The annual variation of delta D in the tropical lower stratosphere is a critical indicator for the relative importance of different processes contributing to the transport of water vapour through the cold tropical tropopause region into the stratosphere. Distinct observational discrepancies of the delta D annual variation were visible in the works of Steinwagner et al. (2010) and Randel et al. (2012). Steinwagner et al. (2010) analysed MIPAS (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding) observations retrieved with the IMK/IAA (Institut fur Meteorologie und Klimaforschung in Karlsruhe, Germany, in collaboration with the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia in Granada, Spain) processor, while Randel et al. (2012) focused on ACE-FTS (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer) observations. Here we reassess the discrepancies based on newer MIPAS (IMK/IAA) and ACE-FTS data sets, also showing for completeness results from SMR (Sub-Millimetre Radiometer) observations and a ECHAM/MESSy (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Hamburg and Modular Earth Sub-model System) Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) simulation (Eichinger et al., 2015b). Similar to the old analyses, the MIPAS data set yields a pronounced annual variation (maximum about 75 parts per thousand), while that derived from the ACE-FTS data set is rather weak (maximum about 25 parts per thousand). While all data sets exhibit the phase progression typical for the tape recorder, the annual maximum in the ACE-FTS data set precedes that in the MIPAS data set by 2 to 3 months. We critically consider several possible reasons for the observed discrepancies, focusing primarily on the MIPAS data set. We show that the delta D annual variation in the MIPAS data up to an altitude of 40 hPa is substantially impacted by a start altitude effect, i.e. dependency between the lowermost altitude where MIPAS retrievals are possible and retrieved data at higher altitudes. In itself this effect does not explain the differences with the ACE-FTS data. In addition, there is a mismatch in the vertical resolution of the MIPAS HDO and H2O data (being consistently better for HDO), which actually results in an artificial tape-recorder-like signal in delta D. Considering these MIPAS characteristics largely removes any discrepancies between the MIPAS and ACE-FTS data sets and shows that the MIPAS data are consistent with a delta D tape recorder signal with an amplitude of about 25 parts per thousand in the lowermost stratosphere.

Within the framework of the second SPARC (Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate) water vapour assessment (WAVAS-II), we evaluated five data sets of delta D(H2O) obtained from observations by Odin/SMR (Sub-Millimetre Radiometer), Envisat/MIPAS (Environmental Satellite/Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding), and SCISAT/ACE-FTS (Science Satellite/Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment - Fourier Transform Spectrometer) using profile-to-profile and climatological comparisons. These comparisons aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of typical uncertainties in the observational database that could be considered in the future in observational and modelling studies. Our primary focus is on stratospheric altitudes, but results for the upper troposphere and lower mesosphere are also shown. There are clear quantitative differences in the measurements of the isotopic ratio, mainly with regard to comparisons between the SMR data set and both the MIPAS and ACE-FTS data sets. In the lower stratosphere, the SMR data set shows a higher depletion in delta D than the MIPAS and ACE-FTS data sets. The differences maximise close to 50 hPa and exceed 200 parts per thousand. With increasing altitude, the biases decrease. Above 4 hPa, the SMR data set shows a lower delta D depletion than the MIPAS data sets, occasionally exceeding 100 parts per thousand. Overall, the delta D biases of the SMR data set are driven by HDO biases in the lower stratosphere and by H2O biases in the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere. In between, in the middle stratosphere, the biases in delta D are the result of deviations in both HDO and H2O. These biases are attributed to issues with the calibration, in particular in terms of the sideband filtering, and uncertainties in spectroscopic parameters. The MIPAS and ACE-FTS data sets agree rather well between about 100 and 10 hPa. The MIPAS data sets show less depletion below approximately 15 hPa (up to about 30 parts per thousand), due to differences in both HDO and H2O. Higher up this behaviour is reversed, and towards the upper stratosphere the biases increase. This is driven by increasing biases in H2O, and on occasion the differences in delta D exceed 80 parts per thousand. Below 100 hPa, the differences between the MIPAS and ACE-FTS data sets are even larger. In the climatological comparisons, the MIPAS data sets continue to show less depletion in delta D than the ACE-FTS data sets below 15 hPa during all seasons, with some variations in magnitude. The differences between the MIPAS and ACE-FTS data have multiple causes, such as differences in the temporal and spatial sampling (except for the profile-to-profile comparisons), cloud influence, vertical resolution, and the microwindows and spectroscopic database chosen. Differences between data sets from the same instrument are typically small in the stratosphere. Overall, if the data sets are considered together, the differences in delta D among them in key areas of scientific interest (e.g. tropical and polar lower stratosphere, lower mesosphere, and upper troposphere) are too large to draw robust conclusions on atmospheric processes affecting the water vapour budget and distribution, e.g. the relative importance of different mechanisms transporting water vapour into the stratosphere.

Within the framework of the second SPARC (Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate) water vapour assessment (WAVAS-II), profile-to-profile comparisons of stratospheric and lower mesospheric water vapour were performed by considering 33 data sets derived from satellite observations of 15 different instruments. These comparisons aimed to provide a picture of the typical biases and drifts in the observational database and to identify data-set-specific problems. The observational database typically exhibits the largest biases below 70 hPa, both in absolute and relative terms. The smallest biases are often found between 50 and 5 hPa. Typically, they range from 0.25 to 0.5 ppmv (5% to 10%) in this altitude region, based on the 50% percentile over the different comparison results. Higher up, the biases increase with altitude overall but this general behaviour is accompanied by considerable variations. Characteristic values vary between 0.3 and 1 ppmv (4% to 20%). Obvious data-set-specific bias issues are found for a number of data sets. In our work we performed a drift analysis for data sets overlapping for a period of at least 36 months. This assessment shows a wide range of drifts among the different data sets that are statistically significant at the 2 sigma uncertainty level. In general, the smallest drifts are found in the altitude range between about 30 and 10 hPa. Histograms considering results from all altitudes indicate the largest occurrence for drifts between 0.05 and 0.3 ppmvdecade(-1). Comparisons of our drift estimates to those derived from comparisons of zonal mean time series only exhibit statistically significant differences in slightly more than 3% of the comparisons. Hence, drift estimates from profile-to-profile and zonal mean time series comparisons are largely interchangeable. As for the biases, a number of data sets exhibit prominent drift issues. In our analyses we found that the large number of MIPAS data sets included in the assessment affects our general results as well as the bias summaries we provide for the individual data sets. This is because these data sets exhibit a relative similarity with respect to the remaining data sets, despite the fact that they are based on different measurement modes and different processors implementing different retrieval choices. Because of that, we have by default considered an aggregation of the comparison results obtained from MIPAS data sets. Results without this aggregation are provided on multiple occasions to characterise the effects due to the numerous MIPAS data sets. Among other effects, they cause a reduction of the typical biases in the observational database.