Loading…
Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions
The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) retrievals over urban regions have not been validated systematically, even though MOPITT observations are widely used to study CO over urban regions. Here we compare MOPITT products over urban and non-urban regions with aircraft measurements...
Saved in:
Published in: | Atmospheric measurement techniques 2020-03, Vol.13 (3), p.1337-1356 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63 |
container_end_page | 1356 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1337 |
container_title | Atmospheric measurement techniques |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Tang, Wenfu Worden, Helen M Deeter, Merritt N Edwards, David P Emmons, Louisa K Martínez-Alonso, Sara Gaubert, Benjamin Buchholz, Rebecca R Diskin, Glenn S Dickerson, Russell R Ren, Xinrong He, Hao Kondo, Yutaka |
description | The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) retrievals over urban regions have not been validated systematically, even though MOPITT observations are widely used to study CO over urban regions. Here we compare MOPITT products over urban and non-urban regions with aircraft measurements from the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ – 2011–2014), Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds, and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS – 2013), Air Chemistry Research In Asia (ARIAs – 2016), A-FORCE (2009, 2013), and Korea United States Air Quality (KORUS-AQ – 2016) campaigns. In general, MOPITT agrees reasonably well with the in situ profiles, over both urban and non-urban regions. Version 8 multispectral product (V8J) biases vary from −0.7 % to 0.0 % and version 8 thermal-infrared product (TIR) biases vary from 2.0 % to 3.5 %. The evaluation statistics of MOPITT V8J and V8T over non-urban regions are better than those over urban regions with smaller biases and higher correlation coefficients. We find that the agreement of MOPITT V8J and V8T with aircraft measurements at high CO concentrations is not as good as that at low CO concentrations, although CO variability may tend to exaggerate retrieval biases in heavily polluted scenes. We test the sensitivities of the agreements between MOPITT and in situ profiles to assumptions and data filters applied during the comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles. The results at the surface layer are insensitive to the model-based profile extension (required due to aircraft altitude limitations), whereas the results at levels with limited aircraft observations (e.g., the 600 hPa layer) are more sensitive to the model-based profile extension. The results are insensitive to the maximum allowed time difference criterion for co-location (12, 6, 3, and 1 h) and are generally insensitive to the radius for co-location, except for the case where the radius is small (25 km), and hence few MOPITT retrievals are included in the comparison. Daytime MOPITT products have smaller overall biases than nighttime MOPITT products when comparing both MOPITT daytime and nighttime retrievals to the daytime aircraft observations. However, it would be premature to draw conclusions on the performance of MOPITT nighttime retrievals without nighttime aircraft observations. Applying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) filter |
doi_str_mv | 10.5194/amt-13-1337-2020 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_34324f698e564ec3a65ba54321fdb5b0</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A618330220</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_34324f698e564ec3a65ba54321fdb5b0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A618330220</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptks1rFDEYh4eiYK29ewx4sYep-Z7Z41L8WGhp0fUcksybaZadZE0ypV782826xbogCeTlx5OHBH5N85bgS0EW_IOeSktY3axrKab4pDklvezaXvD-xT_zq-Z1zhuMJScdPW1-LXOGnH0Y0Q3oPCeYIJSMokN3cbudi48B-YDKPaB1iruYd_eQAL2_ub1brdcXyOpkKjLFEB_9AChBSR4e9LY6HiChORkdUJ3ynFGIoT0ECcZqzm-al66icP50njXfP31cX31pr28_r66W163lPS4t5Vwa4FgQXANBbTfgjluzENQ5PAjSWSsHJ6BnfBDUdNpSp7EhlHVUOMnOmtXBO0S9UbvkJ51-qqi9-hPENCqdirdbUIwzyp1c9CAkB8u0FEaLGhI3GGFwdb07uHYp_pghF7WJcwr1-Ypywgnp8EI-U6OuUh9cLEnbyWerlpL0jGFK967L_1B1DTB5GwM4X_OjCxdHFypT4LGMes5Zrb59PWbxgbUp5pzA_f04wWpfGlVLowhT-9KofWnYb0H8s4g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2414117096</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Tang, Wenfu ; Worden, Helen M ; Deeter, Merritt N ; Edwards, David P ; Emmons, Louisa K ; Martínez-Alonso, Sara ; Gaubert, Benjamin ; Buchholz, Rebecca R ; Diskin, Glenn S ; Dickerson, Russell R ; Ren, Xinrong ; He, Hao ; Kondo, Yutaka</creator><creatorcontrib>Tang, Wenfu ; Worden, Helen M ; Deeter, Merritt N ; Edwards, David P ; Emmons, Louisa K ; Martínez-Alonso, Sara ; Gaubert, Benjamin ; Buchholz, Rebecca R ; Diskin, Glenn S ; Dickerson, Russell R ; Ren, Xinrong ; He, Hao ; Kondo, Yutaka</creatorcontrib><description>The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) retrievals over urban regions have not been validated systematically, even though MOPITT observations are widely used to study CO over urban regions. Here we compare MOPITT products over urban and non-urban regions with aircraft measurements from the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ – 2011–2014), Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds, and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS – 2013), Air Chemistry Research In Asia (ARIAs – 2016), A-FORCE (2009, 2013), and Korea United States Air Quality (KORUS-AQ – 2016) campaigns. In general, MOPITT agrees reasonably well with the in situ profiles, over both urban and non-urban regions. Version 8 multispectral product (V8J) biases vary from −0.7 % to 0.0 % and version 8 thermal-infrared product (TIR) biases vary from 2.0 % to 3.5 %. The evaluation statistics of MOPITT V8J and V8T over non-urban regions are better than those over urban regions with smaller biases and higher correlation coefficients. We find that the agreement of MOPITT V8J and V8T with aircraft measurements at high CO concentrations is not as good as that at low CO concentrations, although CO variability may tend to exaggerate retrieval biases in heavily polluted scenes. We test the sensitivities of the agreements between MOPITT and in situ profiles to assumptions and data filters applied during the comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles. The results at the surface layer are insensitive to the model-based profile extension (required due to aircraft altitude limitations), whereas the results at levels with limited aircraft observations (e.g., the 600 hPa layer) are more sensitive to the model-based profile extension. The results are insensitive to the maximum allowed time difference criterion for co-location (12, 6, 3, and 1 h) and are generally insensitive to the radius for co-location, except for the case where the radius is small (25 km), and hence few MOPITT retrievals are included in the comparison. Daytime MOPITT products have smaller overall biases than nighttime MOPITT products when comparing both MOPITT daytime and nighttime retrievals to the daytime aircraft observations. However, it would be premature to draw conclusions on the performance of MOPITT nighttime retrievals without nighttime aircraft observations. Applying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) filters does not necessarily improve the overall agreement between MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles, likely due to the reduced number of MOPITT retrievals for comparison. Comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles over complex urban or polluted regimes are inherently challenging due to spatial and temporal variabilities of CO within MOPITT retrieval pixels (i.e., footprints). We demonstrate that some of the errors are due to CO representativeness with these sensitivity tests, but further quantification of representativeness errors due to CO variability within the MOPITT footprint will require future work.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1867-8548</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1867-1381</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1867-8548</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5194/amt-13-1337-2020</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Katlenburg-Lindau: Copernicus GmbH</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Air ; Air pollution ; Air quality ; Airborne observation ; Aircraft ; Aircraft noise ; Aircraft observations ; Algorithms ; Atmospheric chemistry ; Atmospheric composition ; Bias ; Carbon monoxide ; Chemical research ; Clouds (Meteorology) ; Coefficients ; Correlation coefficient ; Correlation coefficients ; Daytime ; Environmental aspects ; Errors ; Filters ; Footprints ; Measurement ; Military aircraft ; Night ; Night-time ; Nighttime ; Pollution ; Prejudice ; Profiles ; Regional climates ; Regions ; Retrieval ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity analysis ; Signal to noise ratio ; Statistical methods ; Surface boundary layer ; Surface layers ; Surveys ; Time ; Troposphere ; Urban areas ; Variability</subject><ispartof>Atmospheric measurement techniques, 2020-03, Vol.13 (3), p.1337-1356</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Copernicus GmbH</rights><rights>2020. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2325-6212 ; 0000-0002-6823-9603 ; 0000-0001-5185-8670 ; 0000-0002-5949-9307 ; 0000-0001-8124-2455 ; 0000-0002-0107-4496 ; 0000-0001-9974-1666 ; 0000-0002-6595-0686 ; 0000-0003-0206-3083 ; 0000-0002-5164-3861 ; 0000-0002-3617-0269</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2414117096/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2414117096?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,2102,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tang, Wenfu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Worden, Helen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deeter, Merritt N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, David P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emmons, Louisa K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez-Alonso, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaubert, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchholz, Rebecca R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diskin, Glenn S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickerson, Russell R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Xinrong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kondo, Yutaka</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions</title><title>Atmospheric measurement techniques</title><description>The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) retrievals over urban regions have not been validated systematically, even though MOPITT observations are widely used to study CO over urban regions. Here we compare MOPITT products over urban and non-urban regions with aircraft measurements from the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ – 2011–2014), Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds, and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS – 2013), Air Chemistry Research In Asia (ARIAs – 2016), A-FORCE (2009, 2013), and Korea United States Air Quality (KORUS-AQ – 2016) campaigns. In general, MOPITT agrees reasonably well with the in situ profiles, over both urban and non-urban regions. Version 8 multispectral product (V8J) biases vary from −0.7 % to 0.0 % and version 8 thermal-infrared product (TIR) biases vary from 2.0 % to 3.5 %. The evaluation statistics of MOPITT V8J and V8T over non-urban regions are better than those over urban regions with smaller biases and higher correlation coefficients. We find that the agreement of MOPITT V8J and V8T with aircraft measurements at high CO concentrations is not as good as that at low CO concentrations, although CO variability may tend to exaggerate retrieval biases in heavily polluted scenes. We test the sensitivities of the agreements between MOPITT and in situ profiles to assumptions and data filters applied during the comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles. The results at the surface layer are insensitive to the model-based profile extension (required due to aircraft altitude limitations), whereas the results at levels with limited aircraft observations (e.g., the 600 hPa layer) are more sensitive to the model-based profile extension. The results are insensitive to the maximum allowed time difference criterion for co-location (12, 6, 3, and 1 h) and are generally insensitive to the radius for co-location, except for the case where the radius is small (25 km), and hence few MOPITT retrievals are included in the comparison. Daytime MOPITT products have smaller overall biases than nighttime MOPITT products when comparing both MOPITT daytime and nighttime retrievals to the daytime aircraft observations. However, it would be premature to draw conclusions on the performance of MOPITT nighttime retrievals without nighttime aircraft observations. Applying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) filters does not necessarily improve the overall agreement between MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles, likely due to the reduced number of MOPITT retrievals for comparison. Comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles over complex urban or polluted regimes are inherently challenging due to spatial and temporal variabilities of CO within MOPITT retrieval pixels (i.e., footprints). We demonstrate that some of the errors are due to CO representativeness with these sensitivity tests, but further quantification of representativeness errors due to CO variability within the MOPITT footprint will require future work.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Air</subject><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Air quality</subject><subject>Airborne observation</subject><subject>Aircraft</subject><subject>Aircraft noise</subject><subject>Aircraft observations</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Atmospheric chemistry</subject><subject>Atmospheric composition</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Carbon monoxide</subject><subject>Chemical research</subject><subject>Clouds (Meteorology)</subject><subject>Coefficients</subject><subject>Correlation coefficient</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Daytime</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Filters</subject><subject>Footprints</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Military aircraft</subject><subject>Night</subject><subject>Night-time</subject><subject>Nighttime</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Prejudice</subject><subject>Profiles</subject><subject>Regional climates</subject><subject>Regions</subject><subject>Retrieval</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Signal to noise ratio</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Surface boundary layer</subject><subject>Surface layers</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Time</subject><subject>Troposphere</subject><subject>Urban areas</subject><subject>Variability</subject><issn>1867-8548</issn><issn>1867-1381</issn><issn>1867-8548</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptks1rFDEYh4eiYK29ewx4sYep-Z7Z41L8WGhp0fUcksybaZadZE0ypV782826xbogCeTlx5OHBH5N85bgS0EW_IOeSktY3axrKab4pDklvezaXvD-xT_zq-Z1zhuMJScdPW1-LXOGnH0Y0Q3oPCeYIJSMokN3cbudi48B-YDKPaB1iruYd_eQAL2_ub1brdcXyOpkKjLFEB_9AChBSR4e9LY6HiChORkdUJ3ynFGIoT0ECcZqzm-al66icP50njXfP31cX31pr28_r66W163lPS4t5Vwa4FgQXANBbTfgjluzENQ5PAjSWSsHJ6BnfBDUdNpSp7EhlHVUOMnOmtXBO0S9UbvkJ51-qqi9-hPENCqdirdbUIwzyp1c9CAkB8u0FEaLGhI3GGFwdb07uHYp_pghF7WJcwr1-Ypywgnp8EI-U6OuUh9cLEnbyWerlpL0jGFK967L_1B1DTB5GwM4X_OjCxdHFypT4LGMes5Zrb59PWbxgbUp5pzA_f04wWpfGlVLowhT-9KofWnYb0H8s4g</recordid><startdate>20200323</startdate><enddate>20200323</enddate><creator>Tang, Wenfu</creator><creator>Worden, Helen M</creator><creator>Deeter, Merritt N</creator><creator>Edwards, David P</creator><creator>Emmons, Louisa K</creator><creator>Martínez-Alonso, Sara</creator><creator>Gaubert, Benjamin</creator><creator>Buchholz, Rebecca R</creator><creator>Diskin, Glenn S</creator><creator>Dickerson, Russell R</creator><creator>Ren, Xinrong</creator><creator>He, Hao</creator><creator>Kondo, Yutaka</creator><general>Copernicus GmbH</general><general>Copernicus Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BFMQW</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2325-6212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6823-9603</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5185-8670</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5949-9307</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8124-2455</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-4496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9974-1666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6595-0686</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0206-3083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5164-3861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3617-0269</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200323</creationdate><title>Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions</title><author>Tang, Wenfu ; Worden, Helen M ; Deeter, Merritt N ; Edwards, David P ; Emmons, Louisa K ; Martínez-Alonso, Sara ; Gaubert, Benjamin ; Buchholz, Rebecca R ; Diskin, Glenn S ; Dickerson, Russell R ; Ren, Xinrong ; He, Hao ; Kondo, Yutaka</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Air</topic><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Air quality</topic><topic>Airborne observation</topic><topic>Aircraft</topic><topic>Aircraft noise</topic><topic>Aircraft observations</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Atmospheric chemistry</topic><topic>Atmospheric composition</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Carbon monoxide</topic><topic>Chemical research</topic><topic>Clouds (Meteorology)</topic><topic>Coefficients</topic><topic>Correlation coefficient</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Daytime</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Filters</topic><topic>Footprints</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Military aircraft</topic><topic>Night</topic><topic>Night-time</topic><topic>Nighttime</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Prejudice</topic><topic>Profiles</topic><topic>Regional climates</topic><topic>Regions</topic><topic>Retrieval</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Signal to noise ratio</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Surface boundary layer</topic><topic>Surface layers</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Time</topic><topic>Troposphere</topic><topic>Urban areas</topic><topic>Variability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tang, Wenfu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Worden, Helen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deeter, Merritt N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, David P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emmons, Louisa K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez-Alonso, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaubert, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchholz, Rebecca R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diskin, Glenn S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dickerson, Russell R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ren, Xinrong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kondo, Yutaka</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Continental Europe Database</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Atmospheric measurement techniques</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tang, Wenfu</au><au>Worden, Helen M</au><au>Deeter, Merritt N</au><au>Edwards, David P</au><au>Emmons, Louisa K</au><au>Martínez-Alonso, Sara</au><au>Gaubert, Benjamin</au><au>Buchholz, Rebecca R</au><au>Diskin, Glenn S</au><au>Dickerson, Russell R</au><au>Ren, Xinrong</au><au>He, Hao</au><au>Kondo, Yutaka</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions</atitle><jtitle>Atmospheric measurement techniques</jtitle><date>2020-03-23</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1337</spage><epage>1356</epage><pages>1337-1356</pages><issn>1867-8548</issn><issn>1867-1381</issn><eissn>1867-8548</eissn><abstract>The Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) retrievals over urban regions have not been validated systematically, even though MOPITT observations are widely used to study CO over urban regions. Here we compare MOPITT products over urban and non-urban regions with aircraft measurements from the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ – 2011–2014), Studies of Emissions and Atmospheric Composition, Clouds, and Climate Coupling by Regional Surveys (SEAC4RS – 2013), Air Chemistry Research In Asia (ARIAs – 2016), A-FORCE (2009, 2013), and Korea United States Air Quality (KORUS-AQ – 2016) campaigns. In general, MOPITT agrees reasonably well with the in situ profiles, over both urban and non-urban regions. Version 8 multispectral product (V8J) biases vary from −0.7 % to 0.0 % and version 8 thermal-infrared product (TIR) biases vary from 2.0 % to 3.5 %. The evaluation statistics of MOPITT V8J and V8T over non-urban regions are better than those over urban regions with smaller biases and higher correlation coefficients. We find that the agreement of MOPITT V8J and V8T with aircraft measurements at high CO concentrations is not as good as that at low CO concentrations, although CO variability may tend to exaggerate retrieval biases in heavily polluted scenes. We test the sensitivities of the agreements between MOPITT and in situ profiles to assumptions and data filters applied during the comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles. The results at the surface layer are insensitive to the model-based profile extension (required due to aircraft altitude limitations), whereas the results at levels with limited aircraft observations (e.g., the 600 hPa layer) are more sensitive to the model-based profile extension. The results are insensitive to the maximum allowed time difference criterion for co-location (12, 6, 3, and 1 h) and are generally insensitive to the radius for co-location, except for the case where the radius is small (25 km), and hence few MOPITT retrievals are included in the comparison. Daytime MOPITT products have smaller overall biases than nighttime MOPITT products when comparing both MOPITT daytime and nighttime retrievals to the daytime aircraft observations. However, it would be premature to draw conclusions on the performance of MOPITT nighttime retrievals without nighttime aircraft observations. Applying signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) filters does not necessarily improve the overall agreement between MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles, likely due to the reduced number of MOPITT retrievals for comparison. Comparisons of MOPITT retrievals and in situ profiles over complex urban or polluted regimes are inherently challenging due to spatial and temporal variabilities of CO within MOPITT retrieval pixels (i.e., footprints). We demonstrate that some of the errors are due to CO representativeness with these sensitivity tests, but further quantification of representativeness errors due to CO variability within the MOPITT footprint will require future work.</abstract><cop>Katlenburg-Lindau</cop><pub>Copernicus GmbH</pub><doi>10.5194/amt-13-1337-2020</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2325-6212</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6823-9603</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5185-8670</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5949-9307</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8124-2455</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-4496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9974-1666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6595-0686</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0206-3083</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5164-3861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3617-0269</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1867-8548 |
ispartof | Atmospheric measurement techniques, 2020-03, Vol.13 (3), p.1337-1356 |
issn | 1867-8548 1867-1381 1867-8548 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_34324f698e564ec3a65ba54321fdb5b0 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
subjects | Agreements Air Air pollution Air quality Airborne observation Aircraft Aircraft noise Aircraft observations Algorithms Atmospheric chemistry Atmospheric composition Bias Carbon monoxide Chemical research Clouds (Meteorology) Coefficients Correlation coefficient Correlation coefficients Daytime Environmental aspects Errors Filters Footprints Measurement Military aircraft Night Night-time Nighttime Pollution Prejudice Profiles Regional climates Regions Retrieval Sensitivity Sensitivity analysis Signal to noise ratio Statistical methods Surface boundary layer Surface layers Surveys Time Troposphere Urban areas Variability |
title | Assessing Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) carbon monoxide retrievals over urban versus non-urban regions |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T19%3A32%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20Measurements%20of%20Pollution%20in%20the%20Troposphere%20(MOPITT)%20carbon%20monoxide%20retrievals%20over%20urban%20versus%20non-urban%20regions&rft.jtitle=Atmospheric%20measurement%20techniques&rft.au=Tang,%20Wenfu&rft.date=2020-03-23&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1337&rft.epage=1356&rft.pages=1337-1356&rft.issn=1867-8548&rft.eissn=1867-8548&rft_id=info:doi/10.5194/amt-13-1337-2020&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA618330220%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-2446be40510c4852c7d074cb952ff0d517cc6df5e834d52b7ac2fa0b123725f63%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2414117096&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A618330220&rfr_iscdi=true |