Independent validation of IASI/MetOp-A LMD and RAL CH4 products using CAMS model, in situ profiles, and ground-based FTIR measurements

IF 3.2 3区 地球科学 Q2 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Bart Dils, Minqiang Zhou, Claude Camy-Peyret, Martine De Mazière, Yannick Kangah, Bavo Langerock, Pascal Prunet, Carmine Serio, Richard Siddans, Brian Kerridge
{"title":"Independent validation of IASI/MetOp-A LMD and RAL CH4 products using CAMS model, in situ profiles, and ground-based FTIR measurements","authors":"Bart Dils, Minqiang Zhou, Claude Camy-Peyret, Martine De Mazière, Yannick Kangah, Bavo Langerock, Pascal Prunet, Carmine Serio, Richard Siddans, Brian Kerridge","doi":"10.5194/amt-17-5491-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. In this study, we carried out an independent validation of two methane retrieval algorithms using spectra from the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) that has been aboard the Meteorological Operational Satellite A (MetOp-A) since 2006. Both algorithms, one developed by the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD), called the non-linear inference scheme (NLISv8.3), and the other by the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), referred to as RALv2.0, provide long-term global CH4 concentrations using distinctively different retrieval approaches (neural network vs. optimal estimation, respectively). They also differ with respect to the vertical range covered, where LMD provides mid-tropospheric dry-air mole fractions (mtCH4), and RAL provides mixing ratio profiles from which we can derive total column-averaged dry-air mole fractions (XCH4) and potentially two partial column layers (qCH4). We compared both CH4 products using the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) model, in situ profiles (range extended using CAMS model data), and ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) remote-sensing measurements. The average difference (in mtCH4) with respect to in situ profiles for LMD ranges between −0.3 and 10.9 ppb, while for RAL the XCH4 difference ranges between −4.6 and −1.6 ppb. The standard deviation (SD) of the observed differences between in situ measurements and RAL retrievals is 14.1–21.9 ppb, which is consistently smaller than that between LMD retrievals and in situ measurements (15.2–30.6 ppb). By comparing with ground-based FTIR sites, the mean differences are within ±10 ppb for both RAL and LMD retrievals. However, the SD of the differences at the ground-based FTIR stations shows significantly lower values for RAL (11–15 ppb) than for LMD (about 25 ppb). The long-term trend and seasonal cycles of CH4 derived from the LMD and RAL products are further investigated and discussed. The seasonal variation in XCH4 derived from RAL is consistent with the seasonal variation observed by the ground-based FTIR measurements. However, the overall 2007–2015 XCH4 trend derived from RAL measurements is underestimated, if not adjusted, for an anomaly occurring on 16 May 2013 due to a L1 calibration change. For LMD, we see very good agreement at the (sub)tropics (<35° N–35° S) but notice deviations in the seasonal cycle (both in the amplitude and phase) and an underestimation of the long-term trend with respect to the RAL and reference data at higher-latitude sites.","PeriodicalId":8619,"journal":{"name":"Atmospheric Measurement Techniques","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atmospheric Measurement Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5491-2024","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. In this study, we carried out an independent validation of two methane retrieval algorithms using spectra from the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) that has been aboard the Meteorological Operational Satellite A (MetOp-A) since 2006. Both algorithms, one developed by the Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD), called the non-linear inference scheme (NLISv8.3), and the other by the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), referred to as RALv2.0, provide long-term global CH4 concentrations using distinctively different retrieval approaches (neural network vs. optimal estimation, respectively). They also differ with respect to the vertical range covered, where LMD provides mid-tropospheric dry-air mole fractions (mtCH4), and RAL provides mixing ratio profiles from which we can derive total column-averaged dry-air mole fractions (XCH4) and potentially two partial column layers (qCH4). We compared both CH4 products using the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) model, in situ profiles (range extended using CAMS model data), and ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) remote-sensing measurements. The average difference (in mtCH4) with respect to in situ profiles for LMD ranges between −0.3 and 10.9 ppb, while for RAL the XCH4 difference ranges between −4.6 and −1.6 ppb. The standard deviation (SD) of the observed differences between in situ measurements and RAL retrievals is 14.1–21.9 ppb, which is consistently smaller than that between LMD retrievals and in situ measurements (15.2–30.6 ppb). By comparing with ground-based FTIR sites, the mean differences are within ±10 ppb for both RAL and LMD retrievals. However, the SD of the differences at the ground-based FTIR stations shows significantly lower values for RAL (11–15 ppb) than for LMD (about 25 ppb). The long-term trend and seasonal cycles of CH4 derived from the LMD and RAL products are further investigated and discussed. The seasonal variation in XCH4 derived from RAL is consistent with the seasonal variation observed by the ground-based FTIR measurements. However, the overall 2007–2015 XCH4 trend derived from RAL measurements is underestimated, if not adjusted, for an anomaly occurring on 16 May 2013 due to a L1 calibration change. For LMD, we see very good agreement at the (sub)tropics (<35° N–35° S) but notice deviations in the seasonal cycle (both in the amplitude and phase) and an underestimation of the long-term trend with respect to the RAL and reference data at higher-latitude sites.
利用 CAMS 模型、现场剖面和地面傅立叶变换红外测量,独立验证 IASI/MetOp-A LMD 和 RAL CH4 产品
摘要在这项研究中,我们利用 2006 年以来搭载在气象业务卫星 A(MetOp-A)上的红外大气探测干涉仪(IASI)的光谱,对两种甲烷检索算法进行了独立验证。这两种算法,一种由动力学实验室(LMD)开发,称为非线性推理方案(NLISv8.3),另一种由卢瑟福-阿普尔顿实验室(RAL)开发,称为 RALv2.0,均采用截然不同的检索方法(分别为神经网络和最优估计)提供长期的全球甲烷浓度。LMD 提供中对流层干空气摩尔分数(mtCH4),而 RAL 提供混合比剖面,我们可以从中得出柱平均干空气总摩尔分数(XCH4)和可能的两个部分柱层(qCH4)。我们利用哥白尼大气监测服务(CAMS)模型、原地剖面(利用 CAMS 模型数据扩展了范围)和地面傅立叶变换红外(FTIR)遥感测量数据对这两种 CH4 产品进行了比较。LMD 与原位剖面的平均差异(以 mtCH4 为单位)介于 -0.3 和 10.9 ppb 之间,而 RAL 的 XCH4 差异介于 -4.6 和 -1.6 ppb 之间。观测到的原地测量值与 RAL 回收值之间的差异的标准偏差(SD)为 14.1-21.9 ppb,始终小于 LMD 回收值与原地测量值之间的差异(15.2-30.6 ppb)。通过与地基傅立叶变换红外站点进行比较,RAL 和 LMD 回收率的平均差异均在±10 ppb 范围内。不过,地面傅立叶变换红外站的差异标差显示,RAL(11-15 ppb)明显低于 LMD(约 25 ppb)。我们进一步研究和讨论了 LMD 和 RAL 产品得出的 CH4 长期趋势和季节周期。从 RAL 中得出的 XCH4 季节性变化与地面傅立叶变换红外测量观测到的季节性变化一致。但是,如果不对 2013 年 5 月 16 日因 L1 校准变化而出现的异常进行调整,则会低估 RAL 测量得出的 2007-2015 年 XCH4 总体趋势。对于 LMD,我们发现在(亚)热带地区(<北纬 35°-南纬 35°)的一致性非常好,但注意到季节周期(振幅和相位)存在偏差,并且相对于 RAL 和高纬度站点的参考数据,长期趋势被低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
18.40%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT) is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of advances in remote sensing, in-situ and laboratory measurement techniques for the constituents and properties of the Earth’s atmosphere. The main subject areas comprise the development, intercomparison and validation of measurement instruments and techniques of data processing and information retrieval for gases, aerosols, and clouds. The manuscript types considered for peer-reviewed publication are research articles, review articles, and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信