Journal of Geophysical Research - atmospheres
Supporting Information for
Comparison of co-located independent ground-based middle-atmospheric wind
and temperature measurements with Numerical Weather Prediction models
A. Le Pichon1, J. D. Assink1, P. Heinrich1, E. Blanc1, A. Charlton-Perez2, C. F. Lee2, P. Keckhut3, A.
Hauchecorne3, R. Rüfenacht4, N. Kämpfer4, D. P. Drob5, P. S. M. Smets6,7, L. G. Evers6,7, L. Ceranna8,
C. Pilger8, O. Ross8, C. Claud9
1CEA,
DAM, DIF, F-91297, Arpajon, France
2Department
of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
3LATMOS-IPSL,
4Institute
78280 Guyancourt, France
of Applied Physics, Bern University, CH-3012, Switzerland
5Geospace
Science and Technology Branch, Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC 20375
6Seismology
and Acoustics, KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands
7Department
8BGR,
of Geoscience and Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
B4.3, 30655 Hannover, Germany
9LMD/IPSL,
Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France
Contents of this file
Figures S1 to S4
Table S1
1
Introduction
This supporting information contains four figures (Figures S1 to S4) and one table (Table S1).
Figures S1 to S4 provide additional comparisons between wind and temperature measurements
and products of ECMWF and MERRA in the MA.

Figure S1 compares the PSD of lidar measurements and ECMWF products at different
pressure levels and two different sites.

Figure S2 compares the temporal variations of the vertical profiles of WIRA
measurements and ECMWF products during the OHP campaign.

Figure S3 compares the temporal variations of the mean layer WIRA, ECMWF and
MERRA meridional winds during the OHP campaign.

Figure S4 compares the difference between ECMWF and MERRA wind products and
WIRA measurements versus altitude at OHP.
Table S1 provides the range, resolution and accuracy of representative MA atmospheric sensing
techniques.
2
Figure S1 – Comparison between lidar (blue) and ECMWF (red) power spectral density (PSD) at
10 hPa (~30 km) (a, b), 1 hPa (~48 km) (c, d) and 0.1 hPa (~64 km) (e, f) (top, middle and
bottom respectively). (a, c, e): over OHP (43.93°N, 5.71°E). (b, d, f): over Table Mountain
(34.40°N, -117.7°W).
3
Figure S2 – Comparisons between daily averaged L91 and L137 zonal (c, e) and meridional (d, f)
winds and daily averaged WIRA measurements (a, b) at OHP. The black lines delimit the
confidence region of the wind retrieval maximizing the measurement response (higher than 0.8),
the altitude resolution (smaller than 20 km), and the altitude accuracy (smaller than 4 km). Data
outside this range should be disregarded (Rüfenacht et al., 2014).
4
Figure S3 – Comparison between daily averaged L91, L137, MERRA meridional wind and WIRA
observations at OHP. Wind values are averaged between 30-40, 40-50, 50-60 and 60-70 km.
5
Figure S4 – Distribution of the difference between convolved wind products and daily averaged
WIRA measurements versus altitude at OHP from January 1 to May 1, 2013. (a, d): L91. (b, e):
L137. (c, f): MERRA. (a, b, c): zonal wind. (d, e, f): meridional wind. Blue lines: standard error of
the mean. Green dashed lines: instrumental error bars. Purple and pink regions: 66% and 95%
confidence intervals of the differences.
6
Instruments
Radiosondes
AMSU nadir
sounding
TIMED-SABER
infrared limb
(Remsberg, E. E.,
et al. (2008),
Assessment of
the quality of the
version 1.07
temperatureversus-pressure
profiles of the
middle
atmosphere
from
TIMED/SABER, J.
Geophys. Res.,
113, D17101,
doi:10.1029/200
8JD010013.)
GPS RO (limb)
Temperature
Rayleigh lidar
(Keckhut, P., A.
Hauchecorne,
and M. L. Chanin
(1993), A critical
review of the
database
acquired for the
long-term
surveillance of
the middle
atmosphere by
the French
Rayleigh lidars, J.
Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 10,
850–867,
doi:10.1175/152
00426(1993)010<
0850:ACROTD>2.
0.
CO;2.)
MST wind
profiler
(Smith, S. A., and
D. C. Fritts
(1984), Poker
Flat MST Radar
and
meteorological
rocketsonde
wind profile
comparisons,
Range
Horizontal
Vertical
(km)
Point
0-36
Global
20-100
Horizontal
(km)
n.a.
50
Resolution
Vertical
(km)
0.1
5
Global
20-100
50
Global
Point
10-35
25-80
Point
Point
2-25
70-110
Accuracy
Temporal
12 hours
3 hours
Temperature
(K)
0.1
1.5-2.5
Wind
(m/s)
0.2
n.a.
2
12 hours
1.0-2.0
n.a.
100-300
< 0.03
0.5-1.5
0.05-0.3
>> 1 day
Variable
0.5-1.0
25-65 km: 1
>65 km: 5-10
n.a.
n.a.
0.8
3
0.15-0.3
0.3
3 min
3 min
n.a.
n.a.
-3
-5
7
Geophys. Res.
Lett., 11, 538540, doi:
10.1029/GL011i
005p00538.)
 Tropo/strato
 Mesosphere
MF Radar
(Manson, A., et
al. (1999),
Seasonal
variations of the
semi-diurnal and
diurnal tides in
the MLT: Multiyear MF radar
observations
from 2 to Q4
70°N, and the
GSWM tidal
model, J. Atmos.
Sol. Terr. Phys.,
61, 809–828,
doi:10.1016/S13
646826(99)000450.)
Meteor radar
Wind radiometer
(Rüfenacht, R., A.
Murk, N.
Kämpfer, P.
Eriksson, and S.
A. Buehler
(2014), Middleatmospheric
zonal and
meridional wind
profiles from
polar,
tropical and midlatitudes with
the groundbased microwave
Doppler wind
radiometer
WIRA, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 7,
4491–4505,
doi:10.5194/amt
-7-4491-2014.)
Stratosphere
Mesosphere
OH/O2 airglow
Infrasound array
(Szuberla, C. A.
L., and J. V. Olson
(2004),
Point
80-100
200
4
3 min
n.a.
10
Point
70-110
125
2
1 hour
n.a.
10
Point
35-75
175-375
10-16
1 day
n.a.
10-20
175-250
250-375
10
10-16
83-99
1-100
8
0-120
Continuous. Use for model validation on a global scale
Phase speed resolution < 5 m/s; azimuth resolution < 1°
Point (field
of view)
Global
10-15
15-20
0.25-5 min
5-10
n.a.
8
Uncertainties
associated with
parameter
estimation in
atmospheric
infrasound
arrays, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 115,
253-258,
http://dx.doi.org
/10.1121/1.1635
407.)
Table S1 – Range, resolution and accuracy (indicative values) of representative MA atmospheric
sensing techniques. The instruments used in this study are outlined.
9