Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.989 IF 2.989
  • IF 5-year<br/> value: 3.489 IF 5-year
    3.489
  • CiteScore<br/> value: 3.37 CiteScore
    3.37
  • SNIP value: 1.273 SNIP 1.273
  • SJR value: 2.026 SJR 2.026
  • IPP value: 3.082 IPP 3.082
  • h5-index value: 45 h5-index 45
doi:10.5194/amt-2017-15
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
15 Feb 2017
Review status
This discussion paper is under review for the journal Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).
Validation of 10-year SAO OMI Ozone Profile (PROFOZ) Product Using Ozonesonde Observations
Guanyu Huang1, Xiong Liu1, Kelly Chance1, Kai Yang2, Pawan K. Bhartia3, Zhaonan Cai1, Marc Allaart4, Bertrand Calpini5, Gerrie J. R. Coetzee6, Emilio Cuevas-Agulló7, Manuel Cupeiro8, Hugo De Backer9, Manvendra K. Dubey10, Henry E. Fuelberg11, Masatomo Fujiwara12, Sophie Godin-Beekmann13, Tristan J. Hall11, Bryan Johnson14, Everette Joseph15, Rigel Kivi16, Bogumil Kois17, Ninong Komala18, Gert König-Langlo19, Giovanni Laneve20, Thierry Leblanc21, Marion Marchand13, Kenneth R. Minschwaner22, Gary Morris23, Mike J. Newchurch24, Shin-Ya Ogino25, Nozomu Ohkawara26, Ankie J. M. Piters4, Françoise Posny27, Richard Querel28, Rinus Scheele4, Frank J. Schmidlin3, Russell C. Schnell14, Otto Schrems19, Henry Selkirk29, Masato Shiotani30, Pavla Skrivánková31, René Stübi5, Ghassan Taha29, David W. Tarasick32, Anne M. Thompson3, Valérie Thouret33, Matt Tully34, Roeland van Malderen9, Geraint Vaughan35, Holger Vömel36, Peter von der Gathen37, Jacquelyn C. Witte38, and Margarita Yela39 1Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA
2Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
3NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
4Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands
5MeteoSwiss Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland
6South African Weather Service, Pretoria, South Africa
7Izana Atmospheric Research Center, Meteorological State Agency of Spain, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
8National Meteorological Service, Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina
9Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Brussel, Belgium
10Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
11Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
12Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
13LATMOS-ISPL, Université Paris 6 Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, Paris, France
14NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, CO, USA
15Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, SUNY University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA
16Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
17The Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland
18Indonesian Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN), Bandung, Indonesia
19Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany
20Earth Observation Satellite Images Applications Lab (EOSIAL), Università di Roma 'La Sapienza', Rome, Italy
21Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
22Department of Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM, USA
23St. Edward’s University, Austin, TX, USA
24Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA
25Department of Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Land Processes Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka, Japan
26Global Environment and Marine Department, Japan Meteorological Agency,Tokyo, Japan
27Université de la Réunion, Saint Denis, France
28National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, Central Otago, New Zealand
29Universities Space Research Association, Greenbelt, MD, USA
30Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
31Upper Air and Surface Observation Department, Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Praha, Czech Republic
32Air Quality Research Division, Environment & Climate Change Canada, Downsview, ON, Canada
33Laboratoire d'Aerologie, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
34Observations & Infrastructure Division, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
35School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
36Earth Observing Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
37Alfred Wegener Institute, Potsdam, Germany
38Science Systems and Applications Inc. Greenbelt, MD, USA
39tmospheric Research and Instrumentation Branch, National Institute for Aerospace Technology (INTA), Madrid, Spain
Abstract. We validate the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) ozone-profile (PROFOZ) product from October 2004 through December 2014 retrieved by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) algorithm against ozonesonde observations. We also evaluate the effects of OMI Row anomaly (RA) on the retrieval by dividing the data set into before and after the occurrence of serious OMI RA, i.e., pre-RA (2004–2008) and post-RA (2009–2014). The retrieval shows good agreement with ozonesondes in the tropics and mid-latitudes and for pressure < ~ 50 hPa in the high latitudes. It demonstrates clear improvement over the a priori down to the lower troposphere in the tropics and down to an average of ~ 550 (300) hPa at middle (high latitudes). In the tropics and mid-latitudes, the profile mean biases (MBs) are less than 6 %, and the standard deviations (SDs) range from 5–10 % for pressure < ~ 50 hPa to less than 18 % (27 %) in the tropics (mid-latitudes) for pressure > ~ 50 hPa after applying OMI averaging kernels to ozonesonde data. The MBs of the stratospheric ozone column (SOC) are within 2 % with SDs of < 5 % and the MBs of the tropospheric ozone column (TOC) are within 6 % with SDs of 15 %. In the high latitudes, the profile MBs are within 10 % with SDs of 5–15 % for pressure < ~ 50 hPa, but increase to 30 % with SDs as great as 40 % for pressure > ~ 50 hPa. The SOC MBs increase up to 3 % with SDs as great as 6 % and the TOC SDs increase up to 30 %. The comparison generally degrades at larger solar-zenith angles (SZA) due to weaker signals and additional sources of error, leading to worse performance at high latitudes and during the mid-latitude winter. Agreement also degrades with increasing cloudiness for pressure > ~ 100 hPa and varies with cross-track position, especially with large MBs and SDs at extreme off-nadir positions. In the tropics and mid-latitudes, the post-RA comparison is considerably worse with larger SDs reaching 2 % in the stratosphere and 8 % in the troposphere and up to 6 % in TOC. There are systematic differences that vary with latitude compared to the pre-RA comparison. The retrieval comparison demonstrates good long-term stability during the pre-RA period, but exhibits a statistically significant trend of 0.14–0.7 %/year for pressure < ~ 80 hPa, 0.7 DU/year in SOC and −0.33 DU/year in TOC during the post-RA period. The spatiotemporal variation of retrieval performance suggests the need to improve OMI’s radiometric calibration especially during the post-RA period to maintain the long-term stability and reduce the latitude/season/SZA and cross-track dependence of retrieval quality.

Citation: Huang, G., Liu, X., Chance, K., Yang, K., Bhartia, P. K., Cai, Z., Allaart, M., Calpini, B., Coetzee, G. J. R., Cuevas-Agulló, E., Cupeiro, M., De Backer, H., Dubey, M. K., Fuelberg, H. E., Fujiwara, M., Godin-Beekmann, S., Hall, T. J., Johnson, B., Joseph, E., Kivi, R., Kois, B., Komala, N., König-Langlo, G., Laneve, G., Leblanc, T., Marchand, M., Minschwaner, K. R., Morris, G., Newchurch, M. J., Ogino, S.-Y., Ohkawara, N., Piters, A. J. M., Posny, F., Querel, R., Scheele, R., Schmidlin, F. J., Schnell, R. C., Schrems, O., Selkirk, H., Shiotani, M., Skrivánková, P., Stübi, R., Taha, G., Tarasick, D. W., Thompson, A. M., Thouret, V., Tully, M., van Malderen, R., Vaughan, G., Vömel, H., von der Gathen, P., Witte, J. C., and Yela, M.: Validation of 10-year SAO OMI Ozone Profile (PROFOZ) Product Using Ozonesonde Observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., doi:10.5194/amt-2017-15, in review, 2017.
Guanyu Huang et al.
Guanyu Huang et al.
Guanyu Huang et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 239 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
173 55 11 239 10 15

Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Feb 2017)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Feb 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 239 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 239 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 30 Mar 2017
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
It is essential to understand the data quality of 10+ year OMI ozone product and impacts of the Row Anomaly (RA). We validate the OMI ozone-profile (PROFOZ) product from Oct. 2004 to Dec. 2014 against ozonesonde observations globally. Generally, OMI has good agreement with ozonesondes. The spatiotemporal variation of retrieval performance suggests the need to improve OMI’s radiometric calibration especially during the post-RA period to maintain the long-term stability.
It is essential to understand the data quality of 10+ year OMI ozone product and impacts of the...
Share