the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Retrieving Stratospheric Ozone Profiles from OMPS Limb Profiler Measurements
Abstract. This study describes a retrieval algorithm combining wavelength pairing and the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) to process Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) limb observations for vertical ozone profiles. The retrieval algorithm employs scattered solar radiance measurements from the OMPS limb profiler, focusing on the visible spectral range, normalizes this radiance to that at the upper tangent height, and retrieves ozone concentrations between 12–40 km (∼ 1 km vertical resolution). Additionally, it enables the identification of cloud-contaminated measurements at specific altitudes within the instrument's field of view. The retrieval error in the upper troposphere attributed to the prior profile is estimated to be 10–25 %, while a 30 % uncertainty in the aerosol extinction coefficient causes ~ 5 % error at 15–25 km. OMPS data spanning the entire year of 2021 are processed, and the results are evaluated through comparisons with multiple independent datasets, including NASA official products, passive satellite observations, and in-situ measurements from balloon-borne ozonesondes. At 17–36 km, deviations from OMPS/LP v2.6 data are ≤5 %; at 18–35 km, consistency with Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) v5.0 data ranges from 5–10 %; at 20–35 km, most deviations from OSIRIS v7.3 data are ≤5 % (except near 23 km). Comparisons with ozonesonde measurements reveal that differences in the 13–30 km range over northern mid-to-high latitudes are mostly <10 % (with 10–15% differences at 22–25 km in polar regions). Over southern mid-latitudes, the consistency within the same altitude range is 2–10%. Notably, deviations between the retrieved profiles and comparison products increase significantly in low-altitude tropical regions.
- Preprint
(3730 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jan 2026
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Feb 2026
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5580', Lars Hoffmann, 16 Feb 2026
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to AMT. Your effort in developing and presenting this study is appreciated, as is your interest in contributing to the journal.
I have now carefully considered your manuscript in light of the detailed reports provided by the two reviewers. Both reviewers recognize the extensive work involved in developing and validating your retrieval approach. At the same time, they raise substantial concerns regarding the novelty and scientific significance of the study, as well as major issues related to the error analysis, interpretation of averaging kernels, and methodological presentation.
In particular, the reviewers express the view that the manuscript, in its present form, does not yet demonstrate sufficiently clear advantages over existing OMPS-LP retrievals, and that addressing the concerns raised would likely require substantial reworking of both the analysis and the overall framing of the study.
At this stage, you are of course welcome to submit a response to the reviewers’ comments and, if you wish, a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration. However, I would like to be transparent in noting that, in my assessment, fully addressing the reviewers’ main concerns may require a very extensive revision, potentially involving significant methodological developments and a strengthened demonstration of originality and impact.
For this reason, you may wish to carefully consider whether proceeding with a major revision at this point is the most effective use of your time, or whether it might be preferable to further develop the work before resubmission at a later stage or submission to another journal.
I hope that the reviewers’ detailed comments will be helpful as you consider possible next steps.
Thank you again for considering AMT for the dissemination of your work.
Best regards,
Lars Hoffmann
Handling Editor
Atmospheric Measurement TechniquesCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5580-EC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 244 | 148 | 25 | 417 | 15 | 14 |
- HTML: 244
- PDF: 148
- XML: 25
- Total: 417
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments:
The authors present a retrieval algorithm that combines wavelength pairing with the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) and apply it to OMPS-LP L1G data to obtain ozone profiles. The results derived from this algorithm are validated using multiple ozone profile observations. However, wavelength pairing and MART are well-established and commonly used techniques in limb sounding. This study essentially applied these mature methods to a different dataset, thus offering limited novelty. Furthermore, the authors do not clearly articulate the advantages of their algorithm over the official OMPS-LP algorithm. In terms of retrieval accuracy, the presented algorithm does not demonstrate sufficient improvement over the official OMPS-LP retrievals, which diminishes the practical significance of this work.
Specific comments:
Line 122: Tangent height normalization can reduce absolute calibration errors to some extent. However, the impact of wavelength shifts on retrieval results is unlikely to be eliminated through normalization. This is because wavelength shift affects the calculation of ozone absorption cross-sections.
Line 221: SCIATRAN v2.2 is a relatively old version. Has the new version made improvements in computational accuracy?
Line 512: How significant is the impact of a priori profiles on retrieval accuracy in the official OMPS-LP algorithm? The current algorithm appears to be highly dependent on the a priori profile, which raises concerns regarding the credibility of the retrieval results.