Validation and error estimation of AIRS MUSES CO profiles with HIPPO, ATom, and...

Hegarty, J., K. Cady-Pereira, V. Payne, S. Kulawik, J. Worden, V. Kantchev, H. Worden, K. McKain, J. V. Pittman, R. Commane, B. Daube, and E. Kort (2022), Validation and error estimation of AIRS MUSES CO profiles with HIPPO, ATom, and NOAA GML aircraft observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 205-223, doi:10.5194/amt-15-205-2022.

Single-footprint retrievals of carbon monoxide from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) are evaluated using aircraft in situ observations. The aircraft data are from the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO, 2009– 2011), the first three Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom, 2016–2017) campaigns, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML) Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network aircraft program in years 2006–2017. The retrievals are obtained using an optimal estimation approach within the MUlti-SpEctra, MUlti-SpEcies, MUlti-SEnsors (MUSES) algorithm. Retrieval biases and estimated errors are evaluated across a range of latitudes from the subpolar to tropical regions over both ocean and land points.

AIRS MUSES CO profiles were compared with HIPPO, ATom, and NOAA GML aircraft observations with a coincidence of 9 h and 50 km to estimate retrieval biases and standard deviations. Comparisons were done for different pressure levels and column averages, latitudes, day, night, land, and ocean observations. We found mean biases of +6.6±4.6 %, +0.6±3.2 %, and −6.1±3.0 % for three representative pressure levels of 750, 510, and 287 hPa, as well as column average mean biases of 1.4 ± 3.6 %. The mean standard deviations for the three representative pressure levels were 15 %, 11 %, and 12 %, and the column average standard deviation was 9 %. Observation errors (theoretical errors) from the retrievals were found to be broadly consistent in magnitude with those estimated empirically from ensembles of satellite aircraft comparisons, but the low values for these observation errors require further investigation. The GML aircraft program comparisons generally had higher standard deviations and biases than the HIPPO and ATom comparisons. Since the GML aircraft flights do not go as high as the HIPPO and ATom flights, results from these GML comparisons are more sensitive to the choice of method for extrapolation of the aircraft profile above the uppermost measurement altitude. The AIRS retrieval performance shows little sensitivity to surface type (land or ocean) or day or night

PDF of Publication: 
Download from publisher's website.
Research Program: 
Tropospheric Composition Program (TCP)