Introduction to the Maïdo Lidar Calibration Campaign dedicated to the validation of upper air meteorological parameters

The first operations at the new High-altitude Maïdo Observatory at La Réunion began in 2013. The Maïdo Lidar Calibration Campaign (MALICCA) was organized there in April 2013 and has focused on the validation of the thermodynamic parameters (temperature, water vapor, and wind) measured with many instruments including the new very large lidar for water vapor and temperature profiles. The aim of this publication consists of providing an overview of the different instruments deployed during this campaign and their status, some of the targeted scientific questions and associated instrumental issues. Some specific detailed studies for some individual techniques were addressed elsewhere. This study shows that temperature profiles were obtained from the ground to the mesopause (80 km) thanks to the lidar and regular meteorological balloon-borne sondes with an overlap range showing good agreement. Water vapor is also monitored from the ground to the mesopause by using the Raman lidar and microwave techniques. Both techniques need to be pushed to their limit to reduce the missing range in the lower stratosphere. Total columns obtained from global positioning system or spectrometers are valuable for checking the calibration and ensuring vertical continuity. The lidar can also provide the vertical cloud structure that is a valuable complementary piece of information when investigating the water vapor cycle. Finally, wind vertical profiles, which were obtained from sondes, are now also retrieved at Maïdo from the newly implemented microwave technique and the lidar. Stable calibrations as well as a small-scale dynamical structure are required to monitor the thermodynamic state of the middle atmosphere, ensure validation of satellite sensors, study the transport of water vapor in the vicinity of the tropical tropopause and study their link with cirrus clouds and cyclones and the impact of small-scale dynamics (gravity waves) and their link with the mean state of the mesosphere.

Validation of water vapour profiles (version 13) retrieved by the IMK / IAA scientific retrieval processor based on full resolution spectra measured by MIPAS on board Envisat

Vertical profiles of stratospheric water vapour measured by the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) with the full resolution mode between September 2002 and March 2004 and retrieved with the IMK/IAA scientific retrieval processor were compared to a number of independent measurements in order to estimate the bias and to validate the existing precision estimates of the MIPAS data. The estimated precision for MIPAS is 5 to 10% in the stratosphere, depending on altitude, latitude, and season. The independent instruments were: the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS), the Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer-II (ILAS-II), the Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement (POAM III) instrument, the Middle Atmospheric Water Vapour Radiometer (MIAWARA), the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding, balloon-borne version (MIPAS-B), the Airborne Microwave Stratospheric Observing System (AMSOS), the Fluorescent Stratospheric Hygrometer for Balloon (FLASH-B), the NOAA frostpoint hygrometer, and the Fast In Situ Hygrometer (FISH). For the in-situ measurements and the ground based, air- and balloon borne remote sensing instruments, the measurements are restricted to central and northern Europe. The comparisons to satellite-borne instruments are predominantly at mid- to high latitudes on both hemispheres. In the stratosphere there is no clear indication of a bias in MIPAS data, because the independent measurements in some cases are drier and in some cases are moister than the MIPAS measurements. Compared to the infrared measurements of MIPAS, measurements in the ultraviolet and visible have a tendency to be high, whereas microwave measurements have a tendency to be low. The results of χ2-based precision validation are somewhat controversial among the comparison estimates. However, for comparison instruments whose error budget also includes errors due to uncertainties in spectrally interfering species and where good coincidences were found, the χ2 values found are in the expected range or even below. This suggests that there is no evidence of systematically underestimated MIPAS random errors.