2017
DOI: 10.5194/amt-2017-431
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of ozone profile retrievals derived from the OMPS LP version 2.5 algorithm against correlative satellite measurements

Abstract: Abstract. The Limb Profiler (LP) is a part of the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite launched on board of the Suomi NPPsatellite in October 2011. The LP measures solar radiation scattered from the atmospheric limb in ultraviolet and visible spectral ranges between the surface and 80 km. These measurements of scattered solar radiances allow for the retrieval of 15 ozone profiles from cloud tops up to 55 km. The LP started operational observations in April 2012. In this study we evaluate more than 5.5 years of ozo… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The relative bias is larger in the upper troposphere‐lower stratosphere (UTLS) where ozone mixing ratios are smaller. These differences between the OMPS‐LP and MLS ozone retrievals are consistent with those in Kramarova et al () (their Figures 8 and 9).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The relative bias is larger in the upper troposphere‐lower stratosphere (UTLS) where ozone mixing ratios are smaller. These differences between the OMPS‐LP and MLS ozone retrievals are consistent with those in Kramarova et al () (their Figures 8 and 9).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The results presented here use an observation error in which the provided precision estimate is multiplied by a factor of 0.75, which produces a better agreement with independent data. We note that the reported precisions in version 2.5 OMPS‐LP retrievals (Kramarova et al, ) are larger than those in the previous versions and are likely to be overestimated. It is common in data assimilation to tune the observation errors to best fit the assimilated as well as independent data.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 3 more Smart Citations