CAVIAR Experimenters Meeting 2009 Liam Tallis

© University of Reading 2008 www.reading.ac.ukApril 19, 2023

CAVIAR Experimenters Meeting 2009

Liam Tallis

INTRODUCTION

2

Lab View

3

Sunsets

4

Introduction

• Introduction

• Assessment of the consistency of water vapour lines intensities in recent HITRAN databases

• Towards an absolute calibration

• Water Profile for Jungfraujoch

• Future work

5

ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSISTENCY OF WATER VAPOUR LINES INTENSITIES IN RECENT HITRAN DATABASES 6

Consistency Assessment

• Analysis of the consistency of water vapour lines in recent HITRAN databases

• Similar way to Casanova et. al. (2006)

• Optical depth spectrum given by

Where Fm is the measured signal by the FTIR, Fs is the extraterestrial irradiance given

by Kurucz (1995), τm is the optical depth, θ is the solar zenith angle and k(v) is an

unknown calibration factor.

7

Consistency Assessment

• Rearrangement ignoring the calibration factor (and a few other approximations)

• We know have a “pseudo” optical depth spectrum

• This spectrum will allow us to analyse the consistency between observation and model

8

Consistency Assessment

• Optical depth is calculated for water vapour (τw)

and for five other principle absorbers in the region: CH4, CO2, O2, N2O and O3 (τg) using RFM

(v4.28)

• Linear fit of the “pseudo” optical depth to that calculated by RFM

• Fit pseudo to the form of a x τw + b x τg + c

9

Consistency Assessment

a x τw + b x τg + c

• b is tightly bound to be a value between 0.95 to 1.05– An assumption made is other gases well know– Allowed to vary slightly for any minor error in the column

amounts

• c is allowed to vary more freely– c is a offset parameter that varies slowly with wavelength

• a is allowed to vary between 0 and 3– a is the important parameter– tells us the factor line intensities must be multiplied by

10

Consistency Assessment

11

Consistency Assessment

12

Consistency Assessment

13

Consistency Assessment

• Camborne Field Campaign

• InSb / CaF2

• Typically for 0.03cm-1 resolution spectra

• Over various days, radiosondes, water columns

14

HITRAN2004

HITRAN2008

H08 / H04

Average a 1.0332 1.0375 1.0055

Average a 3000 cm-1 – 8000 cm-1 0.9823 0.9783 0.9961

Average a 8000 cm-1 – 9500 cm-1 1.1614 1.1579 0.9971

Average a 10000 cm-1 - 11500 cm-1 0.9560 0.9762 1.0233

Consistency Assessment

15

HITRAN2004

HITRAN2008

H08 / H04

Average a 1.0332 1.0375 1.0055

Average a 3000 cm-1 – 8000 cm-1 0.9823 0.9783 0.9961

Average a 8000 cm-1 – 9500 cm-1 1.1614 1.1579 0.9971

Average a 10000 cm-1 - 11500 cm-1 0.9560 0.9762 1.0233

Ratio of 3000 cm-1 - 8000 cm-1 to 8000 cm-1 – 9500 cm-1

For HITRAN04 = 0.846, St Dev= 0.011For HITRAN08 = 0.845, St Dev= 0.010

Consistency Assessment

• Camborne Field Campaign

• MCT / KBr

• Problems!

• Fit appears to be good...

• But scaling factor required for water vapour lines feels wrong

• Typical “a” value ~ 0.7

16

Consistency Assessment

• Camborne Field Campaign

• MCT / KBr

• Typically for 0.03cm-1 resolution spectra

• Over various days, radiosondes, water columns

17

HITRAN2004

HITRAN2008

H08 / H04

Average a 700 cm-1 – 1400 cm-1 0.75 0.75 0.99

Average a 800 cm-1 – 1000 cm-1 0.81 0.78 0.96

Average a 1100 cm-1 - 1250 cm-1 0.76 0.74 0.97

Consistency Assessment

18

Consistency Assessment

19

Consistency Assessment

20

TOWARDS AN ABSOLUTE CALIBRATION

21

Towards an Absolute Calibration

• Calibrations before each field campaign at NPL

• NPL produce a calibration function which when used with spectral data gives an irradiance [W/m2/FT o/p unit]

Calibration x Spectral Data = Calibrated Spectra

• Extraterrestrial irradiance given by Kurucz’s (1995) database

22

Towards an Absolute Calibration

23

Towards an Absolute Calibration

24

Towards an Absolute Calibration

• We know the signal measured by the FT is given by

• And thus by rearranging, we can work out the optical depth

25

Towards an Absolute Calibration

26

Towards an Absolute Calibration

27

Towards an Absolute Calibration

28

Towards an Absolute Calibration

29

Towards an Absolute Calibration

• Microtops II Sunphotometer

• 13/08/2008

• AOT380 = 0.465, AOT440 = 0.486, AOT675 = 0.577, AOT936 = 0.705, AOT1020 = 0.608 

• Campaign Average

• AOT380 = 0.22, AOT440 = 0.17, AOT675 = 0.12, AOT936 = 0.09, AOT1020 = 0.08

30

Towards an Absolute Calibration

31

Towards an Absolute Calibration

32

WATER PROFILE FOR JUNGFRAUJOCH

33

Water Profile for Jungfraujoch

34

• Radiosonde (Payerne)

• Dropsonde (FAAM)

• FAAM Aircraft

• GPS IWV

• ECMWF Forecast Fields

• STARTWAVE Database, University of Bern– GPS Water Vapour– Column Water from Payerne Radiosonde

Water Profile for Jungfraujoch

35

Water Profile for Jungfraujoch

36

Water Profile for Jungfraujoch

371st August 2009

FUTURE WORK

38

Future Work• Analysis of the consistency of water vapour lines in

recent HITRAN databases– Any improvements to MCT fit possible?– Repeat this style analysis for Jungfraujoch– Try with new ACE-FTS extraterrestrial line list (Hase et. al, JQSRT

2009)

• Absolute Calibration– Account for difference between calibrated spectra and

extraterrestrial irradiance (in atmospheric windows)– Use Reading’s RFM + DISORT Code

• Water Profile for Jungfraujoch– Continued work in this area

• Questions?

39