Validation of OMI and SCIAMACHY tropospheric NO 2 columns using DANDELIONS ground-based data J. Hains 1, H. Volten 2, F. Boersma 1, F. Wittrock 3, A. Richter.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Page 1 Tropospheric NO 2 workshop, KNMI, De Bilt NL, Sept 2007M. Van Roozendael Tropospheric NO 2 from space: retrieval issues and perspectives for.

Advertisements

Why study ship NO x emissions? Vinken et al., in prep., % of global NO x emissions 70% of emissions within 400 km of densely populated coast.

Lok Lamsal, Randall Martin, Aaron van Donkelaar Folkert Boersma, Ruud Dirksen (KNMI) Edward Celarier, Eric Bucsela, James Gleason (NASA) E.S.

Hester Volten, Ellen Brinksma, Stijn Berkhout, Daan Swart, René van der Hoff, Hans Bergwerff, Pieternel Levelt, Gaia Pinardi, Michel Van Roozendael NO.

Data assimilation of trace gases in a regional chemical transport model: the impact on model forecasts E. Emili 1, O. Pannekoucke 1,2, E. Jaumouillé 2,

Task Group 3 AT2 workshop, 30 Sept – 1 Oct 2008 Task Group 3 Achievements and Prospects Ankie Piters, KNMI.

Improvement and validation of OMI NO 2 observations over complex terrain A contribution to ACCENT-TROPOSAT-2, Task Group 3 Yipin Zhou, Dominik Brunner,

Accent-troposat 2 final workshop, 30 Sept Oct. 2008, FMI Helsinki, Finland Atmospheric bromine monoxide retrieval from space and ground-based UV-visible.

1 Surface nitrogen dioxide concentrations inferred from Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) rd GEOS-Chem USERS ` MEETING, Harvard University.

OMI NO 2 observations of boreal forest fires Nicolas Bousserez, Randall V. Martin, Lok Lamsal, and the ARCTAS team Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Comparison of the aerosol extinction coefficient retrieved from MAX-DOAS measurements to in-situ measurements P. Zieger 1, K. Clemer 2, S. Yilmaz 3, R.

Status S5p TROPOMI Pepijn Veefkind.

Irie et al., Multi-component retrievals for MAX-DOAS, 2 nd CINDI workshop, Brussels, March 10-11, 2010 Multi-component vertical profile retrievals for.

High vertical resolution NO 2 -sonde data: Air quality monitoring and interpretation of satellite-based NO 2 measurements D. C. Stein Zweers, A.Piters,

Introduction A new methodology is developed for integrating complementary ground-based data sources to provide consistent ozone vertical distribution time.

Indirect Validation of Tropospheric Nitrogen Dioxide Retrieved from the OMI Satellite Instrument: Insight into the Seasonal Variation of Nitrogen Oxides.

ICDC7, Boulder, September 2005 CH 4 TOTAL COLUMNS FROM SCIAMACHY – COMPARISON WITH ATMOSPHERIC MODELS P. Bergamaschi 1, C. Frankenberg 2, J.F. Meirink.

Validation of a Satellite Retrieval of Tropospheric Nitrogen Dioxide Randall Martin Dalhousie University Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Daniel Jacob.

Algorithms and chemical data assimilation activities at Environment Canada Chris McLinden Air Quality Research Division, Environment Canada 2 nd TEMPO.

1 Satellite data assimilation for air quality forecast 10/10/2006.

Ankie Piters Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Measuring vertical profiles and tropospheric columns.

Tropospheric NO2 Ronald van der A, Michel Van Roozendael, Isabelle De Smedt, Ruud Dirksen, Folkert Boersma KNMI and BIRA-IASB Beijing, October 2008.

SCIAMACHY satellite validation during the field campaigns CINDI and TRANSBROM Enno Peters, Folkard Wittrock, Andreas Richter, Mark Weber and John P. Burrows.

Institute of Environmental Physics and Remote Sensing IUP/IFE-UB Physics/Electrical Engineering Department 1 Measurements.

AMFIC second progress meeting MariLiza Koukouli & Dimitris Balis Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

MELANIE FOLLETTE-COOK KEN PICKERING, PIUS LEE, RON COHEN, ALAN FRIED, ANDREW WEINHEIMER, JIM CRAWFORD, YUNHEE KIM, RICK SAYLOR IWAQFR NOVEMBER 30, 2011.

Melanie Follette-Cook Christopher Loughner (ESSIC, UMD) Kenneth Pickering (NASA GSFC) CMAS Conference October 27-29, 2014.

Retrieval of Ozone Profiles from GOME (and SCIAMACHY, and OMI, and GOME2 ) Roeland van Oss Ronald van der A and Johan de Haan, Robert Voors, Robert Spurr.

Folkert Boersma Reducing errors in using tropospheric NO 2 columns observed from space.

1 Inferring Ground-level Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations from OMI Martin Steinbacher, Empa Edward Celarier, SGT Inc. Eric Bucsela, NASA GSFC.

Intercomparison of OMI NO 2 and HCHO air mass factor calculations: recommendations and best practices A. Lorente, S. Döerner, A. Hilboll, H. Yu and K.

MAX-DOAS observations and their application to validations of satellite and model data in Wuxi, China 1) Satellite group, Max Planck institute for Chemistry,

Comparison of OMI NO 2 with Ground-based Direct Sun Measurements at NASA GSFC and JPL Table Mountain during Summer 2007 George H. Mount & Elena Spinei.

OMI Validation Needs Mark Kroon – KNMI (on behalf of the OMI validation team) Aura Science Team Meeting Aura Validation Working Group Pasadena, CA,

Air Pollution/Environmental Technology laboratory Initial results on OMI NO 2 Validation during CINDI A contribution to the BIRA Cindi Workshop Yipin Zhou,

Validation of OMI NO 2 data using ground-based spectrometric NO 2 measurements at Zvenigorod, Russia A.N. Gruzdev and A.S. Elokhov A.M. Obukhov Institute.

OMI validation workshop - 22 nd June 2006 Louisa. J. Kramer (1), Paul. S. Monks (2), Roland. J. Leigh (1) (1) Earth Observation Science, Space Research.

Plans to study horizontal NO 2 distribution Ankie Piters, Tim Vlemmix, KNMI data from: INTA, IUPB, JAMSTEC, KNMI, Leicester, NASA Objectives: –Satellite.

Henk Eskes, OMI meeting June 2006 OMI Nitrogen Dioxide: The KNMI Near-Real Time Product Henk Eskes, Pepijn Veefkind, Folkert Boersma, Ronald van.

Retrieval of Vertical Columns of Sulfur Dioxide from SCIAMACHY and OMI: Air Mass Factor Algorithm Development, Validation, and Error Analysis Chulkyu Lee.

J. Ding 1,2, R. J. van der A 1, B. Mijling 1, P. F. Levelt 1,2, and N. Hao 3 [1] Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands.

OMI Nitrogen Dioxide Validation Overview Ellen Brinksma & Edward Celarier with inputs from many others (AO, NASA, …)

Update on TROPOMI instrument and status Pepijn Veefkind, Diego Loyola, Andreas Richter, Ilse Aben, Michel van Roozendael, Isabelle De Smedt, Richard Siddans,

1 Examining Seasonal Variation of Space-based Tropospheric NO 2 Columns Lok Lamsal.

OMI Validation using the Pandora Spectrometer System Jay Herman, Nader Abuhassan, Alexander Cede 1.Validation of OMI satellite data for Ozone is fairly.

AMFIC Progress Meeting, Barcelona, 24 June Space-nadir observations of formaldehyde, glyoxal and SO 2 columns with SCIAMACHY and GOME-2. Isabelle.

Evaluation of model simulations with satellite observed NO 2 columns and surface observations & Some new results from OMI N. Blond, LISA/KNMI P. van Velthoven,

Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Requirement: Provide information to air quality decision makers and improve.

 Methodology  Comparison with others instruments  Impact of daily AMF  Conclusions Tropospheric NO 2 from SAOZ F. Goutail, A. Pazmino, A. Griesfeller,

MAXDOAS observations in Beijing G. Pinardi, K. Clémer, C. Hermans, C. Fayt, M. Van Roozendael BIRA-IASB Pucai Wang & Jianhui Bai IAP/CAS 24 June 2009,

Lok Lamsal, Nickolay Krotkov, Sergey Marchenko, Edward Celarier, William Swartz, Wenhan Qin, Alexander Vasilkov, Eric Bucsela, Dave Haffner 19 th OMI Science.

EOS-AURA Science Team Meeting September 2009, Leiden Comparison of NO 2 profiles derived from MAX-DOAS measurements and model simulations.

Folkert Boersma Collaborators: Daniel J. Jacob, Miri Trainic, Yinon Rudich, Ruud Dirksen, and Ronald van der A Comparison of NO 2 air pollution in Israeli.

Satellite Remote Sensing of the Air Quality Health Index Randall Martin, Dalhousie and Harvard-Smithsonian Aaron van Donkelaar, Lok Lamsal, Dalhousie University.

ESA :DRAGON/ EU :AMFIC Air quality Monitoring and Forecasting In China Ronald van der A, KNMI Bas Mijling, KNMI Hennie Kelder KNMI, TUE DRAGON /AMFIC project.

Page 1 OMI ST Meeting #11, KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands, June 2006 Validation of OMI trace gas products Main contributors (this work): Michel Van.

Challenge the future Corresponding author: Delft University of Technology Collocated OMI DOMINO and MODIS Aqua aerosol products.

OMI Nitrogen Dioxide Workshop Ellen Brinksma, Folkert Boersma.

1 SO 2 Air Mass Factors for pollution and volcanic emissions OMI Science Team Meeting De Bilt, June 2006 Pieter Valks, Werner Thomas, Thilo Ebertseder,

DOAS workshop 2015, Brussels, July 2015

Michel Van Roozendael BIRA-IASB, Brussels, Belgium

Intercomparison of SCIAMACHY NO2, the Chimère air-quality model and

Concurrent measurements of tropospheric NO2 from OMI and SCIAMACHY

Randall Martin Aaron Van Donkelaar Daniel Jacob Dorian Abbot

Intercomparison of SCIAMACHY NO2, the Chimère air-quality model and

Diurnal Variation of Nitrogen Dioxide

INTEX-B flight tracks (April-May 2006)

Retrieval of SO2 Vertical Columns from SCIAMACHY and OMI: Air Mass Factor Algorithm Development and Validation Chulkyu Lee, Aaron van Dokelaar, Gray O’Byrne:

MEASUREMENT OF TROPOSPHERIC COMPOSITION FROM SPACE IS DIFFICULT!

2019 TEMPO Science Team Meeting

Presentation transcript:

Validation of OMI and SCIAMACHY tropospheric NO 2 columns using DANDELIONS ground-based data J. Hains 1, H. Volten 2, F. Boersma 1, F. Wittrock 3, A. Richter 3, T.Wagner 4, M. Van Roozendael 5, R. Dirksen 1, M. Kroon 1, and P. Levelt 1 1. KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands, 2. RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands 3. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany 4. Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry 5. BIRA-IASB, Brussels, Belgium OMI Science Team Meeting June 25, 2008

Outline Describe tropospheric NO 2 observations. Comparisons among ground based instruments. Compare ground based instruments with satellite. Investigate influence of measurements on OMI tropospheric NO 2 retrieval. Introduce possible NO 2 instrument comparison – Summer 2009

Dutch Aerosol and Nitrogen Dioxide Experiments for vaLIdation of OMI and SCIAMACHY DANDELIONS 2006 Time  8-13 and September Conditions  Clear skies and fair weather, Cabauw The Netherlands. Ground based instruments  3 MAXDOAS (BIRA, University of Bremen and University of Heidelberg), RIVM lidar profiles and in-situ concentrations from chemiluminescence instruments at surface and on top of 200 m tower. –RIVM aerosol lidar observed the planetary boundary layer height (PBL). –Ground based instruments sample different directions. Satellites  OMI and SCIAMACHY DOMINO products.

Cabauw industry Clean air CESAR The Site industry

PBL In- situ MAX DOAS Lidar Scattering Conc. (7 altitudes) + PBL height (aerosol lidar)  VC pbl OMI and SCIAMACHY DOMINO Tropospheric NO 2 vertical column (VC t ) SCIAMACHY pixel size 30x60 km 2. OMI pixel size 13x24 km 2 (nadir). VC t = VC pbl + VC ft Concentration (0, 200 m) + PBL height (aerosol lidar)  VC pbl Slant column + geo AMF  VC t

Comparisons among ground based instruments 1:1

Comparisons among ground based instruments 1:1 In-situ observes more NO 2 than lidar  NOy bias (PAN, HNO3 etc.)

1:1 Comparisons among ground based instruments 1:1 Comparisons are good (instruments sample different directions). MAXDOAS observes more NO 2 than lidar  in lidar integration free tropospheric NO 2 = 0.

Comparisons with satellite Comparisons are good considering differences in spatial and temporal resolution. + pixel size <650 km 2 + pixel size > 650 km 2 + SCIAMACHY 1:1

Comparisons with satellite + pixel size <650 km 2 + pixel size > 650 km 2 + SCIAMACHY

1:1 3 MAXDOAS, lidar and in-situ + pixel size <650 km 2 + pixel size > 650 km 2 + SCIAMACHY OMI and SCIAMACHY DOMINO products are within 33% of ground based observations.

Plausible explanations for the difference MAXDOAS and satellite use different AMF. In-situ has positive bias due to NO y interference. OMI and SCIAMACHY are affected by clouds. Satellite observations represent a large ground pixel (e.g. OMI nadir pixel is 13 x 24 km 2 ) while ground- based observations are point measurements. Ground based instruments have not been thoroughly compared with each other or compared with in-situ aircraft profiles - plan for future campaign.

Level 1B Slant column NO 2 Stratospheric Slant column NO 2 Tropospheric Slant column NO 2 Stratospheric Vertical column NO 2 Tropospheric Vertical column NO 2 TM4- DOMINO AMF Strat AMF Trop TM4- global chemistry transport model run with assimilated OMI products TM4 produces NO 2 profiles These NO 2 profiles are used to calculate AMFs (air mass factors). OMI tropospheric NO 2 algorithm TM4- DOMINO

Can we improve the algorithm ? Examine a-priori profile shape in TM4 model. Compare TM4 profile with lidar profile How does NO 2 change with revised AMF.

Steps to Compare lidar with TM4 NO 2 1.Interpolate/Extrapolate Lidar. 2.Regrid observation to 1hpa grid. 3.Integrate NO 2 between TM4 levels  partial columns.

OMI (original and revised AMF) and average ground based NO 2 observations.  Small changes.  TM4 profiles are good assumptions. Statistics for comparisons Percent difference standard deviation Correlation coefficient Original36%29%0.76 Revised35%30%0.77

OMI pixel width < 50 km

Compare TM4 and lidar profiles TM4 NO 2 peaks at lower level than lidar. OMI less sensitive to original TM4 profile.  AMF is too small.  OMI NO 2 is too large.

Conclusions Ground based NO 2 instruments compare well with each other (r ~.6). OMI and SCIAMACHY (DOMINO) compare well with average ground based NO 2 (within 33%). Comparisons among instruments are good considering the differences in retrieval techniques and temporal and spatial resolution. These results are fair weather biased. Including lidar tropospheric NO 2 profiles in the AMF calculation did not affect the AMF  TM4 profiles are good assumptions.

Tentative plans for CEOS/GEOMON NO 2 instrument comparison Possible Goals: Surface campaign (like DANDELIONS) ~15 instruments (MAXDOAS, lidar and in-situ monitors). –NDACC blind test. Observations support OMI and SCIAMACHY validation. 1 st part - compare instruments. 2 nd part - move the instruments to sites wihtin a pixel. Improve understanding of NO 2 variability in the area of a satellite pixel. Location: Europe, possibly Cabauw, The Netherlands When: Summer 2009 Participants: Europe, N. America, Asia

+ pixel size <650 km 2 + pixel size > 650 km 2 + SCIAMACHY Operational DOMINO

Comparisons with DOMINO Comparisons with Standard product

Compare TM4 with lidar profile

Lidar profile measurements MAXDOAS Tropospheric NO 2 VCD retrieved using geometric AMF NO 2 layer LOS SCD off SCD zen