1 / 16

Aaron van Donkelaar 1 , Randall Martin 1,2 , Ralph Kahn 3 and Robert Levy 3

Global Climatology of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations Estimated from Remote-Sensed Aerosol Optical Depth. Aaron van Donkelaar 1 , Randall Martin 1,2 , Ralph Kahn 3 and Robert Levy 3 International Aerosol Modeling Algorithms December 9-11, 2009

azure
Télécharger la présentation

Aaron van Donkelaar 1 , Randall Martin 1,2 , Ralph Kahn 3 and Robert Levy 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Global Climatology of Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations Estimated from Remote-Sensed Aerosol Optical Depth Aaron van Donkelaar1, Randall Martin1,2, Ralph Kahn3 and Robert Levy3 International Aerosol Modeling Algorithms December 9-11, 2009 1Dalhousie University 2Harvard-Smithsonian 3NASA Goddard

  2. Approach • vertical structure • aerosol type • meteorological effects • meteorology • diurnal effects η We relate satellite-based measurements of aerosol optical depth to PM2.5 using a global chemical transport model Following Liu et al., 2004: Estimated PM2.5 = η· τ Combined MODIS/MISR Aerosol Optical Depth GEOS-Chem

  3. MODIS and MISR τ Mean τ2001-2006 at 0.1º x 0.1º MODIS τ • 1-2 days for global coverage • Requires assumptions about surface reflectivity MODIS r = 0.40 vs. in-situ PM2.5 MISR τ • 6-9 days for global coverage • Simultaneous surface reflectance and aerosol retrieval MISR r = 0.54 vs. in-situ PM2.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 τ [unitless] Submitted to Environmental Health Perspectives

  4. Agreement varies with surface type July MODIS MISR 9 surface types, defined by monthly mean surface albedo ratios, evaluation against AERONET AOD

  5. Combining MODIS and MISR improves agreement 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 τ[unitless] Combined MODIS/MISR r = 0.63 (vs. in-situ PM2.5) MODIS r = 0.40 (vs. in-situ PM2.5) MISR r = 0.54 (vs. in-situ PM2.5)

  6. Global CTMs can directly relate PM2.5 to τ GEOS-Chem • Detailed aerosol-oxidant model • 2º x 2.5º • 54 tracers, 100’s reactions • Assimilated meteorology • Year-specific emissions • Dust, sea salt, sulfate-ammonium-nitrate system, organic carbon, black carbon, SOA η [ug/m]

  7. Significant agreement with coincident ground measurements over NA Annual Mean PM2.5 [μg/m3] (2001-2006) Satellite Derived Satellite-Derived [μg/m3] In-situ In-situ PM2.5 [μg/m3]

  8. Method is globally applicable • Annual mean measurements • Outside Canada/US • 244 sites (84 non-EU) • r = 0.83 (0.91) • slope = 0.86 (0.84) • bias = 1.15 (-2.52) μg/m3

  9. Coincident PM2.5 error has two sources Estimated PM2.5 = η· τ Model • Affected by aerosol optical properties, concentrations, vertical profile, relative humidity • Most sensitive to vertical profile [van Donkelaar et al., 2006] Satellite • Error limited to 0.1 + 20% by AERONET filter • Implication for satellite PM2.5 determined by η

  10. Model (GC) CALIPSO (CAL) Altitude [km] CALIPSO allows profile evaluation • Coincidently sample model and CALIPSO extinction profiles • Jun-Dec 2006 • Compare % within boundary layer Optical Depth from TOA Optical Depth at surface τ(z)/τsurface

  11. Profile, τ and sampling define error Satellite-Derived PM2.5 [μg/m3] • Vary satellite-derived PM2.5 by profile and τ biases • One-sigma uncertainty of ±25% • Agrees with NA ground measurements • Global population-weight mean uncertainty of 6.7 μg/m3 In-situ PM2.5 [μg/m3] PM2.5 Bias Estimate [%]

  12. -3 -2 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Annual Change [μg/m3 / year] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Satellite-Derived PM2.5 [μg/m3]

  13. -3 -2 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Annual Change [μg/m3 / year] 0 5 10 15 20 25 35 Satellite-Derived PM2.5 [μg/m3]

  14. -3 -2 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Annual Change [μg/m3 / year] 0 5 10 15 45 70 100 Satellite-Derived PM2.5 [μg/m3]

  15. Significant global deviations from model 0.1º x 0.1º r = 0.83 (0.84) slope = 0.86 (0.91) bias = 1.15 (-2.52) μg/m3 2º x 2.5º r = 0.75 (0.76) slope = 0.59 (0.65) bias = 4.36 (0.85) μg/m3 2º x 2.5º r = 0.63 (0.71) slope = 0.51 (0.56) bias = 8.51 (2.75) μg/m3

  16. High global PM2.5 exposure WHO Guideline AQG IT-3 IT-2 IT-1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 • Satellite-PM2.5 + population map → exposure • 80% of world population exceeds WHO guideline of 10 μg/m3 • 49% of eastern Asia exceeds 35 μg/m3 Population [%] 5 10 15 25 35 50 100 PM2.5 Exposure [μg/m3]

More Related