Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and XCH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; with TCCON data and
their evaluation using aircraft measurement data

Inoue, Mayuri; Morino, Isamu; Uchino, Osamu; Nakatsuru, Takahiro; Yoshida, Yukio; Yokota, Tatsuya; Wunch, Debra; Wennberg, P. O.; Roehl, Coleen M.; Griffith, David; Velazco, Voltaire A.; Deutscher, Nicholas M.; Warneke, Thorsten; Notholt, Justus; Robinson, John; Sherlock, V.; Hase, Frank; Blumenstock, Thomas; Rettinger, Markus; Sussmann, Ralf; Kyrö, E.; Kivi, Rigel; Shiomi, Kei; Kawakami, S.; Mazière, Martine De; Arnold, Sabrina G.; Feist, Dietrich G.; Barrow, Erica A.; Barney, James; Dubey, Manvendra K.; Schneider, Mat­thias; Iraci, L. T.; Podolske, James R.; Hillyard, Patrick W.; Machida, Toshinobu; Sawa, Yousuke; Tsuboi, Kazuhiro; Matsueda, Hidekazu; Sweeney, Colm; Tans, Pieter P.; Andrews, A. E.; Biraud, S.; Fukuyama, Yukio; Pittman, J. V.; Kort, E. A.; Tanaka, Tomoaki

doi:10.5194/amt-9-3491-2016

Cited by 46 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absolute concentrations agree within uncertainties or show no significant difference (Student's t test) at three of the aircraft sites (−1.9 ± 2.2 ppb for RBA, 3.6 ± 4.3 ppb for RBH, 3.6 ± 1.7 ppb for SAN, and 6.6 ± 2.6 ppb for TAB), while the other two show GOSAT to be slightly higher than aircraft measurements, by up to approximately 10 ppb in the most differing case (8.1 ± 2.1 ppb for ALF and 9.7 ± 2.8 ppb for SAH). These results are consistent with results by Inoue et al [, ] who compare GOSAT with aircraft measurements at 17 stations (outside of the Amazon) and find that over land with the same ±5° colocation we use, GOSAT showed a positive station bias of 3.4 ± 7.0 ppb. Uncertainties introduced by the model XCO 2 in the proxy XCH 4 method could account for part of the biases we observe, especially at RBA where the model is shown to be the lowest compared to aircraft measurements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Amazon Basin contains large wetland ecosystems which are important sources of methane (CH4). Spaceborne observations of atmospheric CH4 can provide constraints on emissions from these remote ecosystems, but lack of validation precludes robust estimates. We present the first validation of CH4 columns in the Amazon from the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) using aircraft measurements of CH4 over five sites across the Amazon Basin. These aircraft profiles, combined with stratospheric results from the TOMCAT chemical transport model, are vertically integrated allowing direct comparison to the GOSAT XCH4 measurements (the column‐averaged dry air mole fraction of CH4). The measurements agree within uncertainties or show no significant difference at three of the aircraft sites, with differences ranging from −1.9 ppb to 6.6 ppb, while at two sites GOSAT XCH4 is shown to be slightly higher than aircraft measurements, by 8.1 ppb and 9.7 ppb. The seasonality in XCH4 seen by the aircraft profiles is also well captured (correlation coefficients from 0.61 to 0.90). GOSAT observes elevated concentrations in the northwest corner of South America in the dry season and enhanced concentrations elsewhere in the Amazon Basin in the wet season, with the strongest seasonal differences coinciding with regions in Bolivia known to contain large wetlands. Our results are encouraging evidence that these GOSAT CH4 columns are generally in good agreement with in situ measurements, and understanding the magnitude of any remaining biases between the two will allow more confidence in the application of XCH4 to constrain Amazonian CH4 fluxes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still further investigation is required in the future. However, the overall mean bias shown here is consistent with the previous results reported by Inoue et al (2014Inoue et al ( , 2016. Inoue et al (2014) made a comparison of GOSAT XCH 4 (V02.00) with 3 aircraft measurements from Yakutsk, Siberia and reported that the bias was 9.2 ± 15.2 ppb (3.7 ± 16.7 ppb) within ±2°( ±5°).…”

Section: Aircraft Xch 4 Comparison With Gosatsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Inoue et al (2014) made a comparison of GOSAT XCH 4 (V02.00) with 3 aircraft measurements from Yakutsk, Siberia and reported that the bias was 9.2 ± 15.2 ppb (3.7 ± 16.7 ppb) within ±2°( ±5°). When considering 2 days average excluding a date of October 05, 2014, we obtained a bias 3.47 ± 1.51 ppb, which is agreed with Inoue et al (2016) who showed a 4.5 ± 15. 20 ppb over land.…”

Section: Aircraft Xch 4 Comparison With Gosatsupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparison of XCH4 Derived from g-b FTS and GOSAT and Evaluation Using Aircraft In-Situ Observations over TCCON Site

Kenea

Goo

et al. 2019

Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is evident that evaluating the measurement of greenhouse gases (GHGs) obtained from multi-platform instruments against accurate and precise instrument such as aircraft in-situ is very essential when using remote sensing GHGs results for source/sink estimations with inverse modeling. The results of the inverse models are very sensitive even to small biases in the data (Rayner and O'Brien 2001). In this work, we have evaluated ground-based high resolution Fourier Transform Spectrometer (g-b FTS) and the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) column-averaged dry air mole fraction of methane (XCH 4 ) through aircraft in-situ observations over Anmyeondo station (36.538 o N, 126.331 o E, 30 m above sea level). The impact of the spatial coincidence criteria was assessed by comparing GOSAT data against g-b FTS. We noticed there was no any systematic difference based on the given coincidence criteria. GOSAT exhibited a bias ranging from 0.10 to 3.37 ppb, with the standard deviation from 4.92 to 12.54 ppb, against g-b FTS with the spatial coincidence criteria of ±1, ±3, ±5 degrees of latitude and longitude and ± 1 h time window. Data observed during ascent and descent of the aircraft is considered as vertical profiles within an altitude range of 0.2 to a maximum of 9.0 km so that some assumptions were applied for the construction of the profiles below 0.2 and above 9.0 km. In addition, the suitability of aircraft data for evaluation of remote sensing instruments was confirmed based on the assessment of uncertainties. The spatial coincidence criteria is ±1 o latitude and ± 2 o longitude and for temporal difference is ±1 h of the satellite observation overpass time were applied, whereas g-b FTS data are the mean values measured within ±30 min of the aircraft observation time. Furthermore, the sensitivity differences of the instruments were taken into account. With respect to aircraft, the g-b FTS data were biased by −0.19 ± 0.69%, while GOSAT data were biased by −0.42 ± 0.84%. These results confirm that both g-b FTS and GOSAT are consistent aircraft observations and assure the reliability of the datasets for inverse estimate of CH 4 .

show abstract

“…Satelliteinferred XCH 4 observations are increasingly used in atmospheric inverse modeling because of their beneficial spatiotemporal data coverage (Bergamaschi et al, 2013;Fraser et al, 2013Fraser et al, , 2014Monteil et al, 2013;Houweling et al, 2014;Wecht et al, 2014;Cressot et al, 2014;Alexe et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2015;Locatelli et al, 2015). Given the high accuracy of ground-based XCH 4 TCCON retrievals, these observations are typically used for the evaluation of both chemistry-transport model (CTM) simulations (Saito et al, 2012;Belikov et al, 2013;Monteil et al, 2013;Alexe et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2015) and satelliteretrieved XCH 4 (Parker et al, 2011Schepers et al, 2012;Dils et al, 2014;Houweling et al, 2014;Parker et al, 2015;Kulawik et al, 2016;Pandey et al, 2016;Inoue et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of column-averaged methane in models and TCCON with a focus on the stratosphere

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO<sub>2</sub> and XCH<sub>4</sub> with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data

Cited by 46 publications

References 105 publications

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

Comparison of XCH4 Derived from g-b FTS and GOSAT and Evaluation Using Aircraft In-Situ Observations over TCCON Site

Evaluation of column-averaged methane in models and TCCON with a focus on the stratosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and XCH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data

Cited by 46 publications

References 105 publications

CH4 concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

CH4 concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

Comparison of XCH4 Derived from g-b FTS and GOSAT and Evaluation Using Aircraft In-Situ Observations over TCCON Site

Evaluation of column-averaged methane in models and TCCON with a focus on the stratosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO<sub>2</sub> and XCH<sub>4</sub> with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data

CH₄ concentrations over the Amazon from GOSAT consistent with in situ vertical profile data