Oxford MIPAS meeting#22
07 Jan 03


Present

Instrument Status [Prev] [Next]
Operating normally as far as we know

Software Updates (AD) [Prev] [Next]
Software in /home/crun/eodg/mipas/

Auxiliary Data Updates (AD) [Prev] [Next]
New data in /home/crun/eodg/mipas/

L1/L2 Data Delivery [Prev] [Next]

REC analysis of RAL Retrievals (AD) [Prev] [Next]
Results (read top to bottom, then left to right, in order of decreasing confidence in fit, cf ESTEC results of meeting#15)

Source Fit Source Fit Source Fit
o3 0.01 ch4 -1.01 so2 -0.02
nonlte 0.08 hno3 -0.77 hcn -7.19
h2o_st -0.11 nh3 -0.12 ccl4 0.75
no2 -0.03 n2o5 1.54 hno4 1.01
pre 2.71 cof2 2.46 co2mix 2.55
clono2 1.30 co2 2.13 c2h6 0.11

Retrieval uses idealised AILS, but 1st Derivative and 2nd Derivative fits to residuals are broadly similar to ESTEC results for orbits 2081-83 1st Derivative (prior to spectral correction) and 2nd Derivative

ILS Uncertainty (AB) [Prev] [Next]
A Fit Coefficient of +0.02 in the 2nd Derivative signature is approximately equivalent to 1% increase in AILS width (related to the 2nd derivative of ax^2 + bx + c being 2a).
Conclusion: `spread' error equivalent to +/-2% uncertainty in AILS width, now replaces `ails' error in new mwmake error analyses.

MWMAKE Error Analysis (AD) [Prev] [Next]
Following Envisat Cal/Val workshops, the following revisions have been made
  1. SO2 variability - decreased to 10% of original size since no volcanic activity has occured
  2. Radiometric Gain - increased from 1% to 2%
  3. 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
  4. NESR - increased to use in-flight average for orbit 2081 rather than pre-flight measurements based on a low detector temperature
  5. 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
The plots represent the H2O residuals fitted over all points in the microwindows, so
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).
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).