Evaluating the consistency between OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO2 estimates derived from the NASA ACOS version 10 retrieval algorithm
-
Published:2023-06-27
Issue:12
Volume:16
Page:3173-3209
-
ISSN:1867-8548
-
Container-title:Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmos. Meas. Tech.
Author:
Taylor Thomas E.ORCID, O'Dell Christopher W., Baker David, Bruegge Carol, Chang Albert, Chapsky Lars, Chatterjee AbhishekORCID, Cheng Cecilia, Chevallier FrédéricORCID, Crisp DavidORCID, Dang Lan, Drouin Brian, Eldering AnnmarieORCID, Feng Liang, Fisher Brendan, Fu DejianORCID, Gunson Michael, Haemmerle Vance, Keller Graziela R., Kiel MatthäusORCID, Kuai LeORCID, Kurosu Thomas, Lambert AlynORCID, Laughner JoshuaORCID, Lee Richard, Liu JunjieORCID, Mandrake Lucas, Marchetti Yuliya, McGarragh Gregory, Merrelli AronneORCID, Nelson Robert R.ORCID, Osterman Greg, Oyafuso Fabiano, Palmer Paul I.ORCID, Payne Vivienne H., Rosenberg RobertORCID, Somkuti PeterORCID, Spiers Gary, To Cathy, Weir BradORCID, Wennberg Paul O.ORCID, Yu Shanshan, Zong Jia
Abstract
Abstract. The version 10 (v10) Atmospheric Carbon Observations from Space (ACOS) Level 2 full-physics (L2FP) retrieval algorithm has been applied to multiyear records of observations from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 and 3 sensors (OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively) to provide estimates of the carbon dioxide (CO2) column-averaged dry-air mole fraction (XCO2). In this study, a number of improvements to the ACOS v10 L2FP algorithm are described. The post-processing quality filtering and bias correction of the XCO2 estimates against multiple truth proxies are also discussed. The OCO v10 data volumes and XCO2 estimates from the two sensors for the time period of August 2019 through February 2022 are compared, highlighting differences in spatiotemporal sampling but demonstrating broad agreement between the two sensors where they overlap in time and space. A number of evaluation sources applied to both sensors suggest they are broadly similar in data and error characteristics. Mean OCO-3 differences relative to collocated OCO-2 data are approximately 0.2 and −0.3 ppm for land and ocean observations, respectively. Comparison of XCO2 estimates to collocated Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) measurements shows root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of approximately 0.8 and 0.9 ppm for OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively. An evaluation against XCO2 fields derived from atmospheric inversion systems that assimilated only near-surface CO2 observations, i.e., did not assimilate satellite CO2 measurements, yielded RMSEs of 1.0 and 1.1 ppm for OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively. Evaluation of uncertainties in XCO2 over small areas, as well as XCO2 biases across land–ocean crossings, also indicates similar behavior in the error characteristics of both sensors. Taken together, these results demonstrate a broad consistency of OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO2 measurements, suggesting they may be used together for scientific analyses.
Funder
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory National Centre for Earth Observation
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Atmospheric Science
Reference147 articles.
1. Agustí-Panareda, A., Massart, S., Chevallier, F., Boussetta, S., Balsamo, G., Beljaars, A., Ciais, P., Deutscher, N. M., Engelen, R., Jones, L., Kivi, R., Paris, J.-D., Peuch, V.-H., Sherlock, V., Vermeulen, A. T., Wennberg, P. O., and Wunch, D.: Forecasting global atmospheric CO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11959–11983, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11959-2014, 2014. a 2. Archer, D., Eby, M., Brovkin, V., Ridgwell, A., Cao, L., Mikolajewicz, U., Caldeira, K., Matsumoto, K., Munhoven, G., Montenegro, A., and Tokos, K.: Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 37, 117–134, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206, 2009. a 3. Baker, D. F., Bell, E., Davis, K. J., Campbell, J. F., Lin, B., and Dobler, J.: A new exponentially decaying error correlation model for assimilating OCO-2 column-average CO2 data using a length scale computed from airborne lidar measurements, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 649–668, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-649-2022, 2022. a, b 4. Basu, S., Guerlet, S., Butz, A., Houweling, S., Hasekamp, O., Aben, I., Krummel, P., Steele, P., Langenfelds, R., Torn, M., Biraud, S., Stephens, B., Andrews, A., and Worthy, D.: Global CO2 fluxes estimated from GOSAT retrievals of total column CO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8695–8717, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8695-2013, 2013. a 5. Bell, E., O'Dell, C. W., Davis, K. J., Campbell, J., Browell, E.,
Scott Denning, A., Dobler, J., Erxleben, W., Fan, T.-F., Kooi, S., Lin, B.,
Pal, S., and Weir, B.: Evaluation of OCO-2 XCO2 variability at local and
synoptic scales using lidar and in situ observations from the ACT-America
campaigns, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031400,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031400, 2020. a, b
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|