Articles | Volume 8, issue 1
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 35–62, 2008

Special issue: Validation results for the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment...

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 35–62, 2008

  08 Jan 2008

08 Jan 2008

Validation of the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) version 2.2 temperature using ground-based and space-borne measurements

R. J. Sica1, M. R. M. Izawa2, K. A. Walker4,3, C. Boone3, S. V. Petelina6,5, P. S. Argall1, P. Bernath7,3, G. B. Burns8, V. Catoire9, R. L. Collins10, W. H. Daffer11, C. De Clercq12, Z. Y. Fan3, B. J. Firanski13, W. J. R. French8, P. Gerard12, M. Gerding14, J. Granville12, J. L. Innis8, P. Keckhut15, T. Kerzenmacher4, A. R. Klekociuk8, E. Kyrö16, J. C. Lambert12, E. J. Llewellyn5, G. L. Manney18,17, I. S. McDermid19, K. Mizutani20, Y. Murayama20, C. Piccolo21, P. Raspollini22, M. Ridolfi23, C. Robert9, W. Steinbrecht24, K. B. Strawbridge13, K. Strong4, R. Stübi25, and B. Thurairajah10 R. J. Sica et al.
  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
  • 2Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
  • 3Department of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • 4Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 5Institute of Space and Atmospheric Studies, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
  • 6Department of Physics, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia
  • 7Department of Chemistry, University of York, UK
  • 8Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
  • 9Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l'Environnement, CNRS - Universite d'Orleans, France
  • 10Geophysical Institute and Atmospheric Sciences Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska
  • 11Columbus Technologies Inc., Pasadena, California, USA
  • 12Institut d'Aeronomie Spatiale de Belgique (IASB-BIRA), Brussels, Belgium
  • 13Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, CARE, Egbert, Ontario, Canada
  • 14Leibniz-Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Kühlungsborn, Germany
  • 15Service d'Aéronomie, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace-UVSQ, Verrires-le-Buisson, France
  • 16Finnish Meteorological Institute – Arctic Research Centre, Sodankylä, Finland
  • 17Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
  • 18New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, USA
  • 19Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Table Mountain Facility, Wrightwood, California, USA
  • 20National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Tokyo, Japan
  • 21Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, UK
  • 22Istituto di Fisica Applicata "Nello Carrara" (IFAC) del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy
  • 23Dip. di Chimica Fisica e Inorganica, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  • 24Deutsche Wetterdienst (DWD), Hohenpeissenberg Observatory, Germany
  • 25Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, MeteoSwiss Aerological Station, Payerne, Switzerland

Abstract. An ensemble of space-borne and ground-based instruments has been used to evaluate the quality of the version 2.2 temperature retrievals from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS). The agreement of ACE-FTS temperatures with other sensors is typically better than 2 K in the stratosphere and upper troposphere and 5 K in the lower mesosphere. There is evidence of a systematic high bias (roughly 3–6 K) in the ACE-FTS temperatures in the mesosphere, and a possible systematic low bias (roughly 2 K) in ACE-FTS temperatures near 23 km. Some ACE-FTS temperature profiles exhibit unphysical oscillations, a problem fixed in preliminary comparisons with temperatures derived using the next version of the ACE-FTS retrieval software. Though these relatively large oscillations in temperature can be on the order of 10 K in the mesosphere, retrieved volume mixing ratio profiles typically vary by less than a percent or so. Statistical comparisons suggest these oscillations occur in about 10% of the retrieved profiles. Analysis from a set of coincident lidar measurements suggests that the random error in ACE-FTS version 2.2 temperatures has a lower limit of about ±2 K.

Final-revised paper