Abstract

Abstract. We present two new products from near-infrared Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) observations: lowermost tropospheric (LMT, from 0 to 2.5 km) and upper tropospheric–stratospheric (U, above 2.5 km) carbon dioxide partial column mixing ratios. We compare these new products to aircraft profiles and remote surface flask measurements and find that the seasonal and year-to-year variations in the new partial column mixing ratios significantly improve upon the Atmospheric CO2 Observations from Space (ACOS) and GOSAT (ACOS-GOSAT) initial guess and/or a priori, with distinct patterns in the LMT and U seasonal cycles that match validation data. For land monthly averages, we find errors of 1.9, 0.7, and 0.8 ppm for retrieved GOSAT LMT, U, and XCO2; for ocean monthly averages, we find errors of 0.7, 0.5, and 0.5 ppm for retrieved GOSAT LMT, U, and XCO2. In the southern hemispheric biomass burning season, the new partial columns show similar patterns to MODIS fire maps and MOPITT multispectral CO for both vertical levels, despite a flat ACOS-GOSAT prior, and a CO–CO2 emission factor comparable to published values. The difference of LMT and U, useful for evaluation of model transport error, has also been validated with a monthly average error of 0.8 (1.4) ppm for ocean (land). LMT is more locally influenced than U, meaning that local fluxes can now be better separated from CO2 transported from far away.

Highlights

  • Remote ocean sites have been selected because (a) the vertical air mass observed by Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) lowermost troposphere (LMT) will not match the vertical air mass observed by the surface site, the long correlation length scales of remote locations should make the comparisons useful, and (b) these sites are not used in development of the bias correction terms and so are an independent test of bias correction for observations over ocean

  • To compare LMT and U sensitivity to surface fluxes, we look at 10-day back-trajectory footprints created using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model combined with the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport (STILT) model (WRF-STILT; Nehrkorn et al, 2010)

  • The emission ratio seen by the Measurement of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) and GOSAT LMT products are compared to those estimated from aircraft observations over tropical forests by Akagi et al (2011, Table 1), which is 8.8 %

Read more

Summary

Introduction

An important goal of carbon cycle research is to improve top-down estimates of CO2 fluxes, which assimilate data into models to trace the observed variability in the long-lived tracer backwards to sources and sinks. Such topdown flux estimates have relied on surface observations (e.g., Peters et al, 2007; Chevallier et al, 2010), though it was postulated 15 years ago that satellite-based measurements of column CO2 could dramatically reduce top-down-based flux uncertainties (Rayner and O’Brien, 2001; O’Brien and Rayner, 2002).

Datasets
ESRL aircraft profiles
Aircraft profile extension and errors
HIPPO aircraft profiles
AJAX aircraft profiles
MOPITT v6 multispectral CO retrieval
MODIS fire counts
CarbonTracker model
2.10 AirCore
LMT and U theoretical basis
Equations describing sensitivity and errors
How much does the prior influence the LMT and U retrievals?
Methods
Sensitivity of the LMT and U partial column mixing ratios to surface fluxes
Comparisons to aircraft
GOSAT bias correction
Extension of the aircraft profile
GOSAT results
Summary of comparisons to all validation data
Standard deviation
Comparison of XCO2 results to previous results
Predicted and actual error correlations
Variability within the US
Comparisons to remote surface ocean sites
Background
Differences between LMT and U
Findings
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.