Abstract

Abstract. Before the launch of the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), only two other satellite instruments were able to observe aerosol plume heights globally, the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP). The TROPOMI aerosol layer height is a potential game changer, since it has daily global coverage, and the aerosol layer height retrieval is available in near real time. The aerosol layer height can be useful for aviation and air quality alerts, as well as for improving air quality forecasting related to wildfires. Here, TROPOMI's aerosol layer height product is evaluated with MISR and CALIOP observations for wildfire plumes in North America for the 2018 fire season (June to August). Further, observing system simulation experiments were performed to interpret the fundamental differences between the different products. The results show that MISR and TROPOMI are, in theory, very close for aerosol profiles with single plumes. For more complex profiles with multiple plumes, however, different plume heights are retrieved; the MISR plume height represents the top layer, and the plume height retrieved with TROPOMI tends to have an average altitude of several plume layers. The comparison between TROPOMI and MISR plume heights shows that, on average, the TROPOMI aerosol layer heights are lower, by approximately 600 m, compared to MISR, which is likely due to the different measurement techniques. From the comparison to CALIOP, our results show that the TROPOMI aerosol layer height is more accurate over dark surfaces, for thicker plumes, and plumes between approximately 1 and 4.5 km. MISR and TROPOMI are further used to evaluate the plume height of Environment and Climate Change Canada's operational forecasting system FireWork with fire plume injection height estimates from the Canadian Forest Fire Emissions Prediction System (CFFEPS). The modelled plume heights are similar compared to the satellite observations but tend to be slightly higher with average differences of 270–580 and 60–320 m compared to TROPOMI and MISR, respectively.

Highlights

  • Wildfires are a significant source of air pollution, which can adversely impact the air quality in populated areas (e.g. Landis et al, 2018; Meng et al, 2019)

  • We investigate how the particulate mass and plume injection height calculated with Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM)-MACH and from CFFEPSv4.0 and transported downwind over a short period of time by GEM-MACH near fire hotspot locations compares to satellite-derived plume heights

  • We further found that very high plumes (> 8 km) observed by Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) were not captured by TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI), likely because they are optically quite thin, and those have been removed from the comparison

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Wildfires are a significant source of air pollution, which can adversely impact the air quality in populated areas (e.g. Landis et al, 2018; Meng et al, 2019). A similar approach has been applied to the measurements from the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) on DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) (Xu et al, 2017, 2019); this product is currently not operational, and only a number of case studies are available Very recently another plume height product has been created from MODIS observations, utilizing a thermal contrast technique (Lyapustin et al, 2019). The aerosol layer height from three satellite instruments (MISR, CALIOP, and TROPOMI) that can measure the plume height are compared for the 2018 fire season (June–August) in North America. We compare the satellite observed plume heights to those from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) air quality forecast modelling system, namely FireWork, with smoke plume injection heights based on the Canadian Forest Fire Emissions Prediction System (CFFEPS).

TROPOMI
CALIOP
GEM-MACH
MISR-OSSE plume heights
TROPOMI-OSSE plume heights
Plume height evaluation using pseudo-observations
TROPOMI aerosol layer heights
Comparison to MISR
Comparison to CALIOP
Model plume height evaluation
Comparison with MISR
Comparison with TROPOMI
Findings
Summary and Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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