covering 4 orders of magnitude, ranging from 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The bimodal shape of the histogram is composed of a
broad moist part that can be assigned to the troposphere and a fraction of
low humidity representing the dry conditions in the stratosphere. Each
campaign exhibits an individual footprint of measured humidity, depending on
the season, observation areas, and the flight level selection. For instance,
the histograms for NAWDEX and WISE are remarkably similar since both
campaigns took place over the North Atlantic in autumn. However, as only two
NIR wavelengths were operated to measure water vapour during WISE, fewer
measurements are available at high humidity levels. NARVAL shows a
distinctive dry spectrum of measured humidity corresponding to the winter
season, and fewer data are available for the LS, resulting from frequent low
flight altitudes. The CIRRUS-HL summer campaign stands out because a large
proportion of high moisture values was observed. The NARVAL2 and the
EUREC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>A campaign provide UTLS measurements only for one flight and,
thus, compared to the other field campaigns, provide a small number of
observations (see also Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e622"><bold>(a)</bold> Stacked distribution of the number of observations in
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude bins per individual campaign (coloured bars). <bold>(b)</bold> Histogram of observations per humidity bin with a size of 0.01 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
of log<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for individual campaigns in the UTLS (coloured
lines). Shading shows frequencies separated for the LS (all data above the
thermal tropopause, dark grey shading), the UT (all data between the tTP and
5 km below, medium grey shading), and the remaining tropospheric data (light
grey shading).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>ERA5 reanalysis data</title>
      <p id="d1e685">ERA5 is the latest-generation reanalysis of the ECMWF based on the IFS Cycle
41r2 that was used for operational weather prediction in 2016. Atmospheric
quantities are provided on a global grid with a horizontal resolution
(TL639) of about 31 km and on 137 hybrid sigma-pressure model levels,
ranging from the surface up to 0.01 hPa (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 80 km) in the
vertical. The altitude range of the DIAL observations is covered by the
lowermost 70 model levels. The vertical grid spacing of the model levels
ranges from a few metres in the boundary layer to about 300 m at the
tropopause level (Schäfler et al., 2020). ERA5 reanalyses are available
with a time resolution of 1 h, which is an improvement compared to a
6-hourly resolution of its predecessor ERA-Interim (Dee et al., 2011).
Further details about ERA5 are documented in Hersbach et al. (2020). For
this study, model level data are retrieved on a regular 0.36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude–longitude grid. Pressure and altitude of each
model level are derived following the IFS documentation (ECMWF, 2015). To be
able to compare ERA5 and WALES data, the gridded model data are interpolated
in space and time to the observation location. Our interpolation method uses
a horizontally bilinear interpolation, followed by a linear interpolation
in the vertical. Finally, a linear interpolation in time of the hourly ERA5
profiles towards the observation time is carried out. This sequence of
interpolation steps has been applied similarly in other studies (e.g. Schäfler et al., 2010).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e723">Some example values of specific humidity and the according
computed humidity bias.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="12">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="11" colname="col11" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="12" colname="col12" align="right"/>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">2.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">2.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">3.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">1.00</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Humidity bias</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unitless</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.41</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">1.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">1.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">1.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Percentage</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">%</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">100</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">125</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col11">150</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col12">200</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Data processing</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>2.3.1</label><title>Thermal tropopause detection</title>
      <p id="d1e1014">Due to the variable altitude of the tTP, the distribution of water vapour in
the UTLS at individual altitudes is also highly variable. Hence, averaging
of the humidity profiles in geometrical coordinates strongly blurs the
vertical gradients across the tropopause. Therefore, bias statistics are
often performed in tropopause-relative coordinates (e.g. Kunz et al., 2014;
Bland et al., 2021). Different tropopause definitions have been established,
taking the thermal, dynamical, and chemical properties of the UTLS as a
reference. By definition, the tTP marks the reversal of the vertical
temperature gradient and thus the abrupt increase in static stability, which
is reflected in the sharp distribution of trace species across the
tropopause (Gettelman et al., 2011). We use the tTP as it best reflects the
strongest vertical gradients of water vapour (Birner et al., 2002; Pan et
al., 2004). From each ERA5 temperature profile interpolated to the 15 m
vertical grid of the lidar, we calculate the tTP altitude using the World
Meteorological Organization's (WMO) lapse rate-based definition (WMO, 1957).
A tTP is detected as the lowest level at which the vertical temperature
gradient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> drops below 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and is only defined if
the average lapse rate between this and any other level within a 2 km deep
layer remains equal or lower than 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The vertical temperature
gradient, i.e. the lapse rate, is computed as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M35" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            In our analyses, the tTP detection is started in an upward direction from 5 km
altitude in order to avoid misdetections of tropopauses due to local
fluctuations of temperature in the lower- to mid-troposphere. When a tTP is
detected, the (thermal) tropopause-relative coordinates <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rel</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tTP</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
derived by simply subtracting the altitude of tTP (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tTP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the
geometric height vector (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">geom</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M39" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rel</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tTP</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">geom</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tTP</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            There are conditions in which tropopause detection is ambiguous,
especially in the vicinity of the jet streams and associated tropopause
folds, where double tropopauses can occur (e.g. Shapiro, 1980; Gettelman et
al., 2011). We found that in situations of weak vertical temperature
gradients near the jet streams, the lapse rate threshold in the WMO
definition may lead to vertical jumps of the tTP altitudes for adjacent
profiles. These fluctuations result in a wrong vertical allocation of water
vapour in tropopause-relative coordinates. A detailed discussion will follow
in Sect. 3.1. To remove such profiles in the overall statistic, we apply a
filtering method based on mean potential vorticity (MPV; Shapiro et al.,
1999), which is the average PV calculated for the 5 km layer above and below
the thermal tropopause. MPV <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.5 potential vorticity units (PVU;
1 PVU <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> K m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) above and MPV <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.5 PVU below the tTP are found to be an efficient metric to
filter profiles within an erroneously assigned tTP. Figure 3 shows the
vertical distribution of tTP altitudes for the 32 905 profiles, which lies
between 5.5 km and more than 15 km altitude, reflecting the broad spectrum
of synoptic situations covered by the data set. The majority of all tTP levels are
found between 10 and 13 km, which represents the typical location of the
mid-latitude tropopause with respect to interannual or synoptic variations
(e.g. Birner et al., 2002).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1234">Histogram of the number of observations per thermal
tropopause altitude bin (1000 m) and per campaign (coloured bars).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=221.931496pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1245">Vertical cross sections of <bold>(a)</bold> the DIAL specific humidity
(colour shading, g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(b)</bold> ERA5 specific humidity (colour shading,
g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <bold>(c)</bold> the corresponding humidity bias (colour shading)
on 1 October 2017. Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(c)</bold> are superimposed by ERA5 fields of
the potential temperature (grey contours, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K), the
isopleths of the wind speed (magenta contours, in m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the
thermal (thick black dots) and the dynamical tropopause (2 PVU, black
isoline).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>2.3.2</label><title>Statistical metric of the bias</title>
      <p id="d1e1328">The selection of a suitable difference metric is crucial for a robust
quantification of model humidity errors, and different statistical approaches
can be found in the literature (Kunz et al., 2014; Bland et al., 2021). As
specific humidity rapidly decreases across the tropopause, absolute humidity
differences are not appropriate, and most studies rely on a relative
formulation of the error. However, since the simple ratio of model and observation as well as the absolute bias divided by the observed value are
statistical asymmetric quantities, we apply a logarithmic formulation with
base 2 (see Eq. 3), introduced by Kunz et al. (2014):
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M51" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">humidity</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bias</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being the measured and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being the ERA5 specific
humidity. This unitless definition of the relative bias is symmetrically
centred around zero and thus not distorted when averaged. A perfect
agreement (humidity bias <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) between the ERA5 and the DIAL specific
humidity is reached if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A positive humidity bias
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates an overestimation of humidity by the
model (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), whereas a negative humidity bias
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> implies an underestimation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERA</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Table 2 gives some example bias values for selected moisture observations.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Water vapour and bias distributions for a selected case</title>
      <p id="d1e1520">First, an example cross section of water vapour measurements of the research
flight on 1 October 2017 during the WISE campaign is presented in Fig. 4.
The case is selected as it possesses a good data coverage across the UTLS
and as it additionally provides ozone observations (see Sect. 3.3). HALO
flew meridional transects over the North Atlantic (50–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) at 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, aiming to measure a zonal jet
stream and its associated predicted strong trace gas gradients. The
underlying synoptic situation and the corresponding mission objectives are
provided in detail by Schäfler et al. (2021). The left part of Fig. 4a
(up to a distance of roughly 800 km) illustrates the water vapour
distribution north of the jet stream (see magenta isopleths) where the
aircraft flew above the low-located tropopause within the LS. HALO then
crossed the pronounced jet stream with wind velocities of more than 90 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Near the jet core, the tTP altitude jumps from 6.5 to 14 km within
a few kilometres' flight distance. The dynamical tropopause (2 PVU contour
line) also displays the ascent of the tropopause and a corresponding
tropopause fold that extends along inclined isentropes into the
mid-troposphere. In the right part of Fig. 4a, the air mass located to the
south of the jet stream exhibits high tropopause altitudes exceeding the
flight level by roughly 2 km, so that measurements are restricted to
tropospheric air. Along the entire cross section, the highest specific
humidity is observed at the lowest levels in the UT, ranging from
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to occasionally more than 10 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
tropospheric air to the south of the jet stream has an increased humidity
content compared to the air north of the jet stream. In the LS,
specific humidity values lower than 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are frequently
observed. At a first glance, the specific humidity curtain of ERA5 (Fig. 4b)
is very similar to the observations. However, the ERA5 humidity field
appears to be smoother, particularly in the presence of strong horizontal
water vapour gradients, for instance, near the jet stream and mesoscale
filaments. Differences between observations and model, calculated by
applying Eq. (3), are shown for the vertical section in Fig. 4c. Reddish
regions indicate an overestimation of humidity by ERA5, while bluish areas
represent an underestimation. High positive and negative values of the bias
alternate below the tropopause. In the LS, a coherent region of positive
values is detected between 1 and 3 km above the tTP, indicating an
overestimated humidity that extends over the entire part north of the jet.
At the highest altitudes, beyond 3 km above the tropopause, the moist bias
is smaller. In order to study the systematic nature of the diagnosed LS
moist bias and its vertical structure, a statistic of all observations in
tropopause-relative coordinates is performed.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1616">Tropopause-relative <bold>(a)</bold> vertical profiles of the DIAL
(black lines) and the ERA5 (red lines) mean (solid) and median (dotted)
specific humidity and the number of observations (grey). Note the log-scale
notation of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis. <bold>(b)</bold> Mean/median bias (solid/dotted lines) and
standard deviation (dotted grey lines).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1640">Binned distribution of DIAL specific humidity
observations relative to the thermal tropopause coloured by <bold>(a)</bold> the number
of observations per bin and <bold>(b)</bold> the bin-average humidity bias. Solid thick black
(dotted) lines in <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> show mean (median) values per altitude
bin. Bin sizes are 100 m and 0.01 g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIAL</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).
Please note the logarithmic abscissa and colour bar in <bold>(a)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1702">Distributions of <bold>(a)</bold> the observed humidity and <bold>(b)</bold> the
humidity bias and <bold>(c)</bold> the number of data points for the layer 0 to 3 km
above the tTP. The average observed humidity and bias for all flights is
given by the magenta lines in <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold>. The boxes in <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> define
the interquartile range located around the median (black), and the whiskers
illustrate the 5th and 95th percentile. The different campaigns are colour-coded
as in Fig. 1.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Statistical analysis of the LS bias</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>3.2.1</label><title>Vertical structure</title>
      <p id="d1e1748">For all 32 905 profiles from the 41 flights, the average profiles of specific
humidity and the humidity bias are presented in Fig. 5. The moisture
profiles of WALES and ERA5 show an exponential decline of specific humidity
in the UT, ranging from about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the lowest levels
to approx. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the tropopause. The strongest vertical
gradient occurs in a layer of 0.5 to 1 km above the tropopause. Beyond, a
less pronounced decline of water vapour extends until 4 km above the
tropopause, followed by a vertical constant specific humidity of about
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. There is a high level of agreement between the
ERA5 and WALES specific humidity profiles, particularly in the UT, although
ERA5 appears to be moister at all altitudes. For both data sets, the median
and arithmetic mean profiles of specific humidity slightly vary from each
other. The median line is slightly shifted towards drier humidity values,
most pronounced in the UT. Figure 5a also demonstrates a high data
availability throughout the entire UTLS. The number of observations is
highest between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 1 km around the tTP, with two local maxima at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km
and roughly 1 km. Note that these two peaks in data availability are related
to the typical flight altitudes, either above or below the main
transatlantic air traffic routes (Schäfler et al., 2018), and the maximum
data coverage close to the aircraft. Above the tTP, the number of
observations continuously decreases and roughly halves per kilometre
altitude. At 4 km above the tTP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3000 observations are
available.</p>
      <p id="d1e1869">The higher moisture values in the ERA5 data become apparent in the vertical
profile of the humidity bias (Fig. 5b) that is weakly positive (0.2; 15 %) in the UT and associated with a high standard deviation. This is a
result of strong positive and negative bias values, as seen for example in
the case study (Fig. 4c). The weakest bias of 0.2 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) is
reached at the tTP level. Above, the vertical moisture gradient is stronger
in observations, leading to a significant overestimation of humidity in the
LS up to 4 km above tTP. The bias increases to a maximum of 0.63 (55 %)
at 1.3 km altitude above the tTP. Beyond, the bias reduces by roughly 0.2
per 500 m up to 4 km altitude above the tTP, where it is approx. 0.2 (15 %). At the highest altitudes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km above the tTP), a weak and
vertically nearly constant bias is observed. At the tropopause as well as
above, the standard deviation is significantly reduced compared to the UT.
Mean and median profiles of the humidity bias slightly differ, but these
differences are very small compared to the magnitude of the bias. The
maximum mean and median biases are 0.63 (55 %) and 0.58 (49 %),
respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e1892">To better illustrate the variability of the water vapour observations in the
vertical, Fig. 6 shows the number of data and the mean bias in bins of
tropopause-relative altitude and specific humidity. Figure 6a indicates a
broader distribution of water vapour observations in the UT compared to the LS.
A small number of unusually low humidity values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are detected below the tropopause (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km); on the other
hand, some data that show high specific humidity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are detected at approx. 1–3 km above the tTP. These
observations are related to incorrectly assigned tropopause altitudes
that were not removed by the applied MPV filtering (see Sect. 2.3.1).
However, these remaining outliers are tolerable as they have a negligible
impact on the statistics. Throughout the UT, a weak positive bias is
detected in bins of highest data availability. At the edges of the
distribution, the highest humidity values show a negative bias, while the lowest
humidity values stand out due to a positive bias (Fig. 6b). We found that
this is related to a narrower distribution of ERA5 humidity compared to the
observations (not shown). The low number of observations at the edges should
be noted here. In the LS the positive bias is higher and most pronounced up
to 3.5 km above the tropopause and at very low specific humidity values. The
positive bias reduces towards highest altitudes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km above the
tropopause) of the LS, although the reduced data coverage has to be kept in
mind (Fig. 5a).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1985">Tropopause-relative vertical profiles of <bold>(a)</bold> humidity
bias and <bold>(b)</bold> number of observations for the different campaigns
(colour-coded as in Fig. 1). The black line represents the multi-campaign
average.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=230.467323pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2002">Tropopause-relative profiles of the <bold>(a)</bold> humidity bias and
<bold>(b)</bold> number of observations for different intervals of tTP altitudes
(colour-coded).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=221.931496pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f09.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2019">Vertical cross sections as in Fig. 4 but for <bold>(a)</bold> DIAL
ozone volume mixing ratio (in ppb) and <bold>(b)</bold> air mass classes derived from
water vapour and ozone measurements (for details, see Sect. 3.3).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>3.2.2</label><title>Synoptic and seasonal variability</title>
      <p id="d1e2042">In this section, the variability of the LS bias between flights, campaigns,
and tropopause altitudes is investigated. Figure 7 shows the observed
humidity distribution within a 3 km layer above the tTP, i.e. the area of
the strongest LS moist bias. The observed humidity values of all flights
range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and their interquartile
range strongly varies between the individual flights, which presumably
relates to differences in the flight level, the tropopause altitude, and the
synoptic situation. During summer (CIRRUS-HL) and autumn campaigns (NAWDEX and WISE), the range of observed humidity is larger compared to the winter
campaign (NARVAL). It is furthermore noticeable that intra-campaign
variations (i.e. synoptic variability) of observed humidity exceed the
seasonal variability. Per flight, the median LS bias (Fig. 7b) varies from
0.2 (15 %) to 1.4 (164 %), but a positive bias is detected for each
flight. Whereas the magnitude of the bias shows no obvious correlation with
the LS moisture distribution, the moist bias appears to be smaller in winter
(NARVAL) compared to autumn (NAWDEX and WISE). Interestingly, the moist bias
during the CIRRUS-HL summer campaign is remarkably strong. The number of
observations that is available for each flight is strongly variable between
a few and several hundred thousand (Fig. 7c).</p>
      <p id="d1e2093">The average profile of the bias and the number of observations for campaigns
with an increased data coverage is shown in Fig. 8. The data availability is
very different across the campaigns (Fig. 8b). During NAWDEX and WISE, a
large number of observations is present between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km below and 4 km above
the tTP. CIRRUS-HL provides approximately half as much data at each altitude,
except for altitudes beyond 3 km above the tTP, where few data are
available. Due to frequent low flight levels during the seven NARVAL
flights, only a small number of observations is available beyond 1 km above
the tTP. The general structure with a pronounced positive bias, a local
minimum at the tropopause, and a decrease towards the highest altitudes is
apparent for all campaigns (Fig. 8a), although significant differences can
be identified across the campaigns. For the autumn campaigns in 2 successive
years (NAWDEX and WISE), a similar shape of the bias is observed across the
entire profile. The maximum moist bias is located at approximately the same
altitude, and a similar decrease beyond this maximum is observed. However,
the magnitude of the LS moist bias is slightly higher for NAWDEX (0.6,
50 %) compared to WISE (0.5, 40 %). During summer (CIRRUS-HL), a
stronger moist bias is detected exceeding 1.2 (130 %) at its maximum.
Compared to autumn, the summer bias is increased by a factor of 2–3. During
winter (NARVAL), the LS moist bias is small (0.3, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 23 %)
and not substantially higher than the upper-tropospheric bias, but the
limited representativity due to the low number of observations should be
noted here.</p>
      <p id="d1e2113">In addition, we explore whether the observed vertical structure of the moist
bias is sensitive to different synoptic situations. For this investigation,
the DIAL profiles are classified by their corresponding tTP altitude. Lower
tropopauses are typically associated with trough situations and high
tropopauses occur above ridges. For each category the corresponding average
bias profile and the number of observations is given in Fig. 9. The vertical
structure of the bias (Fig. 5b) is reproduced for each tropopause altitude
interval. No systematic differences between the bias profiles can be
revealed in the UT. Interestingly, each category shows an increased moist
bias of comparable magnitude as well as a decrease above, although its
vertical position relative to the tTP is different. The maximum bias is
located higher for low tropopause altitudes, while profiles with high tTP
altitude show a maximum closer to the tTP. For instance, the maximum bias
for low tropopauses (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) is located at 2 km above the tTP, while
for the category with highest tropopauses (12–14 km), the maximum value is
found at 1 km. The number of data points illustrates that each category
exhibits a reasonable number of observations (Fig. 9b).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>The vertical structure of the moist bias related to mixing processes</title>
      <p id="d1e2135">In the following it is examined to what extent the observed air masses have
experienced mixing in their history and whether this is related to the
vertical structure of the moist bias. For this purpose, we examine
collocated ozone and water vapour observations that were collected during
four WISE research flights and that provide a suitable data coverage. First,
the observed ozone distribution for the same case study as introduced in
Sect. 3.1 is shown in Fig. 10a. Note that the ozone and water vapour
observations are given as volume mixing ratios (VMR) in the following. The
distribution of ozone is opposite to that of water vapour, with the lowest
concentrations (VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb) in the troposphere and an
increase with altitude across the tropopause to VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 ppb. Note the filamentary structures of increased ozone values in the
LS and the ozone-rich air which is transported downward within the
tropopause fold (see detailed description in Schäfler et al., 2022).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2180">Binned distribution of water vapour and ozone
observations in T–T space for four WISE flights coloured by bin-average <bold>(a)</bold> number of DIAL observations and <bold>(b)</bold> type of classified air mass with
troposphere (VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb and VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 ppm), mixed air (VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb and VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 ppm), and stratosphere (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). Bin sizes are 10 ppb for VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.05 ppm for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=190.633465pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2367">Binned distribution of water vapour and ozone
observations in T–T space as in Fig. 11 but coloured by bin-average <bold>(a)</bold> humidity bias and <bold>(b)</bold> tropopause-relative altitude.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=187.788189pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2385"><bold>(a)</bold> Tropopause-relative vertical profile of the mean
(thick black line) and standard deviation (dotted thin grey lines) of the
humidity bias and <bold>(b)</bold> relative proportion of the individual air mass classes
for four WISE flights.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/15559/2022/acp-22-15559-2022-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2399">Following the approach by Schäfler et al. (2021), the collocated water
vapour and ozone observations for four WISE flights are illustrated in
tracer–tracer (T–T) phase space in Fig. 11, and three classes of
observations are identified based on the characteristic distributions (e.g. Pan et al., 2004). First, tropospheric observations are characterized by low
VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (typically <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb) and a large spread of VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Second, high VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at low VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is assigned to lower-stratospheric air.
Third, a class with intermediate chemical characteristics
(VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6.5 ppm and VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 ppb) is
attributed to mixed air masses that experienced mixing between the
troposphere and stratosphere. Although Schäfler et al. (2021) suggested
a careful selection of the threshold for individual flights, here constant
values (see caption of Fig. 11) are used for all four WISE flights, which is
sufficient to fundamentally identify the three air masses. Sensitivity tests with slightly
varied thresholds have shown only a little impact on the distribution of the
classes in geometrical space. Such a re-projection of the air mass
classification from T–T space to geometrical space with a coherent
distribution of the three classes is shown in Fig. 10b. Observations below
the tTP are predominantly assigned to tropospheric air, while the uppermost
data to the north of the jet stream are classified as stratospheric air.
South of the jet stream, where the flight altitude is below the tTP, only
tropospheric air is detected. In between the tropospheric and the
stratospheric air, the mixed air mass is following the tropopause in a 2–3 km thick layer, which appears to be vertically deeper in the tropopause
fold.</p>
      <p id="d1e2551">For each bin in T–T space, the average humidity bias and the mean
tropopause-relative altitude are displayed in Fig. 12. The humidity bias is
weak for both tropospheric and stratospheric air (Figs. 12a and 11b),
ranging mostly between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.25. In the mixed air class, the humidity
bias is most pronounced (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), particularly where the
VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is below 40 ppm. In the tropospheric and stratospheric air, a
stronger positive/negative bias is indicated for lower/higher VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which is associated with the sharper humidity distribution in ERA5 (see
discussion in Sect. 3.2.1). Figure 12b displays the tropopause-relative
height, which is the vertical distance to the tTP, for each bin. Across the
mixed air class, an increase of the tropopause-relative altitude is visible,
corresponding to a decrease of VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and to an increase of VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.
At low VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm) and low VMR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (100–200 ppb), the
transition of tropopause-relative altitudes is more abrupt, which is related
to tTP variability across the jet stream, for example, as visible in the uppermost
part of Fig. 10b. When comparing the tropopause-relative height with the
distribution of the bias (Fig. 12a), it is noticeable that the average bias
is particularly increased between 1 and 3 km, where it ranges from 0.5 (40 %) up to 1.25 (137 %). In contrast, the mean bias is weak beyond 3 km
above the tTP and below the tropopause.</p>
      <p id="d1e2671">The average vertical profile of the moist bias for the WISE flights (Fig. 13a) is similar to the full data set (Fig. 5b) at the tTP and in the LS, i.e. a local minimum is found at the tTP (0.1; 7 %) and a pronounced
maximum of 0.62 (54 %) peaking at about 1 km above the tTP. The
tropospheric part of the profile, however, is almost constant in the full
data set (0.2–0.25) but decreases with increasing altitude in the WISE data
(0.4–0.1). Figure 13b shows the relative proportion of the individual air
masses at a given tropopause-relative altitude and thus provides information
about the connection between the vertical structure of the moist bias and
the air mass classes. In the entire UT, the tropospheric air provides the
largest contribution of more than 80 % up to 500 m below the tTP. Across
the tTP, the proportion of tropospheric air rapidly decreases with altitude
in accordance with a rapid growth of the fraction of mixed air. This is
accompanied by an increase of the moist bias, and the altitude of the largest
bias (1–2 km above the tTP) coincides with the maximum relative
contribution of the mixed air class (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). Above, the
relative fraction of stratospheric air grows, while the moist bias reduces
and reaches constant values (0.2) at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 km above the tTP with
a 65 %–85 % share of stratospheric air. Please note that contributions of
mixed air below the tropopause and at altitudes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km above the
tTP may be related to falsely detected tropopause altitudes (see discussion
in Sect. 4) or situations of complex tropopause structure (e.g. as shown in
the second part of Fig. 10b).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2710">Recent studies document a lower-stratospheric moist bias in different NWP
models (e.g. Kunz et al., 2014; Dyroff et al., 2015; Kaufmann et al., 2018;
Woiwode et al., 2020; Bland et al., 2021). We find a comparable moist bias
in ERA5 reanalyses based on a comprehensive multi-campaign water vapour
lidar data set comprising 41 research flights (six campaigns) and roughly
33 000 vertical profiles obtained in the northern hemispheric mid-latitudes
during different seasons. The observations from the surface up to the LS
cover 4 orders of magnitude and represent typical mid-latitude data for
the individual seasons (e.g. Pan et al., 2000; Randel and Wu, 2010; Zahn et
al., 2014; Kunz et al., 2014; Dyroff et al., 2015; Bland et al., 2021). The
high data availability around the tropopause makes the data set suitable for
an evaluation of NWP fields in the UTLS. Although the number of observations
reduces considerably towards the highest altitudes (up to 5 km above the
tTP), the data set provides a valuable extension to previous humidity data
sets which exhibit increased measurement uncertainties at altitudes larger
than 2 km above the tTP (e.g. Bland et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e2713">In the troposphere we find strong positive and negative biases of small
spatial extent, which are likely related to insufficiently represented
tropospheric transport processes, to model errors of tropospheric processes
(e.g. clouds), or to the linear interpolation scheme that may have caused
increased differences especially in situations of strong horizontal or
vertical moisture gradients. The small positive and vertically almost
constant mean bias in the UT, which ranges between 0.2 (15 %) and 0.26
(20 %), confirms earlier findings (Dyroff et al., 2015; Bland et al.,
2021). It has to be noted that the UT bias is limited to cloud-free scenes,
as DIAL humidity profile observations cannot be retrieved inside or below
optical thick clouds. In agreement with Bland et al. (2021), a local minimum
of the bias (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) is found at the tTP. Above
the tropopause, our findings confirm a coherent layer of overestimated
humidity in ERA5 reanalyses. The magnitude of the maximum bias of 0.63
(55 %) and its altitude of 1.3 km above the tTP are comparable to previous
findings for earlier model cycles of the IFS (Dyroff et al., 2015; Kaufmann
et al., 2018; Woiwode et al., 2020; Bland et al., 2021), earlier reanalysis
versions (Oikonomou and O'Neill, 2006; Kunz et al., 2014), and other
evaluated models (Davis et al., 2017; Bland et al., 2021). Above the maximum
bias, in a region where recent studies present diverging results (Dyroff et
al., 2015; Woiwode et al., 2020; Bland et al., 2021), our analysis reveals a
steadily decreasing moist bias that reduces to nearly constant and small
positive values comparable to the UT. The independence of measurement error
from altitude and humidity concentration allows for a reliable and robust
depiction of the bias at the highest altitudes of the UTLS. Furthermore, the
magnitude of the LS moist bias exceeds the expected error of the DIAL
humidity observations by approx. 1 order of magnitude, which underlines the
significance of our results. Please note that Bland et al. (2021) show that
tTP altitudes are on average about 200 m higher when derived from ECMWF IFS
profiles compared to radiosondes, which may impact tropopause-relative
moisture distributions and in turn the bias. As no temperature observations
are available, this study relies only on ERA5 tTP altitudes. Assuming a
systematic shift by 200 m would reduce the tropospheric bias, however, the
LS moist bias, although slightly weakened, would persist.</p>
      <p id="d1e2736">In line with findings of Bland et al. (2021), who indicated little
sensitivity of the moist bias to various atmospheric conditions but revealed
a different depth of the moist bias for trough and ridge situations, low tTP
situations (which are typically associated with troughs) exhibit a maximum
bias at higher altitudes and a deeper layer of the increased bias compared
to high tTP situations. The magnitude of the moist bias is found to be
independent of the tropopause altitude. In addition, we detect a pronounced
LS moist bias in the summer (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">130</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %)
which exceeds the diagnosed autumn bias by a factor of 2–3. So far, such a
seasonality has only been suggested in Dyroff et al. (2015). Additional DIAL
observations in spring, summer, and winter would be valuable for a more
comprehensive study of the seasonality of the vertical bias structure.</p>
      <p id="d1e2759">For four flights during the WISE campaign, an air mass classification using
collocated water vapour and ozone profile data (Schäfler et al.,
2021) was applied to separate tropospheric (low ozone and large water vapour
mixing ratio), stratospheric (large ozone and low water vapour), and
mixed air (intermediate ozone and water vapour). In tropopause-relative
coordinates, the vertical structure of the moist bias for the selected cases
turned out to be comparable to the multi-campaign LS moist bias, so that
these flights are considered to be representative of autumn. We find that
the moist bias is increased in the mixed air class representing the ExTL and
that the maximum is reached at the altitude where the proportion of mixed
air is highest (near 100 %). The decrease of the moist bias above/below
is accompanied by a growth of the proportion of stratospheric/tropospheric
air. The high correlation in the distribution of the moist bias and the ExTL
gives a strong hint at the importance of moisture injection into the LS,
either due to numerical diffusion across the tropopause or due to
insufficiently modelled transport and mixing processes. As the bias in the
ExTL is increased in each of the evaluated WISE flights, we consider
systematic uncertainties in the representation of mixing processes to play a
key role for the LS moist bias. This is supported by the finding of a deeper
bias layer above troughs which are characterized by a thicker ExTL above
(e.g. Hoor et al., 2002; Pan et al., 2007). In addition, the maximum bias
occurs in summer when cross-tropopause mixing is strongest (Hoor et al.,
2002), and, finally, the bias is reduced in stratospheric background humidity
at highest altitudes, which are not influenced by mixing processes at the
extratropical tropopause. Schäfler et al. (2022) investigate the
Lagrangian history of the observed air for the presented WISE case study on
1 October 2017 and find that the ExTL air experienced strong turbulent
mixing in the jet stream during 48 h before the observation. They also find
that the mixed air (in which we identified the increased bias) shows highly
variable origins and transport pathways related to tropospheric weather
systems which may be indicative of the relevance of different mixing
processes. Additional collocated observations of ozone and water vapour in
different seasons, near active mixing process (e.g. convection), or in the
Southern Hemisphere where exchange at the polar jet stream is reduced (e.g. Bowman, 1995) could provide valuable information about the relevance of
individual mixing processes and their role in forming the moist bias. The
presented results suggest that improving the representation of mixing at the
tropopause may reduce the humidity bias and be beneficial to improve the
modelling of climate and weather. Davis et al. (2017) demonstrate that
various reanalyses significantly overestimate LS humidity in the
extratropics. The systematic moist bias in ERA5 reanalyses has to be kept in
mind for climatological studies using ERA5 humidity fields in the LS.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e2771">In this study we applied a comprehensive data set of airborne water vapour
lidar profiles to investigate the representation of specific humidity in the
ERA5 reanalysis across the extratropical UTLS. The main conclusions of this
work are summarized below following the three research questions that were
raised in the Introduction:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2776"><italic>Can the multi-campaign DIAL data set robustly quantify the LS moisture bias in ERA5?</italic></p>
      <p id="d1e2780">The presented DIAL data set with its large number of high-accuracy and
high-resolution humidity profiles measured over the North Atlantic and
Europe during six research campaigns between 2013–2021 provides a valuable
extension to the available observational data sets that were used to
determine the lower-stratospheric moist bias. Beside the broad range of
observed humidity values (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), in particular, the
high data availability in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km around the tropopause makes the
data suitable for the characterization of water vapour in the entire
mid-latitude UTLS. The flights that were performed at different times of the
year indicate seasonal differences in the observed humidity distributions.
As the flights also cover diverse synoptic situations, we consider the data
set to be representative of the mid-latitudes. The data set holds the
advantage of not being assimilated by NWP and thus allows humidity errors in
the ERA5 reanalysis to be evaluated independently.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2827"><italic>What is the vertical structure of the LS moist bias in ERA5, particularly at high altitudes?</italic></p>
      <p id="d1e2831">Our analysis demonstrates that a systematic lower-stratospheric moist bias
is also present in ECMWF's most recent global reanalysis ERA5. We find that
the vertical structure of the bias, which is analysed in tropopause-relative
coordinates, is characterized by a weak positive bias in the upper
troposphere (15 %–20 %) and a strong overestimation of humidity that reaches
a maximum (55 %) at 1.3 km above the thermal tropopause. Above this
maximum, we detect a steady vertical decrease of the moist bias towards a
constant small value (15 %) beyond 4 km above the tropopause. The moist
bias occurs in coherent and extended regions along the individual lidar
cross-sections. The above described unique measurement characteristics of
the DIAL data set together with the persistence of the bias structure in
different flights and campaigns allow the vertical decline at the highest
altitudes to be robustly confirmed. A high similarity for two campaigns
conducted in the same region over the North Atlantic in successive years
illustrates the persistence of the vertical structure. We find a seasonality
of the moist bias with a maximum in summer and a minimum in winter. Lower
tropopause altitudes, which are typically related to troughs, exhibit a
deeper layer of increased moist bias, while the moist bias over ridges is
confined to a shallow layer.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2835"><italic>Is the moist bias correlated to the distribution of mixed air masses in the UTLS?</italic></p>
      <p id="d1e2839">For four flights of the DIAL data set, collocated water vapour and
ozone profiles are available and used to classify UTLS air masses according
to their chemical characteristics into tropospheric, stratospheric, and mixed
air. We find the strongest bias at altitudes dominated by the mixed air
class, representing the ExTL, while tropospheric or stratospheric air exhibits
a smaller bias. From this correlation, we deduce that insufficiently
represented mixing processes or numerical diffusion in ERA5
shapes the vertical structure of the lower-stratospheric bias, with the
maximum occurring at altitudes that are most frequently affected by exchange
processes between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The vertical
structure of the moist bias of the entire data set is comparable to the four
flights with collocated ozone and water vapour observations. In addition,
the deeper bias over troughs which typically feature a deeper ExTL, the
maximum moist bias in summer when cross-tropopause mixing is strongest, and
the reduced bias at altitudes of constant stratospheric background humidity
lead to the conclusion that the findings are applicable to the mid-latitudes
in general. In the future, it would be interesting to identify the
individual mixing processes that affect the moist bias most and the timescales on which it is formed.</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2846">The data used in this study are available (upon request from the mission PI) from the HALO database: <uri>https://halo-db.pa.op.dlr.de/list/missions</uri> (German Aerospace Center, 2021). The ERA5 data were retrieved from the ECMWF Meteorological Archival and Retrieval System (MARS): <uri>https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/access-forecasts/access-archive-datasets</uri> (ECMWF, 2022).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2858">KK performed the data analysis, produced the figures, and wrote the
manuscript. AS, MWi, MWe, and GCC supported the interpretation of the data,
contributed with ideas, and commented on the paper. MWi performed the DIAL
data processing.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2864">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e2870">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2876">This article is part of the special issue “WISE: Wave-driven isentropic exchange in the extratropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (ACP/AMT/WCD inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2882">The authors thank the individual research teams that successfully conducted
the field campaigns NARVAL, NARVAL2, NAWDEX, WISE, EUREC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>A, and
CIRRUS-HL, which enabled us to perform this study. This work was supported by
the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TRR165 “Waves to
Weather” (<uri>https://www.wavestoweather.de</uri>, last access: 5 December 2022), funded by the German
Research Foundation (DFG). We further acknowledge the DFG for supporting the
HALO missions within the priority programme SPP 1294 “Atmospheric and Earth
System Research with HALO” (<uri>https://www.halo-spp.de/</uri>, last access: 5 December 2022). We are
grateful to DLR, who supported this work in the framework of the DLR project
“Klimarelevanz von atmosphärischen Spurengasen, Aerosolen und Wolken”
(KliSAW). We thank Andreas Dörnbrack for his valuable comments on the
manuscript.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2902">This research has been supported by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (project A3 of the Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TRR 165, “Waves to Weather” TRR 165).<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>The article processing charges for this open-access <?xmltex \notforhtml{\newline}?>publication were covered by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2913">This paper was edited by Farahnaz Khosrawi and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bhawar, R., Di Girolamo, P., Summa, D., Flamant, C., Althausen, D.,
Behrendt, A., Kiemle, C., Bosser, P., Cacciani, M., Champollion, C., Di
Iorio, T., Engelmann, R., Herold, C., Müller, D., Pal, S., Wirth, M.,
and Wulfmeyer, V.: The water vapour intercomparison effort in the framework
of the Convective and Orographically-induced Precipitation Study:
airborne-to-ground-based and airborne-to-airborne lidar systems, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 137, 325–348, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.697</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Birner, T. and Bönisch, H.: Residual circulation trajectories and transit times into the extratropical lowermost stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 817–827, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-817-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-817-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Birner, T., Dörnbrack, A., and Schumann, U.: How sharp is the tropopause
at midlatitudes?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 45-1–45-4,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015142" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002GL015142</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bland, J., Gray, S., Methven, J., and Forbes, R.: Characterizing
extratropical near-tropopause analysis humidity biases and their radiative
effects on temperature forecasts, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 3878–3898,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4150" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.4150</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Brewer, A. W.: Evidence for a world circulation provided by the measurements
of helium and water vapor distribution in the stratosphere, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 75, 351–363, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49707532603" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49707532603</ext-link>, 1949.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bowman, K. P.: Rossby wave phase speeds and mixing barriers in the
stratosphere. Part I: Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 905–918,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053&lt;0905:RWPSAM&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053&lt;0905:RWPSAM&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chagnon, J. M., Gray, S. L., and Methven, J.: Diabatic processes modifying
potential vorticity in a North Atlantic cyclone, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
139, 1270–1282, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2037" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2037</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Davis, S. M., Hegglin, M. I., Fujiwara, M., Dragani, R., Harada, Y., Kobayashi, C., Long, C., Manney, G. L., Nash, E. R., Potter, G. L., Tegtmeier, S., Wang, T., Wargan, K., and Wright, J. S.: Assessment of upper tropospheric and stratospheric water vapor and ozone in reanalyses as part of S-RIP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 12743–12778, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-12743-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-12743-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrea, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., von de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kallberg, P., Köhler,
M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J.,
Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N.,
and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of
the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
https://<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.828</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dessler, A. E. and Sherwood, S. C.: Effect of convection on the summertime
extratropical lower stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D23301,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005209" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005209</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diamantakis, M. and Flemming, J.: Global mass fixer algorithms for conservative tracer transport in the ECMWF model, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 965–979, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dobson, G. M. B., Brewer, A. W., and Cwilong, B.: The meteorology of the
stratosphere, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 185, 144–175,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rspa.1946.0010</ext-link>, 1946.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dyroff, C., Zahn, A., Christner, E., Forbes, R., Tompkins, A. M., and van
Velthoven, P. F. J.: Comparison of ECMWF analysis and forecast humidity data
with CARIBIC upper troposphere and lower stratosphere observations, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 833–844, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2400" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2400</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ECMWF: IFS Documentation – Cy41r1: Part III: Dynamics and Numerical
Procedures, IFS Documentation, ECMWF, <uri>https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2015/9210-part-iii-dynamics-and-numerical-procedures.pdf</uri> (last access: 16 March 2021),
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ECMWF: ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts [data set], <uri>https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/access-forecasts/access-archive-datasets</uri>, last access: 29 March 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ehret, G., Hoinka, K. P., Stein, J., Fix, A., Kiemle, C., and Poberaj, G.:
Low stratospheric water vapour measured by an airborne DIAL, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 104, 31351–31359, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900959" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900959</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Esselborn, M., Wirth, M., Fix, A., Tesche, M., and Ehret, G.: Airborne high
spectral resolution lidar for measuring aerosol extinction and backscatter
coefficients, Appl. Optics, 47, 346–358,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.47.000346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.47.000346</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fix, A., Steinebach, F., Wirth, M., Schäfler, A., and Ehret, G.:
Development and application of an airborne differential absorption lidar for
the simultaneous measurement of ozone and water vapor profiles in the
tropopause region, Appl. Optics, 58, 5892–5900,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.58.005892" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.58.005892</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Flentje, H., Dörnbrack, A., Fix, A., Ehret, G., and Hólm, E.: Evaluation of ECMWF water vapour fields by airborne differential absorption lidar measurements: a case study between Brazil and Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5033–5042, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5033-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-5033-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forster, P. M. F. and Shine, K. P.: Assessing the climate impact of trends
in stratospheric water vapor, J. Geophys. Res., 29, 10-1–10-4,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013909" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001GL013909</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Fueglistaler, S., Dessler, A. E., Dunkerton, T. J., Folkins, I., Fu, Q., and
Mote, P. W.: Tropical tropopause layer, Rev. Geophys., 47, RG1004,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000267" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008RG000267</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>German Aerospace Center: HALO database, German Aerospace Center [data set], <uri>https://halo-db.pa.op.dlr.de/list/missions</uri>, last access: 4 June 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gettelman, A., Hoor, P., Pan, L. L., Randel, W. J., Hegglin, M. I., and
Birner, T.: The extratropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Rev.
Geophys., 49, RG3003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000355" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011RG000355</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gray, S., Dunning, C., Methven, J., Masato, G., and Chagnon, J.: Systematic
model forecast error in Rossby wave structure, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
2979–2987, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059282" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL059282</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Groß, S., Esselborn, M., Weinzierl, B., Wirth, M., Fix, A., and Petzold, A.: Aerosol classification by airborne high spectral resolution lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2487–2505, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2487-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2487-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Haynes, P. and Shuckburgh, E.: Effective diffusivity as a diagnostic of
atmospheric transport 2. Troposphere and lower stratosphere, J. Geophys.
Res., 105, 22795–22810, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900092</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hegglin, M. I., Tegtmeier, S., Anderson, J., Froidevaux, L., Fuller, R.,
Funke, B., Jones A., Lingenfelser, G., Lumpe, J., Pendlebury, D., Remsberg,
E., Rozanov, A., Toohey, M., Urban, J., von Clarmann, T., Walker, K. A.,
Wang, R., and Weigel, K.: SPARC Data Initiative: Comparison of water vapor
climatologies from international satellite limb sounders, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 118, 11824–11846, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50752" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50752</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D.,
Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P.,
Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková,
M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay,
P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5
global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3803</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hintsa, E. J., Weinstock, E. M., Dessler, A. E., Anderson, J. G.,
Loewenstein, M., and Podolske, J. R.: SPADE H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O measurements and the
seasonal cycle of stratospheric water vapor, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21,
2559-2562, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01279" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/94GL01279</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Holton, J. R., Haynes, P. H., McIntyre, M. E., Douglass, A. R., Rood, R. B.,
and Pfister L.: Stratosphere-troposphere exchange, Rev. Geophys., 33,
403–439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95RG02097" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95RG02097</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Homeyer, C. R., Pan, L. L., and Barth, M. C.: Transport from convective
overshooting of the extratropical tropopause and the role of large-scale
lower stratosphere stability, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2220–2240,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020931" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020931</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoor, P., Fischer, H., Lange, L., Lelieveld, J., and Brunner, D.: Seasonal
variations of a mixing layer in the lowermost stratosphere as identified by
the CO-O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> correlation from in situ measurements, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, 4044, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000289" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD000289</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoor, P., Wernli, H., Hegglin, M. I., and Bönisch, H.: Transport timescales and tracer properties in the extratropical UTLS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7929–7944, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7929-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7929-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Zhai, C. X., Wu, L. T., Minschwaner, K., Molod, A. M.,
and Tompkins, A. M.: An assessment of upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere water vapor in MERRA, MERRA2, and ECMWF reanalyses using Aura
MLS observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 11468–11485,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023752" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023752</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kaufmann, S., Voigt, C., Heller, R., Jurkat-Witschas, T., Krämer, M., Rolf, C., Zöger, M., Giez, A., Buchholz, B., Ebert, V., Thornberry, T., and Schumann, U.: Intercomparison of midlatitude tropospheric and lower-stratospheric water vapor measurements and comparison to ECMWF humidity data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16729–16745, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16729-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-16729-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Khosrawi, F., Lossow, S., Stiller, G. P., Rosenlof, K. H., Urban, J., Burrows, J. P., Damadeo, R. P., Eriksson, P., García-Comas, M., Gille, J. C., Kasai, Y., Kiefer, M., Nedoluha, G. E., Noël, S., Raspollini, P., Read, W. G., Rozanov, A., Sioris, C. E., Walker, K. A., and Weigel, K.: The SPARC water vapour assessment II: comparison of stratospheric and lower mesospheric water vapour time series observed from satellites, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4435–4463, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4435-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-4435-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kiemle, C., Wirth, M., Fix, A., Ehret, G., Schumann, U., Gardiner, T., Schiller, C., Sitnikov, N., and Stiller, G.: First airborne water vapor lidar measurements in the tropical upper troposphere and mid-latitudes lower stratosphere: accuracy evaluation and intercomparisons with other instruments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 5245–5261, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5245-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-5245-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kiemle, C., Schäfler, A., and Voigt, C.: Detection and Analysis of Water Vapor
Transport, in: Atmospheric Physics: Background – Methods – Trends, edited
by: Schumann, U., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 169–184,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_11" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_11</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Klepp, C., Ament, F., Bakan, S., Hirsch, L., and Stevens, B.: The
Next-generation Aircraft Remote sensing for VALidation studies (NARVAL)
Campaign flight reports using the research aircraft HALO (The NARVAL
Campaign Report), Berichte zur Erdsystemforschung/Max-Planck-Institut
für Meteorologie, 164, <uri>https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2129055/component/file_2129139/content</uri> (last access: 30 June
2022), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Krautstrunk, M. and Giez, A.: The transition from FALCON to HALO era
airborne atmospheric research, in: Atmospheric Physics: Background –
Methods – Trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
609–624, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_37" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_37</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kunkel, D., Hoor, P., Kaluza, T., Ungermann, J., Kluschat, B., Giez, A., Lachnitt, H.-C., Kaufmann, M., and Riese, M.: Evidence of small-scale quasi-isentropic mixing in ridges of extratropical baroclinic waves, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 12607–12630, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-12607-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-12607-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kunz, A., Spelten, N., Konopka, P., Müller, R., Forbes, R. M., and Wernli, H.: Comparison of Fast In situ Stratospheric Hygrometer (FISH) measurements of water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) with ECMWF (re)analysis data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10803–10822, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10803-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-10803-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Martius, O., Schwierz, C., and Davies, H. C.: Tropopause-Level Waveguides,
J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 866–879, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS2995.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JAS2995.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oikonomou, E. K. and O'Neill, A.: Evaluation of ozone and water vapor
fields from the ECMWF reanalysis ERA-40 during 1991–1999 in comparison with
UARS satellite and MOZAIC aircraft observations, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D14109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005341" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005341</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pan, L., Hintsa, E., Stone, E., Weinstock, E., and Randel, W.: The seasonal
cycle of water vapor and saturation vapor mixing ratio in the extratropical
lowermost stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 26519–26530,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900401" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900401</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pan, L. L., Randel, W. J., Gary, B. L., Mahoney, M. J., and Hintsa, E. J.:
Definitions and sharpness of the extratropical tropopause: A trace gas
perspective, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D23103,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004982" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004982</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pan, L. L., Bowman, K. P., Shapiro, M., Randel, W. J., Gao, R. S., Campos,
T., Davis, C., Schauffler, S., Ridley, B. A., Wei, J. C., and Barnet, C.:
Chemical behavior of the tropopause observed during the
Stratosphere-Troposphere Analyses of Regional Transport experiment, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D18110, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008645" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008645</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Randel, W. J. and Wu, F.: The polar summer tropopause inversion layer, J.
Atmos. Sci., 67, 2572–2581, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3430.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010JAS3430.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Randel, W. J., Wu, F., and Forster, P.: The extratropical tropopause
inversion layer: Global observations with GPS data, and a radiative forcing
mechanism, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 4489–4496,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2412.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JAS2412.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Riese, M., Ploeger, F., Rap, A., Vogel, B., Konopka, P., Dameris, M., and
Forster, P.: Impact of uncertainties in atmospheric mixing on simulated UTLS
composition and related radiative effects, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117,
D16305, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017751" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD017751</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Dörnbrack, A., Kiemle, C., Rahm, S., and Wirth, M.:
Tropospheric water vapour transport as determined from airborne lidar
measurements, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 27, 2017–2030,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JTECHA1418.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010JTECHA1418.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Craig, G., Wernli, H., Arbogast, P., Doyle, J. D.,
McTaggart-Cowan, R., Methven, J., Rivière, G., Ament, F., Boettcher, M.,
Bramberger, M., Cazenave, Q., Cotton, R., Crewell, S., Delanoë, J.,
Dörnbrack, A., Ehrlich, A., Ewald, F., Fix, A., Grams, C. M., Gray, S.
L., Grob, H., Groß, S., Hagen, M., Harvey, B., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M.,
Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Magnusson, L., Mayer, B.,
Mech, M., Moore, R., Pelon, J., Quinting, J., Rahm, S., Rapp, M.,
Rautenhaus, M., Reitebuch, O., Reynolds, C. A., Sodemann, H., Spengler, T.,
Vaughan, G., Wendisch, M., Wirth, M., Witschas, B., Wolf, K., and Zinner,
T.: The North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1607–1637, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Harvey, B., Methven, J., Doyle, J. D., Rahm, S.,
Reitebuch, O., Weiler, F., and Witschas, B.: Observation of jet stream winds
during NAWDEX and characterization of systematic meteorological analysis
error, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 2889–2907,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0229.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-19-0229.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Fix, A., and Wirth, M.: Mixing at the extratropical tropopause as characterized by collocated airborne H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5217–5234, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5217-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-5217-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schäfler, A., Sprenger, M., Wernli, H., Fix, A., and Wirth, M.: Case study on the influence of synoptic-scale processes on the paired H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O-O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution in the UTLS across a North Atlantic jet stream, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. [preprint], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-692" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-2022-692</ext-link>, in review, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shapiro, M. A.: Turbulent Mixing within Tropopause Folds as a Mechanism for
the Exchange of Chemical Constituents between the Stratosphere and
Troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 994–1004,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;0994:TMWTFA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;0994:TMWTFA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shapiro, M. A., Wernli, H., Bao, J., Methven, J., Zou, X., Doyle, J., Holt, T., Donall-Grell,
E., and Neiman P.: A Planetary-Scale to Mesoscale Perspective of the Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones: The Bridge between Theory and Observations, in:  The Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones, edited by: Shapiro, M. A. and Grønås, S., American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-09-6_14" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-1-935704-09-6_14</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shepherd, T. G., Polichtchouk, I., Hogan, R. J., and Simmons, A. J.: Report on
Stratosphere Task Force, ECMWF Technical Memorandum 824,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21957/0vkp0t1xx" ext-link-type="DOI">10.21957/0vkp0t1xx</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stenke, A., Grewe, V., and Ponater, M.: Lagrangian transport of water vapor
and cloud water in the ECHAM4 GCM and its impact on the cold bias, Clim.
Dynam., 31, 491–506, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0347-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-007-0347-5</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B., Ament, F., Bony, S., Crewell, S., Ewald, F., Gross, S., Hansen,
A., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M., Kölling, T., Konow, H., Mayer, B., Wendisch,
M., Wirth, M., Wolf, K., Bakan, S., Bauer-Pfundstein, M., Brueck, M.,
Delanoë, J., Ehrlich, A., Farrell, D., Forde, M., Gödde, F., Grob,
H., Hagen, M., Jäkel, E., Jansen, F., Klepp, C., Klingebiel, M., Mech,
M., Peters, G., Rapp, M., Wing, A. A., and Zinner, T.: A High-Altitude
Long-Range Aircraft Configured as a Cloud Observatory: The NARVAL
Expeditions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1061–1077,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0198.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0198.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B., Bony, S., Farrell, D., Ament, F., Blyth, A., Fairall, C., Karstensen, J., Quinn, P. K., Speich, S., Acquistapace, C., Aemisegger, F., Albright, A. L., Bellenger, H., Bodenschatz, E., Caesar, K.-A., Chewitt-Lucas, R., de Boer, G., Delanoë, J., Denby, L., Ewald, F., Fildier, B., Forde, M., George, G., Gross, S., Hagen, M., Hausold, A., Heywood, K. J., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M., Jansen, F., Kinne, S., Klocke, D., Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lothon, M., Mohr, W., Naumann, A. K., Nuijens, L., Olivier, L., Pincus, R., Pöhlker, M., Reverdin, G., Roberts, G., Schnitt, S., Schulz, H., Siebesma, A. P., Stephan, C. C., Sullivan, P., Touzé-Peiffer, L., Vial, J., Vogel, R., Zuidema, P., Alexander, N., Alves, L., Arixi, S., Asmath, H., Bagheri, G., Baier, K., Bailey, A., Baranowski, D., Baron, A., Barrau, S., Barrett, P. A., Batier, F., Behrendt, A., Bendinger, A., Beucher, F., Bigorre, S., Blades, E., Blossey, P., Bock, O., Böing, S., Bosser, P., Bourras, D., Bouruet-Aubertot, P., Bower, K., Branellec, P., Branger, H., Brennek, M., Brewer, A., Brilouet , P.-E., Brügmann, B., Buehler, S. A., Burke, E., Burton, R., Calmer, R., Canonici, J.-C., Carton, X., Cato Jr., G., Charles, J. A., Chazette, P., Chen, Y., Chilinski, M. T., Choularton, T., Chuang, P., Clarke, S., Coe, H., Cornet, C., Coutris, P., Couvreux, F., Crewell, S., Cronin, T., Cui, Z., Cuypers, Y., Daley, A., Damerell, G. M., Dauhut, T., Deneke, H., Desbios, J.-P., Dörner, S., Donner, S., Douet, V., Drushka, K., Dütsch, M., Ehrlich, A., Emanuel, K., Emmanouilidis, A., Etienne, J.-C., Etienne-Leblanc, S., Faure, G., Feingold, G., Ferrero, L., Fix, A., Flamant, C., Flatau, P. J., Foltz, G. R., Forster, L., Furtuna, I., Gadian, A., Galewsky, J., Gallagher, M., Gallimore, P., Gaston, C., Gentemann, C., Geyskens, N., Giez, A., Gollop, J., Gouirand, I., Gourbeyre, C., de Graaf, D., de Groot, G. E., Grosz, R., Güttler, J., Gutleben, M., Hall, K., Harris, G., Helfer, K. C., Henze, D., Herbert, C., Holanda, B., Ibanez-Landeta, A., Intrieri, J., Iyer, S., Julien, F., Kalesse, H., Kazil, J., Kellman, A., Kidane, A. T., Kirchner, U., Klingebiel, M., Körner, M., Kremper, L. A., Kretzschmar, J., Krüger, O., Kumala, W., Kurz, A., L'Hégaret, P., Labaste, M., Lachlan-Cope, T., Laing, A., Landschützer, P., Lang, T., Lange, D., Lange, I., Laplace, C., Lavik, G., Laxenaire, R., Le Bihan, C., Leandro, M., Lefevre, N., Lena, M., Lenschow, D., Li, Q., Lloyd, G., Los, S., Losi, N., Lovell, O., Luneau, C., Makuch, P., Malinowski, S., Manta, G., Marinou, E., Marsden, N., Masson, S., Maury, N., Mayer, B., Mayers-Als, M., Mazel, C., McGeary, W., McWilliams, J. C., Mech, M., Mehlmann, M., Meroni, A. N., Mieslinger, T., Minikin, A., Minnett, P., Möller, G., Morfa Avalos, Y., Muller, C., Musat, I., Napoli, A., Neuberger, A., Noisel, C., Noone, D., Nordsiek, F., Nowak, J. L., Oswald, L., Parker, D. J., Peck, C., Person, R., Philippi, M., Plueddemann, A., Pöhlker, C., Pörtge, V., Pöschl, U., Pologne, L., Posyniak, M., Prange, M., Quiñones Meléndez, E., Radtke, J., Ramage, K., Reimann, J., Renault, L., Reus, K., Reyes, A., Ribbe, J., Ringel, M., Ritschel, M., Rocha, C. B., Rochetin, N., Röttenbacher, J., Rollo, C., Royer, H., Sadoulet, P., Saffin, L., Sandiford, S., Sandu, I., Schäfer, M., Schemann, V., Schirmacher, I., Schlenczek, O., Schmidt, J., Schröder, M., Schwarzenboeck, A., Sealy, A., Senff, C. J., Serikov, I., Shohan, S., Siddle, E., Smirnov, A., Späth, F., Spooner, B., Stolla, M. K., Szkółka, W., de Szoeke, S. P., Tarot, S., Tetoni, E., Thompson, E., Thomson, J., Tomassini, L., Totems, J., Ubele, A. A., Villiger, L., von Arx, J., Wagner, T., Walther, A., Webber, B., Wendisch, M., Whitehall, S., Wiltshire, A., Wing, A. A., Wirth, M., Wiskandt, J., Wolf, K., Worbes, L., Wright, E., Wulfmeyer, V., Young, S., Zhang, C., Zhang, D., Ziemen, F., Zinner, T., and Zöger, M.: EUREC4A, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4067–4119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stohl, A., Bonasoni, P., Cristofanelli, P., Collins, W., Feichter, J.,
Frank, A., Forster, C., Gerasopoulos, E., Gaggeler, H., James, P.,
Kentarchos, T., Kromp-Kolb, H., Kruger, B., Land, C., Meloen, J.,
Papayannis, A., Priller, A., Seibert, P., Sprenger, M., Roelofs, G. J.,
Scheell, H., E. Schnabel, C., Siegmund, P., Tobler, L., Trickl, T., Wernli,
H., Wirth, V., Zanis, P., and Zerefos, C.: Stratosphere-troposphere
exchange: A review, and what we have learned from STACCATO, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 108, 8516, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002490" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002490</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Trickl, T., Vogelmann, H., Fix, A., Schäfler, A., Wirth, M., Calpini, B., Levrat, G., Romanens, G., Apituley, A., Wilson, K. M., Begbie, R., Reichardt, J., Vömel, H., and Sprenger, M.: How stratospheric are deep stratospheric intrusions? LUAMI 2008, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8791–8815, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8791-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-8791-2016</ext-link>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wirth, M., Fix, A., Mahnke, P., Schwarzer, H., Schrandt, F., and Ehret, G.:
The airborne multi-wavelength water vapour differential absorption lidar
WALES: system design and performance, Appl. Phys. B, 96, 201–213,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-009-3365-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00340-009-3365-7</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
WMO (World Meteorological Organization): Meteorology – A three-dimensional
science, WMO Bull., 6, 134–138, 1957.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Woiwode, W., Dörnbrack, A., Polichtchouk, I., Johansson, S., Harvey, B., Höpfner, M., Ungermann, J., and Friedl-Vallon, F.: Technical note: Lowermost-stratosphere moist bias in ECMWF IFS model diagnosed from airborne GLORIA observations during winter–spring 2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15379–15387, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zahn, A., Christner, E., van Velthoven, P. F. J., Rauthe-Schoch, A., and
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M.: Processes controlling water vapor in the upper
troposphere/lowermost stratosphere: An analysis of 8 years of monthly
measurements by the IAGOS-CARIBIC observatory, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
11505–11525, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021687" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD021687</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Vertical structure of the lower-stratospheric  moist bias in the ERA5 reanalysis and  its connection to mixing processes</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bhawar, R., Di Girolamo, P., Summa, D., Flamant, C., Althausen, D.,
Behrendt, A., Kiemle, C., Bosser, P., Cacciani, M., Champollion, C., Di
Iorio, T., Engelmann, R., Herold, C., Müller, D., Pal, S., Wirth, M.,
and Wulfmeyer, V.: The water vapour intercomparison effort in the framework
of the Convective and Orographically-induced Precipitation Study:
airborne-to-ground-based and airborne-to-airborne lidar systems, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 137, 325–348, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.697</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Birner, T. and Bönisch, H.: Residual circulation trajectories and transit times into the extratropical lowermost stratosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 817–827, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-817-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-817-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Birner, T., Dörnbrack, A., and Schumann, U.: How sharp is the tropopause
at midlatitudes?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 45-1–45-4,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015142" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015142</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bland, J., Gray, S., Methven, J., and Forbes, R.: Characterizing
extratropical near-tropopause analysis humidity biases and their radiative
effects on temperature forecasts, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140, 3878–3898,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4150" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4150</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Brewer, A. W.: Evidence for a world circulation provided by the measurements
of helium and water vapor distribution in the stratosphere, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 75, 351–363, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49707532603" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49707532603</a>, 1949.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bowman, K. P.: Rossby wave phase speeds and mixing barriers in the
stratosphere. Part I: Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 53, 905–918,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053&lt;0905:RWPSAM&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1996)053&lt;0905:RWPSAM&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chagnon, J. M., Gray, S. L., and Methven, J.: Diabatic processes modifying
potential vorticity in a North Atlantic cyclone, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
139, 1270–1282, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2037" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2037</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Davis, S. M., Hegglin, M. I., Fujiwara, M., Dragani, R., Harada, Y., Kobayashi, C., Long, C., Manney, G. L., Nash, E. R., Potter, G. L., Tegtmeier, S., Wang, T., Wargan, K., and Wright, J. S.: Assessment of upper tropospheric and stratospheric water vapor and ozone in reanalyses as part of S-RIP, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 12743–12778, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-12743-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-12743-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrea, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., von de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kallberg, P., Köhler,
M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J.,
Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N.,
and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of
the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
https://<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Dessler, A. E. and Sherwood, S. C.: Effect of convection on the summertime
extratropical lower stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D23301,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005209" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005209</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Diamantakis, M. and Flemming, J.: Global mass fixer algorithms for conservative tracer transport in the ECMWF model, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 965–979, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Dobson, G. M. B., Brewer, A. W., and Cwilong, B.: The meteorology of the
stratosphere, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 185, 144–175,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0010</a>, 1946.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Dyroff, C., Zahn, A., Christner, E., Forbes, R., Tompkins, A. M., and van
Velthoven, P. F. J.: Comparison of ECMWF analysis and forecast humidity data
with CARIBIC upper troposphere and lower stratosphere observations, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 833–844, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2400" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2400</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
ECMWF: IFS Documentation – Cy41r1: Part III: Dynamics and Numerical
Procedures, IFS Documentation, ECMWF, <a href="https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2015/9210-part-iii-dynamics-and-numerical-procedures.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 16 March 2021),
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
ECMWF: ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts [data set], <a href="https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/access-forecasts/access-archive-datasets" target="_blank"/>, last access: 29 March 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Ehret, G., Hoinka, K. P., Stein, J., Fix, A., Kiemle, C., and Poberaj, G.:
Low stratospheric water vapour measured by an airborne DIAL, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 104, 31351–31359, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900959" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900959</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Esselborn, M., Wirth, M., Fix, A., Tesche, M., and Ehret, G.: Airborne high
spectral resolution lidar for measuring aerosol extinction and backscatter
coefficients, Appl. Optics, 47, 346–358,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.47.000346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.47.000346</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Fix, A., Steinebach, F., Wirth, M., Schäfler, A., and Ehret, G.:
Development and application of an airborne differential absorption lidar for
the simultaneous measurement of ozone and water vapor profiles in the
tropopause region, Appl. Optics, 58, 5892–5900,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.58.005892" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.58.005892</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Flentje, H., Dörnbrack, A., Fix, A., Ehret, G., and Hólm, E.: Evaluation of ECMWF water vapour fields by airborne differential absorption lidar measurements: a case study between Brazil and Europe, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5033–5042, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5033-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5033-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, P. M. F. and Shine, K. P.: Assessing the climate impact of trends
in stratospheric water vapor, J. Geophys. Res., 29, 10-1–10-4,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013909" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GL013909</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Fueglistaler, S., Dessler, A. E., Dunkerton, T. J., Folkins, I., Fu, Q., and
Mote, P. W.: Tropical tropopause layer, Rev. Geophys., 47, RG1004,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000267" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RG000267</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
German Aerospace Center: HALO database, German Aerospace Center [data set], <a href="https://halo-db.pa.op.dlr.de/list/missions" target="_blank"/>, last access: 4 June 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Gettelman, A., Hoor, P., Pan, L. L., Randel, W. J., Hegglin, M. I., and
Birner, T.: The extratropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Rev.
Geophys., 49, RG3003, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000355" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000355</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Gray, S., Dunning, C., Methven, J., Masato, G., and Chagnon, J.: Systematic
model forecast error in Rossby wave structure, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
2979–2987, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059282" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059282</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Groß, S., Esselborn, M., Weinzierl, B., Wirth, M., Fix, A., and Petzold, A.: Aerosol classification by airborne high spectral resolution lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2487–2505, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2487-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2487-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Haynes, P. and Shuckburgh, E.: Effective diffusivity as a diagnostic of
atmospheric transport 2. Troposphere and lower stratosphere, J. Geophys.
Res., 105, 22795–22810, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900092" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900092</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Hegglin, M. I., Tegtmeier, S., Anderson, J., Froidevaux, L., Fuller, R.,
Funke, B., Jones A., Lingenfelser, G., Lumpe, J., Pendlebury, D., Remsberg,
E., Rozanov, A., Toohey, M., Urban, J., von Clarmann, T., Walker, K. A.,
Wang, R., and Weigel, K.: SPARC Data Initiative: Comparison of water vapor
climatologies from international satellite limb sounders, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 118, 11824–11846, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50752" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50752</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D.,
Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P.,
Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková,
M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay,
P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5
global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Hintsa, E. J., Weinstock, E. M., Dessler, A. E., Anderson, J. G.,
Loewenstein, M., and Podolske, J. R.: SPADE H<sub>2</sub>O measurements and the
seasonal cycle of stratospheric water vapor, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21,
2559-2562, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01279" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01279</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Holton, J. R., Haynes, P. H., McIntyre, M. E., Douglass, A. R., Rood, R. B.,
and Pfister L.: Stratosphere-troposphere exchange, Rev. Geophys., 33,
403–439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95RG02097" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95RG02097</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Homeyer, C. R., Pan, L. L., and Barth, M. C.: Transport from convective
overshooting of the extratropical tropopause and the role of large-scale
lower stratosphere stability, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2220–2240,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020931" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020931</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Hoor, P., Fischer, H., Lange, L., Lelieveld, J., and Brunner, D.: Seasonal
variations of a mixing layer in the lowermost stratosphere as identified by
the CO-O<sub>3</sub> correlation from in situ measurements, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 107, 4044, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000289" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000289</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Hoor, P., Wernli, H., Hegglin, M. I., and Bönisch, H.: Transport timescales and tracer properties in the extratropical UTLS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7929–7944, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7929-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7929-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Zhai, C. X., Wu, L. T., Minschwaner, K., Molod, A. M.,
and Tompkins, A. M.: An assessment of upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere water vapor in MERRA, MERRA2, and ECMWF reanalyses using Aura
MLS observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 11468–11485,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023752" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023752</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Kaufmann, S., Voigt, C., Heller, R., Jurkat-Witschas, T., Krämer, M., Rolf, C., Zöger, M., Giez, A., Buchholz, B., Ebert, V., Thornberry, T., and Schumann, U.: Intercomparison of midlatitude tropospheric and lower-stratospheric water vapor measurements and comparison to ECMWF humidity data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16729–16745, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16729-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16729-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Khosrawi, F., Lossow, S., Stiller, G. P., Rosenlof, K. H., Urban, J., Burrows, J. P., Damadeo, R. P., Eriksson, P., García-Comas, M., Gille, J. C., Kasai, Y., Kiefer, M., Nedoluha, G. E., Noël, S., Raspollini, P., Read, W. G., Rozanov, A., Sioris, C. E., Walker, K. A., and Weigel, K.: The SPARC water vapour assessment II: comparison of stratospheric and lower mesospheric water vapour time series observed from satellites, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4435–4463, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4435-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4435-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Kiemle, C., Wirth, M., Fix, A., Ehret, G., Schumann, U., Gardiner, T., Schiller, C., Sitnikov, N., and Stiller, G.: First airborne water vapor lidar measurements in the tropical upper troposphere and mid-latitudes lower stratosphere: accuracy evaluation and intercomparisons with other instruments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 5245–5261, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5245-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5245-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Kiemle, C., Schäfler, A., and Voigt, C.: Detection and Analysis of Water Vapor
Transport, in: Atmospheric Physics: Background – Methods – Trends, edited
by: Schumann, U., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 169–184,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_11" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_11</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Klepp, C., Ament, F., Bakan, S., Hirsch, L., and Stevens, B.: The
Next-generation Aircraft Remote sensing for VALidation studies (NARVAL)
Campaign flight reports using the research aircraft HALO (The NARVAL
Campaign Report), Berichte zur Erdsystemforschung/Max-Planck-Institut
für Meteorologie, 164, <a href="https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2129055/component/file_2129139/content" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 June
2022), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Krautstrunk, M. and Giez, A.: The transition from FALCON to HALO era
airborne atmospheric research, in: Atmospheric Physics: Background –
Methods – Trends, edited by: Schumann, U., Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
609–624, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_37" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30183-4_37</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Kunkel, D., Hoor, P., Kaluza, T., Ungermann, J., Kluschat, B., Giez, A., Lachnitt, H.-C., Kaufmann, M., and Riese, M.: Evidence of small-scale quasi-isentropic mixing in ridges of extratropical baroclinic waves, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 12607–12630, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-12607-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-12607-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Kunz, A., Spelten, N., Konopka, P., Müller, R., Forbes, R. M., and Wernli, H.: Comparison of Fast In situ Stratospheric Hygrometer (FISH) measurements of water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) with ECMWF (re)analysis data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10803–10822, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10803-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-10803-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Martius, O., Schwierz, C., and Davies, H. C.: Tropopause-Level Waveguides,
J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 866–879, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS2995.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS2995.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Oikonomou, E. K. and O'Neill, A.: Evaluation of ozone and water vapor
fields from the ECMWF reanalysis ERA-40 during 1991–1999 in comparison with
UARS satellite and MOZAIC aircraft observations, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D14109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005341" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005341</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, L., Hintsa, E., Stone, E., Weinstock, E., and Randel, W.: The seasonal
cycle of water vapor and saturation vapor mixing ratio in the extratropical
lowermost stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 26519–26530,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900401" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900401</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, L. L., Randel, W. J., Gary, B. L., Mahoney, M. J., and Hintsa, E. J.:
Definitions and sharpness of the extratropical tropopause: A trace gas
perspective, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D23103,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004982" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004982</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, L. L., Bowman, K. P., Shapiro, M., Randel, W. J., Gao, R. S., Campos,
T., Davis, C., Schauffler, S., Ridley, B. A., Wei, J. C., and Barnet, C.:
Chemical behavior of the tropopause observed during the
Stratosphere-Troposphere Analyses of Regional Transport experiment, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D18110, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008645" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008645</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Randel, W. J. and Wu, F.: The polar summer tropopause inversion layer, J.
Atmos. Sci., 67, 2572–2581, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3430.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAS3430.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Randel, W. J., Wu, F., and Forster, P.: The extratropical tropopause
inversion layer: Global observations with GPS data, and a radiative forcing
mechanism, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 4489–4496,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2412.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2412.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Riese, M., Ploeger, F., Rap, A., Vogel, B., Konopka, P., Dameris, M., and
Forster, P.: Impact of uncertainties in atmospheric mixing on simulated UTLS
composition and related radiative effects, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117,
D16305, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017751" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017751</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Dörnbrack, A., Kiemle, C., Rahm, S., and Wirth, M.:
Tropospheric water vapour transport as determined from airborne lidar
measurements, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 27, 2017–2030,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JTECHA1418.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JTECHA1418.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Craig, G., Wernli, H., Arbogast, P., Doyle, J. D.,
McTaggart-Cowan, R., Methven, J., Rivière, G., Ament, F., Boettcher, M.,
Bramberger, M., Cazenave, Q., Cotton, R., Crewell, S., Delanoë, J.,
Dörnbrack, A., Ehrlich, A., Ewald, F., Fix, A., Grams, C. M., Gray, S.
L., Grob, H., Groß, S., Hagen, M., Harvey, B., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M.,
Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lemmerz, C., Lux, O., Magnusson, L., Mayer, B.,
Mech, M., Moore, R., Pelon, J., Quinting, J., Rahm, S., Rapp, M.,
Rautenhaus, M., Reitebuch, O., Reynolds, C. A., Sodemann, H., Spengler, T.,
Vaughan, G., Wendisch, M., Wirth, M., Witschas, B., Wolf, K., and Zinner,
T.: The North Atlantic Waveguide and Downstream Impact Experiment, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1607–1637, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0003.1</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Harvey, B., Methven, J., Doyle, J. D., Rahm, S.,
Reitebuch, O., Weiler, F., and Witschas, B.: Observation of jet stream winds
during NAWDEX and characterization of systematic meteorological analysis
error, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 2889–2907,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0229.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0229.1</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Fix, A., and Wirth, M.: Mixing at the extratropical tropopause as characterized by collocated airborne H<sub>2</sub>O and O<sub>3</sub> lidar observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5217–5234, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5217-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5217-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Schäfler, A., Sprenger, M., Wernli, H., Fix, A., and Wirth, M.: Case study on the influence of synoptic-scale processes on the paired H<sub>2</sub>O-O<sub>3</sub> distribution in the UTLS across a North Atlantic jet stream, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. [preprint], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-692" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-692</a>, in review, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Shapiro, M. A.: Turbulent Mixing within Tropopause Folds as a Mechanism for
the Exchange of Chemical Constituents between the Stratosphere and
Troposphere, J. Atmos. Sci., 37, 994–1004,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;0994:TMWTFA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;0994:TMWTFA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Shapiro, M. A., Wernli, H., Bao, J., Methven, J., Zou, X., Doyle, J., Holt, T., Donall-Grell,
E., and Neiman P.: A Planetary-Scale to Mesoscale Perspective of the Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones: The Bridge between Theory and Observations, in:  The Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones, edited by: Shapiro, M. A. and Grønås, S., American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-09-6_14" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-09-6_14</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Shepherd, T. G., Polichtchouk, I., Hogan, R. J., and Simmons, A. J.: Report on
Stratosphere Task Force, ECMWF Technical Memorandum 824,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.21957/0vkp0t1xx" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.21957/0vkp0t1xx</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Stenke, A., Grewe, V., and Ponater, M.: Lagrangian transport of water vapor
and cloud water in the ECHAM4 GCM and its impact on the cold bias, Clim.
Dynam., 31, 491–506, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0347-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0347-5</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B., Ament, F., Bony, S., Crewell, S., Ewald, F., Gross, S., Hansen,
A., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M., Kölling, T., Konow, H., Mayer, B., Wendisch,
M., Wirth, M., Wolf, K., Bakan, S., Bauer-Pfundstein, M., Brueck, M.,
Delanoë, J., Ehrlich, A., Farrell, D., Forde, M., Gödde, F., Grob,
H., Hagen, M., Jäkel, E., Jansen, F., Klepp, C., Klingebiel, M., Mech,
M., Peters, G., Rapp, M., Wing, A. A., and Zinner, T.: A High-Altitude
Long-Range Aircraft Configured as a Cloud Observatory: The NARVAL
Expeditions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1061–1077,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0198.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0198.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B., Bony, S., Farrell, D., Ament, F., Blyth, A., Fairall, C., Karstensen, J., Quinn, P. K., Speich, S., Acquistapace, C., Aemisegger, F., Albright, A. L., Bellenger, H., Bodenschatz, E., Caesar, K.-A., Chewitt-Lucas, R., de Boer, G., Delanoë, J., Denby, L., Ewald, F., Fildier, B., Forde, M., George, G., Gross, S., Hagen, M., Hausold, A., Heywood, K. J., Hirsch, L., Jacob, M., Jansen, F., Kinne, S., Klocke, D., Kölling, T., Konow, H., Lothon, M., Mohr, W., Naumann, A. K., Nuijens, L., Olivier, L., Pincus, R., Pöhlker, M., Reverdin, G., Roberts, G., Schnitt, S., Schulz, H., Siebesma, A. P., Stephan, C. C., Sullivan, P., Touzé-Peiffer, L., Vial, J., Vogel, R., Zuidema, P., Alexander, N., Alves, L., Arixi, S., Asmath, H., Bagheri, G., Baier, K., Bailey, A., Baranowski, D., Baron, A., Barrau, S., Barrett, P. A., Batier, F., Behrendt, A., Bendinger, A., Beucher, F., Bigorre, S., Blades, E., Blossey, P., Bock, O., Böing, S., Bosser, P., Bourras, D., Bouruet-Aubertot, P., Bower, K., Branellec, P., Branger, H., Brennek, M., Brewer, A., Brilouet , P.-E., Brügmann, B., Buehler, S. A., Burke, E., Burton, R., Calmer, R., Canonici, J.-C., Carton, X., Cato Jr., G., Charles, J. A., Chazette, P., Chen, Y., Chilinski, M. T., Choularton, T., Chuang, P., Clarke, S., Coe, H., Cornet, C., Coutris, P., Couvreux, F., Crewell, S., Cronin, T., Cui, Z., Cuypers, Y., Daley, A., Damerell, G. M., Dauhut, T., Deneke, H., Desbios, J.-P., Dörner, S., Donner, S., Douet, V., Drushka, K., Dütsch, M., Ehrlich, A., Emanuel, K., Emmanouilidis, A., Etienne, J.-C., Etienne-Leblanc, S., Faure, G., Feingold, G., Ferrero, L., Fix, A., Flamant, C., Flatau, P. J., Foltz, G. R., Forster, L., Furtuna, I., Gadian, A., Galewsky, J., Gallagher, M., Gallimore, P., Gaston, C., Gentemann, C., Geyskens, N., Giez, A., Gollop, J., Gouirand, I., Gourbeyre, C., de Graaf, D., de Groot, G. E., Grosz, R., Güttler, J., Gutleben, M., Hall, K., Harris, G., Helfer, K. C., Henze, D., Herbert, C., Holanda, B., Ibanez-Landeta, A., Intrieri, J., Iyer, S., Julien, F., Kalesse, H., Kazil, J., Kellman, A., Kidane, A. T., Kirchner, U., Klingebiel, M., Körner, M., Kremper, L. A., Kretzschmar, J., Krüger, O., Kumala, W., Kurz, A., L'Hégaret, P., Labaste, M., Lachlan-Cope, T., Laing, A., Landschützer, P., Lang, T., Lange, D., Lange, I., Laplace, C., Lavik, G., Laxenaire, R., Le Bihan, C., Leandro, M., Lefevre, N., Lena, M., Lenschow, D., Li, Q., Lloyd, G., Los, S., Losi, N., Lovell, O., Luneau, C., Makuch, P., Malinowski, S., Manta, G., Marinou, E., Marsden, N., Masson, S., Maury, N., Mayer, B., Mayers-Als, M., Mazel, C., McGeary, W., McWilliams, J. C., Mech, M., Mehlmann, M., Meroni, A. N., Mieslinger, T., Minikin, A., Minnett, P., Möller, G., Morfa Avalos, Y., Muller, C., Musat, I., Napoli, A., Neuberger, A., Noisel, C., Noone, D., Nordsiek, F., Nowak, J. L., Oswald, L., Parker, D. J., Peck, C., Person, R., Philippi, M., Plueddemann, A., Pöhlker, C., Pörtge, V., Pöschl, U., Pologne, L., Posyniak, M., Prange, M., Quiñones Meléndez, E., Radtke, J., Ramage, K., Reimann, J., Renault, L., Reus, K., Reyes, A., Ribbe, J., Ringel, M., Ritschel, M., Rocha, C. B., Rochetin, N., Röttenbacher, J., Rollo, C., Royer, H., Sadoulet, P., Saffin, L., Sandiford, S., Sandu, I., Schäfer, M., Schemann, V., Schirmacher, I., Schlenczek, O., Schmidt, J., Schröder, M., Schwarzenboeck, A., Sealy, A., Senff, C. J., Serikov, I., Shohan, S., Siddle, E., Smirnov, A., Späth, F., Spooner, B., Stolla, M. K., Szkółka, W., de Szoeke, S. P., Tarot, S., Tetoni, E., Thompson, E., Thomson, J., Tomassini, L., Totems, J., Ubele, A. A., Villiger, L., von Arx, J., Wagner, T., Walther, A., Webber, B., Wendisch, M., Whitehall, S., Wiltshire, A., Wing, A. A., Wirth, M., Wiskandt, J., Wolf, K., Worbes, L., Wright, E., Wulfmeyer, V., Young, S., Zhang, C., Zhang, D., Ziemen, F., Zinner, T., and Zöger, M.: EUREC4A, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4067–4119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4067-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Stohl, A., Bonasoni, P., Cristofanelli, P., Collins, W., Feichter, J.,
Frank, A., Forster, C., Gerasopoulos, E., Gaggeler, H., James, P.,
Kentarchos, T., Kromp-Kolb, H., Kruger, B., Land, C., Meloen, J.,
Papayannis, A., Priller, A., Seibert, P., Sprenger, M., Roelofs, G. J.,
Scheell, H., E. Schnabel, C., Siegmund, P., Tobler, L., Trickl, T., Wernli,
H., Wirth, V., Zanis, P., and Zerefos, C.: Stratosphere-troposphere
exchange: A review, and what we have learned from STACCATO, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 108, 8516, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002490" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002490</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Trickl, T., Vogelmann, H., Fix, A., Schäfler, A., Wirth, M., Calpini, B., Levrat, G., Romanens, G., Apituley, A., Wilson, K. M., Begbie, R., Reichardt, J., Vömel, H., and Sprenger, M.: How stratospheric are deep stratospheric intrusions? LUAMI 2008, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 8791–8815, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8791-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-8791-2016</a>, 2016.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Wirth, M., Fix, A., Mahnke, P., Schwarzer, H., Schrandt, F., and Ehret, G.:
The airborne multi-wavelength water vapour differential absorption lidar
WALES: system design and performance, Appl. Phys. B, 96, 201–213,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-009-3365-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-009-3365-7</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
WMO (World Meteorological Organization): Meteorology – A three-dimensional
science, WMO Bull., 6, 134–138, 1957.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Woiwode, W., Dörnbrack, A., Polichtchouk, I., Johansson, S., Harvey, B., Höpfner, M., Ungermann, J., and Friedl-Vallon, F.: Technical note: Lowermost-stratosphere moist bias in ECMWF IFS model diagnosed from airborne GLORIA observations during winter–spring 2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 15379–15387, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-15379-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Zahn, A., Christner, E., van Velthoven, P. F. J., Rauthe-Schoch, A., and
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M.: Processes controlling water vapor in the upper
troposphere/lowermost stratosphere: An analysis of 8 years of monthly
measurements by the IAGOS-CARIBIC observatory, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
11505–11525, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021687" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021687</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
