Abstract

Abstract. We discuss uncertainty quantification for aerosol-type selection in satellite-based atmospheric aerosol retrieval. The retrieval procedure uses precalculated aerosol microphysical models stored in look-up tables (LUTs) and top-of-atmosphere (TOA) spectral reflectance measurements to solve the aerosol characteristics. The forward model approximations cause systematic differences between the modelled and observed reflectance. Acknowledging this model discrepancy as a source of uncertainty allows us to produce more realistic uncertainty estimates and assists the selection of the most appropriate LUTs for each individual retrieval.This paper focuses on the aerosol microphysical model selection and characterisation of uncertainty in the retrieved aerosol type and aerosol optical depth (AOD). The concept of model evidence is used as a tool for model comparison. The method is based on Bayesian inference approach, in which all uncertainties are described as a posterior probability distribution. When there is no single best-matching aerosol microphysical model, we use a statistical technique based on Bayesian model averaging to combine AOD posterior probability densities of the best-fitting models to obtain an averaged AOD estimate. We also determine the shared evidence of the best-matching models of a certain main aerosol type in order to quantify how plausible it is that it represents the underlying atmospheric aerosol conditions.The developed method is applied to Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) measurements using a multiwavelength approach for retrieving the aerosol type and AOD estimate with uncertainty quantification for cloud-free over-land pixels. Several larger pixel set areas were studied in order to investigate the robustness of the developed method. We evaluated the retrieved AOD by comparison with ground-based measurements at example sites. We found that the uncertainty of AOD expressed by posterior probability distribution reflects the difficulty in model selection. The posterior probability distribution can provide a comprehensive characterisation of the uncertainty in this kind of problem for aerosol-type selection. As a result, the proposed method can account for the model error and also include the model selection uncertainty in the total uncertainty budget.

Highlights

  • The atmospheric aerosols play an important role in our understanding of the Earth’s climate system

  • There are a number of satellite instruments delivering aerosol products and providing aerosol characteristics, e.g. the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI; Torres et al, 2007), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS; Levy et al, 2010), the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment-2 (GOME-2; Hassinen et al, 2015), the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR; Kahn et al, 2010), the Advanced Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (AATSR; Thomas et al, 2009; Kolmonen et al, 2016), the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with

  • It is typical in the aerosol retrievals that the radiative transfer calculations have been replaced by precalculated look-up tables (LUTs) in order to speed up the necessary computations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The atmospheric aerosols play an important role in our understanding of the Earth’s climate system. Uncertainties in satellite-based aerosol retrievals arise from many sources, e.g. cloud contamination, treatment of surface reflectance and instrumental issues. It is typical in the aerosol retrievals that the radiative transfer (i.e. forward model) calculations have been replaced by precalculated look-up tables (LUTs) in order to speed up the necessary computations. Povey and Grainger (2015) give an overview of the error analysis and representation of uncertainty in the satellite data One application they discuss is related to the AOD retrievals in which unquantifiable errors arise from the choice of a forward model (i.e. aerosol microphysical properties).

OMI data
Aerosol microphysical models
Methodology
Acknowledging the model discrepancy
Aerosol type and AOD retrieval with uncertainty quantification
Bayesian model averaging
Case studies and results
Beijing area on 16 and 27 April 2008
Northern and central Africa on 26 March 2008
Discussion and conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.