1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom
<p>We have analyzed TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) carbon monoxide (CO) data acquired between November 2017 and March 2019 with respect to other satellite (MOPITT, Measurement Of Pollution In The Troposphere) and airborne (ATom, Atmospheric Tomography mission) datasets to better...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2020-09-01
|
| Series: | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| Online Access: | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/4841/2020/amt-13-4841-2020.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818557367266050048 |
|---|---|
| author | S. Martínez-Alonso M. Deeter H. Worden T. Borsdorff I. Aben R. Commane B. Daube G. Francis M. George J. Landgraf D. Mao K. McKain K. McKain S. Wofsy |
| author_facet | S. Martínez-Alonso M. Deeter H. Worden T. Borsdorff I. Aben R. Commane B. Daube G. Francis M. George J. Landgraf D. Mao K. McKain K. McKain S. Wofsy |
| author_sort | S. Martínez-Alonso |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>We have analyzed TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) carbon
monoxide (CO) data acquired between November 2017 and March 2019 with
respect to other satellite (MOPITT, Measurement Of Pollution In The
Troposphere) and airborne (ATom, Atmospheric Tomography mission)
datasets to better understand TROPOMI's contribution to the global
tropospheric CO record (2000 to present). MOPITT and TROPOMI are two
of only a few satellite instruments to ever derive CO from solar-reflected radiances. Therefore, it is particularly important to
understand how these two datasets compare. Our results indicate that
TROPOMI CO retrievals over land show excellent agreement with respect
to MOPITT: relative biases and their SD (i.e.,
accuracy and precision) are on average <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.73</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.51</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="489e2f2dababd0dff1ebbc8079db97b2"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00001.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00001.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>,
<span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.24</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">12.38</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="0ffa6cdb6c13df20540ce90aead53166"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00002.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00002.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>, and <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.22</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.13</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="745987ddc67b00d29a9f51648b50093e"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00003.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00003.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> compared to the
MOPITT TIR (thermal infrared), NIR (near infrared), and TIR <span class="inline-formula">+</span> NIR
(multispectral) products, respectively. TROPOMI and MOPITT data also
show good agreement in terms of temporal and spatial patterns.</p>
<p>Despite depending on solar-reflected radiances for its measurements,
TROPOMI can also retrieve CO over bodies of water if clouds are
present by approximating partial columns under cloud tops using
scaled, model-based reference CO profiles. We quantify the bias of
TROPOMI total column retrievals over bodies of water with respect to
colocated in situ ATom CO profiles after smoothing the latter with
the TROPOMI column averaging kernels (AKs), which account for signal
attenuation under clouds (relative bias and its SD <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>=</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.25</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.46</mn></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="83pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="d012f03a8293f01f11566093cbbfda18"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00004.svg" width="83pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00004.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span>). In addition, we quantify <span class="inline-formula"><i>e</i><sub>null</sub></span>
(the null-space error), which accounts for differences between the
shape of the TROPOMI reference profile and that of the ATom true
profile (<span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><msub><mi>e</mi><mtext>null</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.16</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.23</mn></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="99pt" height="12pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="062d3b47bcec6be6adf89b6e06356424"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00005.svg" width="99pt" height="12pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00005.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span>). For
comparisons of TROPOMI and MOPITT retrievals over open water we
compare TROPOMI total CO columns to their colocated MOPITT TIR
counterparts. Relative bias and its SD are
<span class="inline-formula">2.98 %±15.71</span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span> on average.</p>
<p>We investigate the impact of discrepancies between the a priori and
reference CO profiles (used by MOPITT and TROPOMI, respectively) on CO
retrieval biases by applying a null-space adjustment (based on the
MOPITT a priori) to the TROPOMI total column values. The effect of
this adjustment on MOPITT and TROPOMI biases is minor, typically 1–2
percentage points.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T23:58:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5becc01785024648a04acdedd48ee085 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1867-1381 1867-8548 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T23:58:34Z |
| publishDate | 2020-09-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| spelling | doaj.art-5becc01785024648a04acdedd48ee0852022-12-21T23:26:28ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Measurement Techniques1867-13811867-85482020-09-01134841486410.5194/amt-13-4841-20201.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATomS. Martínez-Alonso0M. Deeter1H. Worden2T. Borsdorff3I. Aben4R. Commane5B. Daube6G. Francis7M. George8J. Landgraf9D. Mao10K. McKain11K. McKain12S. Wofsy13Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), National Center for Atmospheric Research(NCAR), Boulder, CO, USAAtmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), National Center for Atmospheric Research(NCAR), Boulder, CO, USAAtmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), National Center for Atmospheric Research(NCAR), Boulder, CO, USASRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, the NetherlandsSRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, the NetherlandsLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, NY, USASchool of Engineering and Applied Science and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USAAtmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), National Center for Atmospheric Research(NCAR), Boulder, CO, USALATMOS/IPSL, Sorbonne University, UVSQ, CNRS, Paris, FranceSRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Utrecht, the NetherlandsAtmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), National Center for Atmospheric Research(NCAR), Boulder, CO, USACooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USAEarth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division (GMD), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO, USASchool of Engineering and Applied Science and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA<p>We have analyzed TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) carbon monoxide (CO) data acquired between November 2017 and March 2019 with respect to other satellite (MOPITT, Measurement Of Pollution In The Troposphere) and airborne (ATom, Atmospheric Tomography mission) datasets to better understand TROPOMI's contribution to the global tropospheric CO record (2000 to present). MOPITT and TROPOMI are two of only a few satellite instruments to ever derive CO from solar-reflected radiances. Therefore, it is particularly important to understand how these two datasets compare. Our results indicate that TROPOMI CO retrievals over land show excellent agreement with respect to MOPITT: relative biases and their SD (i.e., accuracy and precision) are on average <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.73</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.51</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="489e2f2dababd0dff1ebbc8079db97b2"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00001.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00001.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>, <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.24</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">12.38</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="0ffa6cdb6c13df20540ce90aead53166"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00002.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00002.png"/></svg:svg></span></span>, and <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>-</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.22</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.13</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="745987ddc67b00d29a9f51648b50093e"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00003.svg" width="92pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00003.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> compared to the MOPITT TIR (thermal infrared), NIR (near infrared), and TIR <span class="inline-formula">+</span> NIR (multispectral) products, respectively. TROPOMI and MOPITT data also show good agreement in terms of temporal and spatial patterns.</p> <p>Despite depending on solar-reflected radiances for its measurements, TROPOMI can also retrieve CO over bodies of water if clouds are present by approximating partial columns under cloud tops using scaled, model-based reference CO profiles. We quantify the bias of TROPOMI total column retrievals over bodies of water with respect to colocated in situ ATom CO profiles after smoothing the latter with the TROPOMI column averaging kernels (AKs), which account for signal attenuation under clouds (relative bias and its SD <span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><mo>=</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">3.25</mn><mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">11.46</mn></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="83pt" height="10pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="d012f03a8293f01f11566093cbbfda18"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00004.svg" width="83pt" height="10pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00004.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span>). In addition, we quantify <span class="inline-formula"><i>e</i><sub>null</sub></span> (the null-space error), which accounts for differences between the shape of the TROPOMI reference profile and that of the ATom true profile (<span class="inline-formula"><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8" display="inline" overflow="scroll" dspmath="mathml"><mrow><msub><mi>e</mi><mtext>null</mtext></msub><mo>=</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.16</mn><mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mrow class="unit"><mi mathvariant="normal">%</mi></mrow><mo>±</mo><mn mathvariant="normal">2.23</mn></mrow></math><span><svg:svg xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="99pt" height="12pt" class="svg-formula" dspmath="mathimg" md5hash="062d3b47bcec6be6adf89b6e06356424"><svg:image xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00005.svg" width="99pt" height="12pt" src="amt-13-4841-2020-ie00005.png"/></svg:svg></span></span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span>). For comparisons of TROPOMI and MOPITT retrievals over open water we compare TROPOMI total CO columns to their colocated MOPITT TIR counterparts. Relative bias and its SD are <span class="inline-formula">2.98 %±15.71</span> <span class="inline-formula">%</span> on average.</p> <p>We investigate the impact of discrepancies between the a priori and reference CO profiles (used by MOPITT and TROPOMI, respectively) on CO retrieval biases by applying a null-space adjustment (based on the MOPITT a priori) to the TROPOMI total column values. The effect of this adjustment on MOPITT and TROPOMI biases is minor, typically 1–2 percentage points.</p>https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/4841/2020/amt-13-4841-2020.pdf |
| spellingShingle | S. Martínez-Alonso M. Deeter H. Worden T. Borsdorff I. Aben R. Commane B. Daube G. Francis M. George J. Landgraf D. Mao K. McKain K. McKain S. Wofsy 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom Atmospheric Measurement Techniques |
| title | 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom |
| title_full | 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom |
| title_fullStr | 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom |
| title_full_unstemmed | 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom |
| title_short | 1.5 years of TROPOMI CO measurements: comparisons to MOPITT and ATom |
| title_sort | 1 5 years of tropomi co measurements comparisons to mopitt and atom |
| url | https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/13/4841/2020/amt-13-4841-2020.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT smartinezalonso 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT mdeeter 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT hworden 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT tborsdorff 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT iaben 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT rcommane 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT bdaube 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT gfrancis 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT mgeorge 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT jlandgraf 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT dmao 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT kmckain 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT kmckain 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom AT swofsy 15yearsoftropomicomeasurementscomparisonstomopittandatom |