140 likes | 281 Views
CH 4 inversions using SCIAMACHY & GOSAT at SRON/IMAU. S. Houweling, G. Monteil. T opics. N-S exchange Inversions using SCIAMACHY Inversions using GOSAT. N-S exchange. CH 4. SF 6. access. actm. ccam. nies. mozart. impact. tm5. tomcat. Patra et al, ACPD, 2011. How about IFS?.
E N D
CH4 inversions using SCIAMACHY & GOSAT at SRON/IMAU S. Houweling, G. Monteil
Topics • N-S exchange • Inversions using SCIAMACHY • Inversions using GOSAT
N-S exchange CH4 SF6 access actm ccam nies mozart impact tm5 tomcat Patra et al, ACPD, 2011
How about IFS? IFS TM5 What is different in TM5 and IFS .. The advection scheme?
TM5 inversions using SCIAMACHY CH4 period 2003-2010 Obs. NOAA-only NOAA+SCIA SCIA introduces a seasonal signal that is difficult to reconcile with surface measurements Possible reasons: 1) Model, 2) Instrument
Validation: HIPPO-1 Measurements NOAA-only NOAA+SCIA
Validation: TCCON Lamont (USA) Park Falls (USA) Obs. NOAA-only NOAA+SCIA
Average seasonal cycle SH TCCON sites NH TCCON sites NOAA-ONLY NOAA+SCIA TCCON IMAPv55
Analysis of posterior fluxes (1) NOAA+SCIA NOAA-only Prior
Analysis of posterior fluxes (2) NOAA+SCIA NOAA-only Prior
How about GOSAT GOSAT Proxy (06-2009) GOSAT Full Physics (06-2009) SCIAMACHY Proxy (06-2009) TM5 a priori (06-2009)
Fit residuals Ongoing: Validation with independent data (aircraft, surface, TCCON)
Summary • IH transport & IFS comparison … further action? • SCIAMACHY inversions: Seasonality problem mostly in the retrievals • GOSAT data: look much better, but still issues related e.g. to aerosol scattering