Influence of Vertical Resolution on the Validation of Atmospheric Chemistry Instruments

Guochang Zhang
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2011.13011                

Abstract

A large number of validation campaigns for atmospheric chemistry instruments are being carried out and more such studies will be performed in the future. The aims of validation are to confirm the accuracy and precision of the measurement of a new instrument. There are many factors that may deteriorate the validation results and one of them is the vertical resolution of instruments when using the profiles intercomparison ap-proach. The influence from the vertical resolution can be eliminated by using the averaging kernel method but it is necessary to find the conditions for using the method. This study simulated the influence of vertical resolution for a certain curvature. The results show that both the curvature of a profile and the difference of vertical resolution between two instruments have positive correlation with the differences between their measurements. The quantitative estimations of influence for some practical vertical resolutions were ob-tained. The combined error of two instruments was defined as the criteria to judge the significance of influ-ence. A case study based on the simulated results was demonstrated to show when the influence from the vertical resolution should be considered and when such influence can be omitted in order to avoid some un-necessary works in validation.

Keywords

Simulation, Validation, Vertical Resolution, Atmospheric Chemistry Instrument

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	C. D. Rodgers, “Inverse methods for atmospheric sounding: theory and practice,” Singapore: World Scientific Press, 2000.
[2]	T. von Clarmann, “Validation of remotely sensed profiles of atmospheric state variables: strategies and terminology,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., Vol. 6, 2006, pp. 4311-4320.
[3]	H. Fischer and H. Oelhaf, “Remote sensing of vertical profiles of atmospheric trace constituents with MIPAS limb-emission spectrometers,” Appl. Opt., Vol. 35, No. 16, 1996, pp. 2787-2796.
[4]	H. Fischer, M, Birk, C. Blom, et al, “MIPAS: An instrument for atmospheric and climate research,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., Vol. 8, 2008, pp. 2151-2188.
[5]	F. Friedl-Vallon, G. Maucher, M. Seefeldner, et al., “Design and characterization of the balloon-borne Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS-B2),” Appl. Opt., Vol. 43, No. 16, 2004, pp. 3335- 3355.
[6]	A. Kleinert, “Correction of detector nonlinearity for the balloon-borne Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS-B2),” Appl. Opt., Vol. 45, No. 3, 2006, pp. 425-431.
[7]	A. Kleinert and O. Trieschmann, “Phase determination for a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer in emission mode,” Appl. Opt., Vol. 46, 2007, pp. 2307-2319.
[8]	H. M. Worden, J. A. Logan, J. R. Worden, et al., “Comparisons of Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) ozone profiles to ozonesondes: Methods and initial results,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 112, 2007, D03309.
[9]	E. Mahieu, P. Duchatelet, P. Demoulin, et al., “Validation of ACE-FTS v2.2 measurements of HCl, HF, CCl3F and CCl2F2 using space-, balloon- and ground-based instrument Observations,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2008, 6199-6221.
[10]	G. Wetzel, A. Bracher, B, Funke, et al., “Validation of MIPAS-ENVISAT No. 2 operational data,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., Vol. 7, 2007, pp. 3261-3284.
[11]	D. Y. Wang, M. H?pfner, C. Blom, et al., “Validation of MIPAS HNOR3R operational data,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 7, 2007, pp. 4905-4934.
[12]	S. C. Müller, N. K?mpfer, D. G. Feist, et al., “Validation of stratospheric water vapour measurements from the air- borne microwave radiometer AMSOS,” Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 8, 2008, pp. 3169-3183.
[13]	G. Zhang, “Validation of target parameters of ENVISAT chemistry instruments with correlative balloon observations obtained by MIPAS-B,” Ph. D. dissertation, Karls- ruhe Technology University, Karlsruhe, 2006.
[14]	C. D. Rodgers and B. J. Connor, “Intercomparison of re- mote sounding instruments,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 108, 2003, pp. 4116-4130.