Following Envisat Cal/Val workshops, the following revisions
have been made
- SO2 variability - decreased to 10% of original size
since no volcanic activity has occured
- Radiometric Gain - increased from 1% to 2%
- Instrument Line Shape uncertainty - changed to represent 2% uncertainty
in AILS width (`spread') given observed 2nd derivative signature in residuals
(see above), replaces original `ails' perturbed line shapes
- NESR - increased to use in-flight average for orbit 2081 rather than
pre-flight measurements based on a low detector temperature
- High altitude variability added (`hialt')
- assuming an uncertainty in the retrieved
species which increases to climatological values within 10km of the top
retrieval level
Revised error analyses (together with plots of atmospheric profiles)
are now on a web-page
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/err
H2O Bias (AD)
[Prev]
[Next]
It was previously noted that there was not
much evidence for MIPAS overestimating H2O concentration in the
H2O residual signatures in other microwindows for orbit 2081.
However, taking monthly averages shows
- Clearer +ve H2O residuals in the non-H2O microwindows
- Low H2O residuals in the H2O microwindows - suggesting that the
ESA H2O retrieval is working correctly with the microwindows it
is using
- Conclusion: eliminate retrieval/convergence problems as a
possible cause of the bias
The plots represent the H2O residuals fitted over all points
in the microwindows, so
- H2O is well-fitted across entire H2O microwindow, not just
unmasked points, so bias unlikely to be caused by sensitivity
of spectral masks to AILS shape
- Revised error analysis shows that although
re-evaluated AILS uncertainty (`spread') is twice as large as
previous estimate (`ails'), it is still not significant.
- Conclusion: eliminate AILS shape/masks as a possible cause
It is possible to perform a REC analysis for each tangent altitude
separately, fitting error spectra to the residuals from all except the
H2O microwindows,
then converting the resulting fit of the H2O error signature
to an apparent
bias in the assumed H2O profile (effectively performing a simple
linear retrieval based on the residual H2O signatures in all except
the H2O microwindows).
- Monthly results are generally consistent in showing apparent
2-3 ppmv overestimate of H2O above >25km
- Also show a large underestimate at 12 km.
- Note consistency between these results and apparent
MIPAS bias relative
to other data sources from the Validation workshop
(x-axis scaling is a bit arbitrary).
This may just be coincidence since there is no reason to expect the H2O
spectroscopy to be more accurate in the non-H2O microwindows than in the H2O
microwindows.
Conclusion: currently the
most probable explanation for MIPAS H2O bias appears
to be an error in the line strengths in the H2O microwindows, underestimated
in the 1650cm-1 region (which covers the stratosphere)
and overestimated in the 800cm-1 region (UTLS region).