1 / 13

VALIDATION OF SCIAMACHY CH 4 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS USING GROUND-BASED FTIR MEASUREMENTS

VALIDATION OF SCIAMACHY CH 4 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS USING GROUND-BASED FTIR MEASUREMENTS.

duaa
Télécharger la présentation

VALIDATION OF SCIAMACHY CH 4 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS USING GROUND-BASED FTIR MEASUREMENTS

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. VALIDATION OF SCIAMACHY CH4 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS USING GROUND-BASED FTIR MEASUREMENTS B. Dils, M. De Mazière, C. Vigouroux, C. Frankenberg, M. Buchwitz, A. Gloudemans, T. Blumenstock, F. Hase, I. Kramer, E. Mahieu, P. Demoulin, P. Duchatelet, J. Mellqvist, A. Strandberg, K. Petersen, J. Notholt, R. Sussmann and T. Borsdorff

  2. Introduction • Validation using FTIR measurements commenced in ~2004 • Since then improvements on the SCIAMACHY algorithms • Also the FTIR comparison dataset has evolved •  Hard to inter-compare results from different validation studies •  Re-evaluate ‘all’ SCIAMACHY CH4 algorithms with a ‘standard’ FTIR dataset

  3. Timeline for CH4 validation • 2005, Dils et al. ACPD,5: WFMDv0.41 XCH4, IMAPv0.9 XCH4, IMLMv5.5 CH4 • Covering 2003 only • CO2 normalized XCH4 for IMAP and WFMD, total columns for IMLM Channel 6 for IMAP, Channel 8 for WFMD and IMLM • Channel 8 affected by Ice layer build-up and decontamination phases • Very limited datasets (large gaps in annual coverage) • 2006, Dils et al. ACP,6: WFMDv0.5 XCH4, IMAPv1.0 XCH4, IMLMv6.3 CH4 • Covering 2003 only • WFMD, now also using Channel 6 • Solar zenith angle (sza) dependence of WFMD data • Inverse seasonality of southern hemisphere IMAP XCH4 • 2007, Dils et al. ACVE-3 proceeding, ESA SP-642: WFMDv1.0 XCH4 • 2003+2004 • Overall improvement of data quality • sza issue resolved • 2008, Current HYMN validation effort: IMAPv4.9 XCH4, WFMDv1.0/C XCH4 • 2003+2004+2005 • Updated CH4 spectroscopy for IMAPv4.9 • WFMD XCH4 CO2 normalised data using carbon tracker data in stead of a constant value ( algorithm itself remains the same (v1.0))

  4. The contributing FTIR-NDACC network Spatial coordinates of the ground-based FTIR stations. UFTIR, http://www.nilu.no/uftir Currently a harmonized global FTIR dataset is being developed within the HYMN project! (http://www.knmi.nl/samenw/hymn/)

  5. Validation Issues • Time of measurement (limited overlap  small dataset) • Compared the SCIA data with a 3rd order polynomial fit through the FTIR data or • Compared Monthly averages. • Used Spatial collocation grid around location of gb station • Large grid = Lat ± 2.5° Lon ± 10° • Small grid = Lat ± 2.5° Lon ± 5° • Altitude of FTIR station vs ‘altitude’ of SCIA data • Conversion of total column data to effective mean volume mixing ratios (with ECMWF model data) • Assumes constant VMR with altitude! • extra vmr correction using TM4 model data • FTIR airmass vs. SCIA airmass (averaged over pixel) • gets worse with grid! (two grids allows us to assess the impact) • Retrieval parameters, averaging kernels etc. (minor impact)

  6. Validation Parameters • Bias: • Weighted bias of the SCIAMACHY measurements with respect to the FTIR polynomial fit • weighted mean [(SCIA-FTIR)/FTIR] • the corresponding weighted standard error = 3*std/sqrt(N) Weight = 1/ (error of SCIA data point)2 • Scatter: • Weighted standard deviation around the polynomial FTIR fit, shifted with the bias, acting as the mean. • R: • Correlation coefficient between SCIAMACHY and FTIR weighted monthly means • FTIR stations in Europe only, thus limited variability

  7. Evolution of CH4 quality (year 2003 data)

  8. Evolution of CH4quality Evolution of R and scat for all validated versions of SCIAMACHY CH4 algorithms *IMLM is markedly different from IMAP and WFMD, since it does not include a dry air normalisation step (using CO2 data) and uses a different spectral window: → Needs strict cloud filtering → Less datapoints → More scatter Now IMLM focuses on CO retrievals, IMAP (Frankenberg) now developed at SRON

  9. Time series  seasonal variation • These plots show the weighted monthly mean and error of the SCIAMACHY data aafo time together with daily mean FTIR data. • Months that have less than 10 data points are not shown.

  10. Evolution of quality (IMAP,WFMD and IMLM): *Large improvements for all algorithms *Better seasonality for IMAPv1.1 than IMAPv4.9??? (fig A)

  11. Current status (IMAPv4.9 and WFMDv1.0/Carbon Tracker) • More scatter in WFMD data • low values for February IMAP?

  12. Current status • seasonality is not that well captured • Slightly worse for IMAPv4.9?

  13. Conclusions • Overall, one can state that all SCIAMACHY algorithms have evolved significantly over time. Both the correlation as well as the scatter have improved with each new development. Correlation coefficients of ~0.7 and scatter values of ~1% have been obtained. • However several issues still remain. The latest IMAP product (v4.9) seems to do a worse job at capturing the seasonality than v1.1 • An in depth validation study, using the latest HYMN harmonised date (http://www.knmi.nl/samenw/hymn) (using a ‘quasi-global’ FTIR dataset), is currently undertaken. This expanded dataset will allow a closer look at station-to-station biases in the SCIAMACHY data.

More Related