1 / 29

Folkert Boersma

Folkert Boersma. Reducing errors in using tropospheric NO 2 columns observed from space. Blond et al. (2007). SCIAMACHY. EMEP. Main use of satellite observations: estimating emissions of NO x. What is so uncertain about emissions? quantities locations times trends.

kaleb
Download Presentation

Folkert Boersma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Folkert Boersma Reducing errors in using tropospheric NO2 columns observed from space

  2. Blond et al. (2007) SCIAMACHY EMEP Main use of satellite observations: estimating emissions of NOx • What is so uncertain about emissions? • quantities • locations • times • trends But we can see the NOx sources from space chem= 4-24 hrs Emissions

  3. Satellite observations • Pros • sensitivity to lower troposphere • improving horizontal resolution • global coverage • Cons • daytime only • column only • clouds • sensitivity to forward model parameters assumptions

  4. Retrieval method

  5. Retrieval method • 3-step procedure • obtain slant column along average light path • separate stratospheric and tropospheric contributions • convert tropospheric slant column in vertical column In equation: Ns, Ns,st, Mtr are all error sources

  6. Retrieval method aerosols surface pressure

  7. ‘State-of-science’ van Noije et al., ACP, 6, 2943-2979, 2006

  8. Systematic differences van Noije et al., ACP, 6, 2943-2979, 2006

  9. Stratospheric column Accounting for zonal variability or not? 41.5°N E. J. Bucsela – NASA GSFC Model information Reference Sector

  10. Stratospheric column Without correction errors up to 11015 molec.cm-2 March 1997

  11. Stratospheric column • Alternative: limb-nadir matching • Limb observes zonal variability • Stratospheric column estimate may introduce offsets from limb-technique Courtesy of E. J. Bucsela – NASA GSFC A. Richter et al.– IUP Bremen

  12. Stratospheric column • In summary • Reference sector method questionable • Assimilation & nadir-limb correct known systematic errors • Assimilation self-consistent; uncertainty ~0.2×1015 • Validation needed • - SAOZ network (sunrise, sunset) • Brewer direct sun (Cede et al.) in unpolluted areas

  13. Air mass factor Retrieval method Tropospheric air mass factor Mtr- Computed with radiative transfer model and stored in tables Mtr = f(xa,b) xa = a priori tropospheric NO2 prf b = forward model parameters - cloud fraction - cloud pressure - surface albedo - aerosols ( - viewing geometry)

  14. Air mass factor errors A priori profile • Large range in sensitivities between 200 & 1000 hPa, especially in the BL • Low sensitivity in lower troposphere for dark surfaces • Clear pixel, albedo = 0.02 • Clear pixel, albedo = 0.15 • Cloudy pixel with fcl = 1.0, pcl = 800 hPa Eskes and Boersma, ACP, 3, 1285-1291, 2003

  15. Air mass factor errors A priori profile from CTMs • Shapes reasonably captured by CTMs • Effect of model assumptions on BL mixing lead to errors <10-15% • Models are coarse relative to latest retrievals Martin et al., JGR, 109, D24307, 2004

  16. Jun-Aug 2004 SCIAMACHY NO2 MOZART-2 AMF Air mass factor errors Effect of choice of CTM on retrieval MOZART-2 (2°2°) vs. WRF-CHEM (0.2°0.2°) A. Heckel et al. (IUP Bremen)

  17. Jun-Aug 2004 SCIAMACHY NO2 WRF-Chem AMF Air mass factor errors Effect of choice of CTM on retrieval Effect ~10% A. Heckel et al. (IUP Bremen)

  18. Air mass factor sensitivities M = wMcl+ (1-w)Mcr Cloud fraction Boersma et al., JGR, 109, D04311, 2004 Cloud pressure Albedo

  19. AMF errors – surface albedo M = M/asf asf asf = 0.02 (GOME-TOMS) (%)

  20. AMF errors – cloud fraction M = M/fcl fcl fcl = 0.05 (FRESCO) (%)

  21. AMF errors – cloud pressure M = M/pcl pcl pcl = 50.0 (FRESCO) (%)

  22. Martin et al., JGR, 108, 4537, 2003 Air mass factor errors - aerosols • If NO2 present, then also aerosol • Aerosols affect radiative transfer dep. on particle type

  23. Indirect correction through M=wMcl+(1-w)Mcr Direct correction Air mass factor errors - aerosols • Aerosols affect radiative transfer • Cloud fraction sensitive to aerosols ( = +1.0  fcl +0.01)

  24. Air mass factor errors – surface pressure • Surface pressure from CTMs (2°× 3°) • Strong differences with hi-res surface pressures GOME SCIAMACHY Schaub et al., ACPD, 2007

  25. Error top-10 • Cloud fraction errors ~30% • Surface albedo ~15% + resolution effect? • Vertical profile ~10% + resolution effect? • Aerosols ~10%? More research needed • Cloud pressure ~5% • Surface pressure depends on orography

  26. Is there a recipe for reducing all these errors? 1. Better estimates of forward model parameters A good example: surface pressures (Schaub et al.) What should be done: - a validation/improvement of surface albedo databases - a validation/improvement of cloud retrievals - investigate effects aerosols on (cloud) retrievals - validation vertical profiles - higher spatial resolution (sfc. albedo, pressure, profile)

  27. Is there a recipe for reducing all these errors? 2. How do we know if better forward model parameters improve retrievals? We need an extensive, unambiguous and well-accessible validation database Testbed for retrieval improvements: - in situ aircraft NO2 (Heland, ICARTT, INTEX) - surface columns (SAOZ, Brewer, (MAX)DOAS) - in situ profiles (Schaub/Brunner) - surface NO2 (regionally)

  28. Is there a recipe for reducing all these errors? • 3. Towards a common algorithm/reduced errors? • Difficult! • Without testbed, verification of improvements is hard • Improvements for one algorithm may deteriorate other algorithms, depending on retrieval assumptions • Improved model parameters may work for some regions and some seasons, but not for others

  29. Is there a recipe for reducing all these errors? • 3. Towards a common algorithm/reduced errors? • Worth the try! • Systematic differences can be reduced (emission estimates) • Requires ‘scientific will’ – enormous task • Collection of validation set • Flexible algorithms digesting various model parameters • Intercomparison leading to recommendations • Fits purpose ACCENT/TROPOSAT

More Related