Validation of ENVISAT trace gas data products by comparison with GOME/ERS-2 and other satellite sensors A. Bracher, M. Weber, K. Bramstedt, M. v. König, A. Richter, A. Rozanov, C. v. Savigny,

J. P. Burrows Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP), University of Bremen, P.O. Box 330440, D-28334 Bremen, Germany, Email:

bracher@uni-bremen.de ABSTRACT In order to assess the level-2 data retrieval accuracy of selected trace gases (O3, NO2, H2O) from SCIAMACHY and MIPAS, which are part of the atmospheric instrumentation on the recently launched ENVISAT satellite, operational and some scientific products are validated by comparison with other space borne instruments (GOME, HALOE, SAGE II, POAM III). First results of these satellite intercomparisons are presented in this paper. SCIAMACHY O3 vertical columns (version 3.53 and 4.0) are on average 5% (+/-5%) lower than GOME O3 columns. SCIAMACHY NO2 slant columns of the operational product (4.0) and IUP retrieval [1] show a consistent offset to GOME NO2 slant columns (GDP version 2.7) of –30% and -10%, respectively. While the NO2 total columns of the IUP product show a stable offset of –20%, version 4.0 of SCIAMACHY NO2 total columns show a strong variation with latitude (–60% at 70°S to 0% at 70°N), which is even worse for version 3.53. Since no operational products of SCIAMACHY limb measurements are available so far, only scientific limb products for O3 and NO2, retrieved by IUP [2], are compared to POAM III measurements. These preliminary results give confidence that reliable profile data can be retrieved from SCIAMACHY limb measurements. MIPAS O3 profiles (4.53) show good results between 20-60 km with +/- 10 % compared to HALOE and between –35 and 0% compared to SAGE II. MIPAS H2O profiles (4.53) agree also well between 20-55 km with differences between +5 to +15 % compared to HALOE. Below 20 km both, MIPAS H2O and O3 profiles show large deviation to HALOE and SAGE II measurements. 1 STATUS OF VALIDATION Table 1: Workplan for AO-ID 651: Satellite Instruments with launch date, measurements geometry and their data products for validating level 2 products of ENVISAT instruments GOMOS (G), MIPAS (M), and SCIAMACHY (S). Green: first validation has been performed, black: planned validation, blue: comparisons to new instruments planned during main validation phase. Asterisk (*) indicates that so far only SCIAMACHY profiles retrieved by IUP have been validated

Instrument Data product Geometry Envisat Instrument

SAGEII (10/84)

O3 profiles* NO2 profiles H2O profiles

occultation G,M,S*

HALOE (9/91)

O3 profiles* NO2 profiles H2O profiles CH4 profiles

occultation G,M,S*

only M,S POAM III (3/98)

O3 profiles NO2 profiles

occultation S*

GOME (4/95)

O3 columns NO2 columns

nadir S

TOMS (7/96)

O3 columns nadir S

SABER (12/01)

O3 profiles H2O profiles

limb G,M,S

ACE-FTS (5/03)

O3 profiles NO2 profiles H2O profiles CH4 profiles

occultation G,M,S

The SCIAMACHY (Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography, see e.g. [3]) instrument, the MIPAS (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding, see e.g. [4]) and GOMOS (Global Ozone Monitoring by Occultation of Stars, see e.g. [5-7]) are space-based atmospheric instruments launched

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________Proc. of Envisat Validation Workshop, Frascati, Italy, 9 – 13 December 2002 (ESA SP-531, August 2003)

onboard ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) in March 2002. These three ENVISAT instruments provide information of a large family of trace constituents, which play an important role in atmospheric chemistry and in climate change issues. A prerequisite of scientific use of the trace gas data is to achieve a high accuracy in the derived trace gas products. The use of independent satellite measurements to validate trace gas products of these instruments has the great advantage that pole-to-pole coverage for all seasons is available and that validation activities are not limited to a certain period and location. The work plan (Table 1) of this AO-project (AO-ID 651) includes validation of SCIAMACHY, MIPAS and GOMOS O3, NO2, H2O and CH4 data by comparison with established and well validated satellite instruments GOME (the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment, [8]), TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, [9]), HALOE (Halogen Occultation Experiment, [10]), and SAGE II. (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II Instrument, [11]). During the main validation phase of ENVISAT instruments the same atmospheric ENVISAT data products will be intercompared to new satellite instruments SABER (Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, [12]) and ACE-FTS (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier-transform spectrometer, [13]). At the time at this workshop only a subset of all validation tasks could be completed, because ENVISAT data delivery was very limited. Since all GOMOS data and MIPAS NO2 and CH4 data were only available after late October and SAGE II and HALOE data only until the end of October, no coincidences could be determined. Therefore, only operational products of SCIAMACHY O3 and NO2 columns (also scientific NO2 columns) and MIPAS O3 and H2O profiles have been validated until now and are presented in this paper. For SCIAMACHY no operational limb profiles were distributed so far, so only scientific products were validated. These are compared with HALOE, SAGE II and POAM III (The Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement III, [14]) measurements and some results are presented here. 2 SCIAMACHY VALIDATION RESULTS 2.1 SCIAMACHY and GOME DOAS O 3 and NO 2 column products Vertical column densities of O3 and NO2 can be derived from SCIAMACHY and GOME UV-VIS nadir measurements. The Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS, [15]) is used to derive trace gas columns from GOME and SCIAMACHY spectra. For SCIAMACHY and GOME, the DOAS algorithm determines O3 and NO2 slant columns in the 325-335 nm (UV) and the 425-450 nm (VIS) spectral window, respectively. In addition, SCIAMACHY retrieves ozone slant columns in the 425-450 nm (VIS) spectral window. Both retrieval versions (3.53 and 4.0) of SCIAMACHY level 2 data correspond to GOME GDP 2.4. These versions use the US standard atmosphere for NO2 which usually leads to an underestimation of vertical number densities under polluted conditions. Compared to version 3.53, version 4.0 of SCIAMACHY has an improved level-1 product with an polarisation correction, an updated SCIAMACHY sun spectrum, a new dark current and spectral calibration applied. For version 3.53, and probably for version 4.0, as well GOME absorption cross sections were used in the spectral fitting (pers. comm. by J. Frerick, ESA). GOME level-2 data used for these comparisons are of version GDP 2.7. This GOME version improves NO2 columns retrieval in the tropics by inclusion of O4 and H2O in the fitting. GOME GDP 3.0 [16] has already been implemented for older data (1995-1999) and will be soon implemented for recent dates. This version improves total O3 (tO3) retrieval by applying TOMS V7.0 climatology for O3 and an air mass factor classified by vertical column amount and latitude. 2.2 Comparison of SCIAMACHY O3 total columns (UV) with GOME Since GOME/ERS-2 and SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT are flying in the same orbit only 30 minutes apart, numerous collocated measurements can be detected (up to 28000 a day). In order to quickly compare collocations of a day up to a months period, and in addition to that, to overcome the difference in ground pixel size of 30 km x 60 km of SCIAMACHY and 40 km x 320 km for GOME, the following method was applied: All O3 total column data of a certain time period (day, week, month) are spatially binned into regular 2.5° and 2.5° grids. Fig. 1 shows binned tO3 of 2002/10/24 measured by SCIAMACHY (3.53) and GOME (GDP 2.7). For most orbits SCIAMACHY makes alternating nadir and limb measurements. Only part of all SCIAMACHY orbits of one day were available. When all measurements are available, SCIAMACHY achieves global coverage after six days, while GOME measuring in nadir geometry achieves global coverage after three days. If both instruments have measurements in the same grid, then the mean of the data of one instrument is compared to the mean of the data of the other instrument as follows:

(tO3 of SCIAMACHY- tO3 of GOME)/ tO3 of GOME (1)

Fig. 2 shows the results of the comparison of binned SCIAMACHY (3.53) and GOME (2.7) total ozone for one day (2002/10/24) and a six-day period (2002/10/24 to 2002/10/29). Fig. 3 shows for the same comparisons the results as a

function of latitude. Excluding the Antarctic region (>70°S), SCIAMACHY is 5% (+/-5%) lower than GOME. GOME tO3 data still show a very good accuracy (around 3% [17]) despite aging of the instrument.

Fig. 1. Total ozone in Dobson Units (DU) of 2002/10/24 measured by SCIAMACHY version 3.53 (left) and GOME GDP 2.7 (right) after binning into 2.5° x 2.5° grid boxes

Fig. 2. Comparison of binned SCIAMACHY (3.53) with binned GOME (GDP 2.7) total O3 for 2002/10/24 (left) and 2002/10/24 to 2002/10/29 (right)

Fig. 3. Comparison of binned SCIAMACHY (3.53) with binned GOME (GDP 2.7) total O3 for 2002/10/24 (left) and 2002/10/24 to 2002/10/29 (right) as a function of latitude

The comparison of SCIAMACHY 4.0 tO3 with GOME GDP 2.7 tO3 (2002/08/23) shows the same bias (Fig. 4). The only improvement in version 4.0 is the removal of bad pixels where measurements have been taken after twilight. A possible reason for SCIAMACHY tO3 showing an offset to GOME tO3 might be that in both SCIAMACHY versions 3.53 and 4.0 still GOME absorption cross sections are used in the algorithm.

Fig. 4. Comparison of binned SCIAMACHY (4.0) with GOME (2.7) total O3 for 2002/08/23 as a function of latitude 2.3 Comparison of SCIAMACHY O3 total columns (VIS) with GOME

Fig. 5. Comparison of binned SCIAMACHY (3.53, left) and (4.0, right) VIS total O3 with GOME (GDP 2.7) total O3 UV as a function of latitude Fig. 5 shows results from the comparison of the VIS SCIAMACHY tO3 product version 3.53 and 4.0 with UV GOME (GDP 2.7) tO3 using the same method as described earlier (in 2.2). Results of the comparison show that there is still a large deviation with SCIAMACHY (3.53) VIS tO3 showing up to 200% difference to GOME. SCIAMACHY (4.0) VIS tO3 comparisons to GOME show much better results, but still a very strong scatter around +/-80%. As in the case for GOME, the UV tO3 product is considered more reliable than the VIS ozone data. 2.4 Comparison of SCIAMACHY NO2 columns (UV) with GOME SCIAMACHY NO2 vertical column densities (VCD) of the operational product (3.53 and 4.0) and of the scientific product by IUP were compared to GOME (GDP 2.7) NO2 VCD using the same method as described in chapter 2.2 for the comparison of the tO3 data product. The scientific NO2 product from the SCIAMACHY data was derived using the DOAS analysis developed for the GOME instrument [1]. Starting from level-1 data with only the spectral calibration and dark signal correction applied, NO2 slant columns are retrieved in a non-linear fit using the wavelength window 425

- 450 nm. In addition to NO2, absorptions of O3, O4, H2O and the Ring effect are taken into account, using SCIAMACHY FM reference spectra where possible and a Ring spectrum calculated with the radiative transport model SCIATRAN [18]. Prior to the fit, the wavelength axis of the background spectrum is aligned with a Fraunhofer atlas. In contrast to the standard GOME analysis, no solar spectrum was used as a background, as SCIAMACHY solar reference measurements provided with the operational data still suffer from unresolved problems. Instead, an arbitrarily selected measurement over the Pacific is used, which leads to an unknown offset in the resulting slant columns that has been accounted for by using the slant column measured by GOME at this location. Once the slant columns are retrieved, they are converted to vertical columns using an air mass factor calculated by SCIATRAN assuming a US standard atmosphere. While this a priori assumption is acceptable in most cases, it will introduce errors at high latitudes in particular in winter. In general, the retrieval is very similar to that of the operational processor. Differences in the NO2 columns from both analyses are therefore probably related to the use of Pacific pixel as a background spectrum and in the not yet optimised software settings of the operational processor.

Fig. 6. NO2 vertical column densities (VCD) of 2002/08/23 measured by SCIAMACHY 4.0 (left), GOME GDP 2.7 (middle), and SCIAMACHY IUP retrieval (right) binned into a 2.5° x 2.5° grid

Fig. 7. Comparison of binned NO2 vertical column densities (VCD) from SCIAMACHY calibration orbits 509 and 510 (2002/08/23) with GOME. Left: SCIAMACHY (4.0) and right: SCIAMACHY (IUP retrieval) with GOME (GDP 2.7) for as a function of latitude Fig. 6 shows binned NO2 VCD from 2002/08/23 based on SCIAMACHY (4.0), IUP retrieval and GOME (GDP 2.7) data. Figs. 7 and 8 show results of comparing these SCIAMACHY (4.0 and IUP retrieval) NO2 VCD and their slant columns (SCD) to GOME (GDP 2.7). SCIAMACHY (4.0) VCD show a strong variation with latitude compared to GOME data ranging from –60% at 70°S to 0% at 70°N, while SCIAMACHY IUP retrieval show a stable offset of –20% with a strong scatter (south of 60°S down to –40%). SCIAMACHY NO2 SCD from both algorithms (4.0 and IUP retrieval) show a negative offset compared to GOME; for the operational product (4.0) it ranges from –45% to –30% between 70°S and 50°N and for the IUP retrieval the offset is –10% +/–10%. From Fig. 7 and 8 one may conclude that both spectral fitting and air mass factor contribute to the differences between SCIAMACHY operational product and GOME. In addition, comparisons of binned NO2 VCD of 2002/11/08 from SCIAMACHY (3.53 and IUP retrieval) and GOME had been performed (Fig. 9). These comparisons were made to look for differences in NO2 VCD in regard to level-2 data versions and level-1 products used for the IUP retrieval. Level-1 data used for 2002/11/08 in the IUP

retrieval was an older version compared to the one used at 2002/08/23. Deviations of SCIAMACHY (3.53) NO2 VCD compared to GOME (GDP 2.7) NO2 VCD are even higher than for SCIAMACHY (4.0), ranging from –50% at 70°S to +140% at 70°N. For SCIAMACHY (IUP retrieval) compared to GOME (GDP 2.7) deviations range from 0% at high latitudes to +50% in the tropics and differ quite a bit from the results of 2002/08/23.

Fig. 8. Comparison of binned NO2 slant columns (SCD) from SCIAMACHY calibration orbits 509 and 510 (2002/08/23) with GOME as a function of latitude. Left: SCIAMACHY (4.0) and right: SCIAMACHY (IUP retrieval) with GOME (GDP 2.7)

FFig. 9. Comparison of binned NO2 vertical column densities (VCD) at 2002/11/08 from SCIAMACHY with GOME as a function of latitude. Left: SCIAMACHY (3.53) and right: SCIAMACHY (IUP retrieval) with GOME (GDP 2.7) for as a function of latitude 2.5 Comparison of SCIAMACHY O3 profiles with POAM III Since no operational product of SCIAMACHY trace gas product profiles have been available so far, scientific IUP products of SCIAMACHY O3 and NO2 profiles have been compared to collocated HALOE, SAGE II and POAM III measurements. First preliminary results of ozone profiles from SCIAMACHY limb and POAM III occultation measurements which are taken at the same day and close to each other (about 400 km apart) are shown in Fig. 10 [2]. Ozone profiles of SCIAMACHY are derived from two retrieval schemes: the method of A. Rozanov uses a differential fitting employing Chappuis bands, the method of C. v. Savigny uses a 3 wavelength retrieval in the same bands. POAM III has a slightly better vertical resolution of 1-2 km in the stratosphere and has been validated against ozone sondes and other satellite measurements [14]. All three profiles agree fairly well above 20 km despite the different viewing geometry and vertical resolution of SCIAMACHY and POAM III. The integrated subcolumns between 10 and 40 km are 378 and 384 DU for SCIAMACHY and POAM III, respectively. The total O3 for the geolocation of the SCIAMACHY measurement from GOME and TOMS are 459 and 456 DU, respectively.

10

20

30

40

50

0 1 x 1 01 2 2 x 1 0 1 2 3 x 1 0 12 4 x 1 01 2 5 x 1 01 2 6 x 1 0 12 7 x 1 01 2

1 0 - 4 0 k m O3 c o l u m n s :

S C I A M A C H Y : 3 7 8 D UP O A M I I I : 3 8 4 D U

Tota l O 3 c o l u m n :G O M E : 4 5 9 D UT O M S : 4 5 6 D U

S C I A , R o z a n o v L a t : 5 6o- 5 9o N , L o n g : 2 3 8o- 2 5 3 o, 1 8 : 3 0 U T C S C I A , S a v i g n y L a t : 5 6o - 5 9o N , L o n g : 2 3 8o -253 o, 1 8 : 3 0 U T C P O A M , L a t : 6 2 o N , L o n g : 2 5 3o , 2 : 5 0 U T C

O3 dens i t y [ cm -3]

Alti

tude

[km

]

Fig. 10. Comparison of collocated measurements of O3 profiles retrieved from the same SCIAMACHY level 0 data set by the method of C. v. Savigny (SCIA, Savigny) and A. Rozanov (SCIA, Rozanov) and from POAM III data (POAM) [2]. 2.6 Comparison of SCIAMACHY NO2 profiles with POAM III

Fig. 11. Comparison of a NO2 profile retrieved from SCIAMACHY level 0 data at solar zenith angle (SZA) 49° by the method of A. Rozanov (SCIAMACHY) with a POAM observation during local sunset converted to the SCIAMACHY SZA using 1D photochemical model [19]. Different blue lines show the dependence of the effective SZA assigned to the POAM measurement for the conversion to SCIAMACHY SZA. Figure taken from [2] First preliminary results of a comparison of a NO2 profile retrieved from a SCIAMACHY limb spectrum compared to a nearby measurements made by the POAM III occultation instrument are shown in Fig. 11. NO2 profiles of SCIAMACHY are derived from the retrieval method by A. Rozanov which uses the spectral range of 420 –455 nm and

a ratio of limb measurements at different tangent heights. A measurement at 40 km tangent height is used as a reference spectrum [2]. Since the POAM III measurement was performed during local sunset, and NO2 has a rather strong diurnal variability, this measurements is reduced to SCIAMACHY solar zenith angle (SZA) of 49° using a 1-dimensional version of the SLIMCAT chemistry and photolysis model [19] with the reaction photolysis rates from the JPL 2000 database [20]: the model NOx is scaled in such a way that NO2 values at sunset correspond to the POAM measurement. However, this scaling procedure introduces an uncertainty due an effective solar zenith angle which is assigned to the POAM occultation measurement. Different effective solar zenith angles, ranging from 88° to 92° were used prior to the conversion to the SCIAMACHY SZA. Overall, the 1D model scaled to the POAM measurement at all 3 effective SZA agrees fairly well with the SCIAMACHY profile. 3 MIPAS VALIDATION RESULTS Comparisons of collocated MIPAS O3 and H2O profiles (version 4.53) with HALOE (v19) and SAGE II (version 6.1) have been performed. Collocations were identified where measurements of the two satellite instruments were taken within the same day and using a 250 km collocation radius between the tangent height of HALOE or SAGE II and the centre of the nearest MIPAS ground pixel. This requirement ensures that the tangent point is covered by the MIPAS ground pixel. This chapter shows examples and the statistical analyses of comparisons of collocated MIPAS O3 and H2O profiles with HALOE and collocated MIPAS O3 profiles with SAGE II. But, no comparisons of collocated MIPAS H2O profiles with SAGE II are shown, because recent data of individual SAGE II H2O profiles are noisy within 50% (pers. comm. by L. Thomason, NASA LaRC). 3.1 Comparison of MIPAS (4.53) O3 profiles with HALOE (v19) Figs. 10 and 11 show examples of collocated O3 number density (ND) and volume mixing ratio (VMR) profiles from MIPAS and HALOE in the high southern latitudes and the tropics, respectively. Fig. 10 shows that in the high southern latitude for both, ND and VMR, the altitudes of the O3 maximum agree fairly well between the two measurements. HALOE O3 ND are higher between 15 and 45 km, especially around the O3 maximum, and show below 20 km large deviations compared to MIPAS O3 ND. HALOE O3VMR are compared to MIPAS O3 VMR even higher (except between 25 and 28 km) than for the ND between 15 and 60 km, especially around the O3 maximum. In the tropics (Fig. 11) the altitudes of the O3 VMR maximum agree fairly well between the two measurements, while the altitude of the MIPAS ND O3 maximum is lower compared to HALOE. MIPAS O3 ND and VMR below 30 km are much higher than HALOE. Above 30 km MIPAS agrees well to HALOE except for altitudes above 50 km where VMR start to diverge. From 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/21, 57 matches of O3 profiles between the two sensors have been found: 32 are within 60°-90° S, four within 60°-90° N, 18 within 30°-60° N, and only three in the tropics. For each collocated measurement pair the relative deviation is determined as follows:

([O3] of MIPAS- [O3] of HALOE)/ [O3] of HALOE (2) From these results the mean relative deviation and the root mean square of the mean relative deviation is calculated and shown in Fig. 12. Above 20 km mean relative deviations for MIPAS O3 ND compared to HALOE range from +10% to -15 % and for MIPAS O3 VMR from +20% to -10% which is slightly more positive than the result for the ND. Between 13 and 20 km, both MIPAS O3 ND and VMR show large deviation to collocated HALOE measurements. Given the accuracy of HALOE O3 Profiles of about 6% between 30 and 60 km and 20% between 15 to 30 km [21], the MIPAS O3 ND and VMR above 20 km agree well with HALOE.

Fig. 10. Example of collocated O3 profile measurements (left: number densities and right: volume mixing ratios) in the high southern latitudes from HALOE (black) and MIPAS (red).

Fig. 11. Example of collocated O3 profile measurements (left: number densities and right: volume mixing ratios) in the tropics from HALOE (black) and MIPAS (red)

Fig. 12. Mean relative deviation (black) and root mean square of mean relative deviation (red) of the comparison of all collocated MIPAS ozone profiles with HALOE profiles from 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/21 determined with Eq. 2. Left: number densities, right: volume mixing ratios

)

.3

)

) )

3.2 Comparison of MIPAS (4.53) O3 profiles with SAGE II (6.1) For the period from 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/31, 76 matches of O3 profiles between the two sensors have been found: 20 are within 60°-90° S, 32 within 60°-90° N, 16 in the mid latitudes, and 8 in the tropics According to the method described in 3.1, for each collocated measurement pair the relative deviation is determined and from these results the mean relative deviation and the root mean square of the mean relative deviation is calculated. Fig. 13 shows the statistics of all these collocated MIPAS ozone profiles with SAGE II profiles. Between 20 and 35 km, compared to SAGE II the mean relative deviations for MIPAS O3 ND range from 0% to -20 % and for MIPAS O3 VMR from +20% to -20%, which is slightly more positive than the result for the ND; for 35-60 km compared to SAGE II the mean relative deviations for MIPAS O3 ND and VMR range from -35% to -10%. Between 13 and 20 km, both MIPAS O3 ND and VMR show large deviation to collocated SAGE II measurements. Due to recent processing problems at the SAGE II ground segment some SAGE II ozone profiles have a large altitude error (pers. comm. by L. Thomason, NASA LaRC). Apart from this, the accuracy of SAGE II profiles is still 10% between 10 to 50 km [22]. Our comparisons probably still include some SAGE II profiles with an altitude error, the MIPAS O3 ND and VMR above 20 km agree nevertheless well with SAGE II.

Fig. 13. Mean relative deviation (black) and root mean square of mean relative deviation (red) of the comparison of all collocated MIPAS ozone profiles with SAGE II profiles from 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/31. Left: number densities, right: volume mixing ratios 3.3 Comparison of MIPAS (4.53) H2O profiles with HALOE (v19)

Fig. 14. Comparison of all collocated MIPAS water vapour volume mixing ratio profiles with HALOE profiles from 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/21. Left: Mean relative deviation (black) and root mean square of mean relative deviation (red) ) of all compared MIPAS profiles to HALOE. Right: Mean profile (solid line) and root mean square of mean profile (broken line) of all compared MIPAS (red) and HALOE (black) profiles

Fig. 14 shows the comparison of water profiles from MIPAS and HALOE. From 2002/09/17 to 2002/10/21 20 matches of H2O VMR profiles between the two sensors have been found: 16 are within 30°-60° N and four within 60°-90° N. According to the method described in 3.1, the mean relative deviations and the root mean square of the mean relative deviations of MIPAS to HALOE measurements are calculated (Fig. 14, left). In addition, mean MIPAS H2O profile and mean HALOE H2O profile with standard deviation were determined (Fig. 14, right). The mean relative deviations for MIPAS H2O profiles compared to HALOE measurements are +5% to +15 % from 20 to 55 km and show large deviations between 13 and 20 km. Given the accuracy of HALOE H2O Profiles of 15% between 30 and 50 km and 25% between 15 to 30 km [23], the MIPAS H2O VMR above 20 km agree well with HALOE. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK The results of the comparison of SCIAMACHY total O3 compared to GOME show that both SCIAMACHY versions 3.53 and 4.0 have an bias of –5% (+/-5%). While SCIAMACHY (4.0) NO2 SCD show a consistent offset of –30%, NO2 VCD show a strong variation with latitude (ranging from : -60% at 70°S to 0% at 70°N) compared to GOME which indicates that there is a major problem with the air mass factor calculations. SCIAMACHY (3.53) NO2 VCD deviate even much worse than version 4.0 in comparison to collocated GOME data. Both SCIAMACHY versions still use inappropriate cross-sections (from GOME) and Ring spectra. The offset of operational SCIAMACHY total O3 compared to GOME data probably can be fixed by implementing the proper SCIAMACHY cross-sections and Ring spectra and by updating the algorithms in such a way that data products are consistent with GOME GDP 3.0 or better. The same actions will also benefit NO2 VCD retrieval, but here also the use of a proper climatology data base for air mass factor calculation has to be ensured. The scientific SCIAMACHY NO2 VCD (IUP-retrieval) shows much better agreement than the operational product compared to GOME. It is important to check also the quality of recent GOME NO2 data by comparisons to ground based measurements, since the degradation of the instruments implies reduced signal-to-noise ratio effecting the retrieval and a limited availability of daily sun spectra. Preliminary results of scientific SCIAMACHY O3 and NO2 profile comparisons with POAM III measurements give confidence that reliable profile data can be retrieved from SCIAMACHY limb measurements. Comparisons of collocated MIPAS O3 and H2O profiles (version 4.53) with HALOE (v19) and SAGE II (version 6.1) show that the quality of MIPAS O3 and H2O profiles from 20 to 55 km is very high (within 10-15%). Below 20 km large deviations of MIPAS profiles to HALOE and SAGE II are observed. The accuracy of MIPAS trace gas data at these altitudes might be improved by the extension of the retrieval height range towards higher and lower limb heights. This was already implemented in a new update of MIPAS data since 13 November 2002 which also includes a line-of-sight (LOS) pointing correction and level-2 tuning [24]. The difference found between ND and VMR for the comparison of MIPAS O3 profiles compared to HALOE and SAGE II have to be further investigated by comparing the used temperature for all three instruments. Temperature data of MIPAS are retrieved, SAGE II take their data from NCEP analysis, and HALOE uses a contribution of NCEP data (<30km) and retrieval data (> 40 km) and in between a merged NCEP/HALOE product. In addition to that, SAGE II O3 profiles with an altitude error have to be filtered out, before comparing ENVISAT data. AKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to thank DLR Oberpfaffenhofen and ESA (ESTEC and ESRIN) for providing us with MIPAS and SCIAMACHY meteo products and level-2 data. We thank the POAM III group (at ONR, CNES and NRL), HALOE group (at Hampton University, especially J.M. Russell III, and at NASA LaRC, especially E. Thompson), and the SAGE II group (at NASA LaRC, especially Larry Thomason, and the NASA Langley Radiation and Aerosols Branch) for providing us with data from these instruments and information about data and instruments. This work is funded in part by DLR-Bonn (Contract No. 50 EE0025) and BMBF (FKZ 01 SF9994). 5 REFERENCES 1. Richter A., and Burrows J.P., Retrieval of Tropospheric NO2 from GOME Measurements, Adv. Space Res., Vol. 29, 1673-1683, 2002. 2. Eichmann K.-U., Kaiser J. W., von Savigny C., Rozanov A., Rozanov V. V., Bovensmann H., von König M., and Burrows J. P., SCIAMACHY Limb Measurements in the UV/VIS Spectral Region: First Results, Adv. Space Res., submitted.

3. Bovensmann, H., Burrows J. P., Buchwitz M., Frerick J., Noël S., Rozanov V. V., Chance K. V., and Goede A. H. P., SCIAMACHY - Mission Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos Sci., Vol. 56, 125-150, 1999. 4. Stiller G. P., Glatthor N., Kellmann S., Kimmich E., Linden A., Milz M., and Fischer H., MIPAS on ENVISAT as an UT/LS Sounder, in: IRS 2000: Current Problems in Atmospheric Radiation, Smith W. L. and Timofeyev Yu M. (eds.), A. Deepak Publishing, Hampton, Virginia, 839-842, 2001. 5. Bertaux J. L., Megie G., Widemann T., Chassefiere E., Pellinen R., Korylla E., Korpela S., and Simon P., Monitoring of Ozone Trend by Stellar Occultations: The Gomos Instrument, Adv. Space Res., Vol. 11, 237-242, 1991. 6. Bertaux J. L., Gomos Mission Objectives. ESAMS99, European Symposium on Atmospheric Measurements from Space, Vol. WPP-161, 79-87, 1999. 7. Popescu A., and Paulsen T,. GOMOS Instrument on ENVISAT, ESAMS99 European Symposium on Atmospheric Measurements from Space, Vol. WPP-161, 17-23, ESA, 1999. 8. Burrows, J. P., Weber M., Buchwitz M., Rozanov V. V., Ladstädter-Weissenmayer A., Richter A., de Beek R., Hoogen R., Bramstedt K., Eichmann K.-U., Eisinger M., and Perner D., The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME): Mission Concept and First Scientific Results, J. Atmos Sci., Vol. 56, 151-175, 1999. 9. Earthprobe TOMS, http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/ 10. Russell III J. M., Gordley L. L., Gordley J. H., Park J. H., Drayson S. R., Hesketh W. D., Cicerone R. J., Tuck A. F., Frederick J. E., Harries J. E., and Crutzen P. J., The Halogen Occultation Experiment, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 98, 10777—10797, 1993. 11. Mauldin L. E., Zaun N. H., McCormick M. P., Guy J. J., and Vaughn W. R., Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II Instrument: A Functional Description, Optical Engineering, Vol. 24, 307, 1985. 12. SABER - Sounding of the Atmospheree Using Broadband Emission Radiometry, http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/saber/ASDsaber.html 13. ACE, The Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment, http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/index.html 14. Lucke R. L., Korwan D., Bevilacqua R. M., et al. The Polar Ozone and Aerosol (POAM) III Instrument and Early Validation Results, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 104, 18785-18799, 1999. 15. Platt U., Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS), in Air Monitoring by Spectroscopic Techniques, Siegrist M. (ed.), Chemical Analysis Series, Vol. 127, 27-84, 1994 16. Lambert J.-C. (ed.), ERS-2 GOME GDP 3.0 Implementation and Delta Validation. Validation Report for GOME Level-1-to-2 Data Processor Upgrade to Version 3.0 , ERSE-DTEX-EOAD-TN-02-006, ESA/ESRIN, Frascati, Italy, 2002 17. Bramstedt K., Gleason J., Loyola D., Thomas W., Bracher A., Weber M., and Burrows J. P., Comparison of Total Ozone Values from the Satellite Instruments GOME and TOMS with Measurements from the Dobson Network 1996-2000, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., Vol. 2, 1131-1157, 2002. 18. Rozanov V., Diebel D., Spurr R. J. D., and Burrows J. P., GOMETRAN: A Radiative Transfer Model for the Satellite Project GOME - the Plane Parallel Version, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 102, 16683-16695, 1997. 19. Chipperfield M., Multiannual Simulations with a Three-dimensional Chemical Transport Model, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 104, 1781-2805, 1999. 20. Sander S., et al. Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Stratospheric Modelling, Supplement to Evaluation 12: Uptake of Key Reactions, JPL Publication, JPL, 2000. 21. Brühl C., Drayson S. R., Russell II J. M., Crutzen P. J., McInerney J. M., Purcell P. N., Claude H., Gernandt H., McGee T. J., McDermid I. S., and Gunson M. R., Halogen Occultation Experiment Ozone Channel Validation, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 101, 10217-10240, 1996. 22. Cunnold D. M., Chu W. P., Barnes R. A., McCormick M. P., and Veiga R. E., Validation of SAGE II Ozone Measurements, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 94, 8447-8460, 1989 23. Harries J. E., Russell J. M., Tuck A. F., Gordley L. L., Purcell P., Stone K., Bevilacqua R. M., Gunson M., Nedoluha G., and Traub W. A., Validation of Measurements of Water-vapour from the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 101, 10205-10216, 10205-10216, 1996. 24. Nett H., MIPAS Validation Summary, presented at ENVISAT Validation Workshop, ESA/ESRIN, Frascati, Italy, 9-13 Dec. 2002.