2008, Sica, R.J., Izawa, M.R.M., Walker, K.A., Boone, C., Petelina, S.V., Argall, P.S., Bernath, P., Burns, G.B., Catoire, V., Collins, R.L., Daffer, W.H., De Clercq, C., Fan, Z.Y., Firanski, B.J., French, W.J.R., Gerard, P., Gerding, M., Granville, J., Innis, J.L., Keckhut, P., Kerzenmacher, T., Klekociuk, A.R., Kyrö, E., Lambert, J.C., Llewellyn, E.J., Manney, G.L., McDermid, I.S., Mizutani, K., Murayama, Y., Piccolo, C., Raspollini, P., Ridolfi, M., Robert, C., Steinbrecht, W., Strawbridge, K.B., Strong, K., Stübi, R., Thurairajah, B.

An ensemble of space-borne and ground-based instruments has been used to evaluate the quality of the version 2.2 temperature retrievals from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS). The agreement of ACE-FTS temperatures with other sensors is typically better than 2 K in the stratosphere and upper troposphere and 5 K in the lower mesosphere. There is evidence of a systematic high bias (roughly 3–6 K) in the ACE-FTS temperatures in the mesosphere, and a possible systematic low bias (roughly 2 K) in ACE-FTS temperatures near 23 km. Some ACE-FTS temperature profiles exhibit unphysical oscillations, a problem fixed in preliminary comparisons with temperatures derived using the next version of the ACE-FTS retrieval software. Though these relatively large oscillations in temperature can be on the order of 10 K in the mesosphere, retrieved volume mixing ratio profiles typically vary by less than a percent or so. Statistical comparisons suggest these oscillations occur in about 10% of the retrieved profiles. Analysis from a set of coincident lidar measurements suggests that the random error in ACE-FTS version 2.2 temperatures has a lower limit of about ±2 K.

2005, Christensen, T., Knudsen, B.M., Streibel, M., Andersen, S.B., Benesova, A., Braathen, G., Claude, H., Davies, J., De Backer, H., Dier, H., Dorokhov, V., Gerding, M., Gil, M., Henchoz, B., Kelder, H., Kivi, R., Kyrö, E., Litynska, Z., Moore, D., Peters, G., Skrivankova, P., Stübi, R., Turunen, T., Vaughan, G., Viatte, P., Vik, A.F., von der Gathen, P.

A total ozone depletion of 68±7 Dobson units between 380 and 525K from 10 December 2002 to 10 March 2003 is derived from ozone sonde data by the vortex-average method, taking into account both diabatic descent of the air masses and transport of air into the vortex. When the vortex is divided into three equal-area regions, the results are 85±9DU for the collar region (closest to the edge), 52±5DU for the vortex centre and 68±7DU for the middle region in between centre and collar. Our results compare well with other studies: We find good agreement with ozone loss deduced from SAOZ data, with results inferred from POAM III observations and with results from tracer-tracer correlations using HF as the long-lived tracer. We find a higher ozone loss than that deduced by tracer-tracer correlations using CH4. We have made a careful comparison with Match results: The results were recalculated using a common time period, vortex edge definition and height interval. The two methods generally compare very well, except at the 475K level which exhibits an unexplained discrepancy.

2004, Lait, L.R., Newman, P.A., Schoeberl, M.R., McGee, T., Twigg, L., Browell, E.V., Fenn, M.A., Grant, W.B., Butler, C.F., Bevilacqua, R., Davies, J., DeBacker, H., Andersen, S.B., Kyrö, E., Kivi, E., von der Gathen, P., Claude, H., Benesova, A., Skrivankova, P., Dorokhov, V., Zaitcev, I., Braathen, G., Gil, M., Litynska, Z., Moore, D., Gerding, M.

Ozone measurements from ozonesondes, AROTAL, DIAL, and POAM III instruments during the SOLVE-2/VINTERSOL period are composited in a time-varying, flow-following quasi-conservative (PV-θ) coordinate space; the resulting composites from each instrument are mapped onto the other instruments' locations and times. The mapped data are then used to intercompare data from the different instruments. Overall, the four ozone data sets are found to be in good agreement. AROTAL shows somewhat lower values below 16 km, and DIAL has a positive bias at the upper limits of its altitude range. These intercomparisons are consistent with those obtained from more conventional near-coincident profiles, where available. Although the PV-θ mapping technique entails larger uncertainties of individual profile differences compared to direct near-coincident comparisons, the ability to include much larger numbers of comparisons can make this technique advantageous.