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

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.089 IF 3.089
  • IF 5-year<br/> value: 3.700 IF 5-year
    3.700
  • CiteScore<br/> value: 3.59 CiteScore
    3.59
  • 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
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 2455-2475, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2455-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
13 Jul 2017
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, Gérard Ancellet5, Bertrand Calpini6, Gerrie J. R. Coetzee7, Emilio Cuevas-Agulló8, Manuel Cupeiro9, Hugo De Backer10, Manvendra K. Dubey11, Henry E. Fuelberg12, Masatomo Fujiwara13, Sophie Godin-Beekmann5, Tristan J. Hall12, Bryan Johnson14, Everette Joseph15, Rigel Kivi16, Bogumil Kois17, Ninong Komala18, Gert König-Langlo19, Giovanni Laneve20, Thierry Leblanc21, Marion Marchand5, Kenneth R. Minschwaner22, Gary Morris23, Michael 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 Stübi6, Ghassan Taha29, David W. Tarasick32, Anne M. Thompson3, Valérie Thouret33, Matthew B. Tully34, Roeland Van Malderen10, Holger Vömel35, Peter von der Gathen36, Jacquelyn C. Witte37, and Margarita Yela38 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
5LATMOS-ISPL, Université Paris 6 Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, Paris, France
6MeteoSwiss Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland
7South African Weather Service, Pretoria, South Africa
8Izana Atmospheric Research Center, Meteorological State Agency of Spain, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
9National Meteorological Service, Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina
10Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium
11Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
12Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
13Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
14NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, CO, USA
15Atmospheric Sciences Research Center, SUNY at Albany, Albany, NY, USA
16Finnish Meteorological Institute, Sodankylä, 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, Helmholtz Centre 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, Wrightwood, 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, Prague, Czech Republic
32Air Quality Research Division, Environment & Climate Change Canada, Downsview, ON, Canada
33Laboratoire d'Aérologie, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse, France
34Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
35Earth Observing Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
36Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany
37Science Systems and Applications Inc., Greenbelt, MD, USA
38Atmospheric 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 dataset 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 midlatitudes 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 midlatitudes, the profile mean biases (MBs) are less than 6 %, and the standard deviations (SDs) range from 5 to 10 % for pressure  < ∼ 50 hPa to less than 18 % (27 %) in the tropics (midlatitudes) for pressure  > ∼ 50 hPa after applying OMI averaging kernels to ozonesonde data. The MBs of the stratospheric ozone column (SOC, the ozone column from the tropopause pressure to the ozonesonde burst pressure) 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 midlatitude 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 midlatitudes, 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−1 for pressure  < ∼ 80 hPa, 0.7 DU year−1 in SOC, and −0. 33 DU year−1 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 dependency of retrieval quality.

Citation: Huang, G., Liu, X., Chance, K., Yang, K., Bhartia, P. K., Cai, Z., Allaart, M., Ancellet, G., 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. B., Van Malderen, R., 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., 10, 2455-2475, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2455-2017, 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