task 4 - validation: progress meeting 2 r. siddans, b. kerridge, jane hurley stfc rutherford...

26
Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Upload: darren-nelson

Post on 13-Jan-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2

R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane HurleySTFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Page 2: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

WBS

Page 3: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Task Overview

Page 4: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Outline of Talk

• TCCON/MLO L2 Comparisons– TCCON, GOSAT

• MLO Case Study– Mauna Loa in-situ – monthly and interannual dependencies

• Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B– Closest pixels– Inter-pixel and inter-scan angle dependence

• Cloud Contamination– RAL flag, AVHRR, IASI L2

• Summary

Page 5: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

TCCON sites

Page 6: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – CH4 VMRs

f=1+0.0023*(day_since_start_of_2009)/365.25

Page 7: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – CH4 VMRs (day only)

Page 8: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – number of measurements

Page 9: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – errors

Page 10: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – scatterplots

IASI vs. TCCON

Page 11: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – scatterplots

IASI vs. GOSAT

Page 12: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

TCCON/GOSAT L2 Comparisons

IASI vs TCCON & GOSAT – summary

IASI vs. TCCON vs. GOSAT: good correlation (up to 95.5%) between measurements <200 km of TCCON sites, with current IASI retrieval scaled to reflect increase of 0.23%/year of N2O (update in retrieval TBD).

Page 13: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

MLO Case Study

IASI vs MLO – monthly averages

Page 14: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

MLO Case Study

IASI vs MLO – yearly consistency

Page 15: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

MLO Case Study

IASI vs MLO – correlation

Page 16: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

MLO Case Study

IASI vs MLO – monthly averages

N2O fixed

CH4 corrected post-hoc

N2O corrected in retrieval (2010-2011 still running…)

Page 17: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

MLO Case Study

IASI vs MLO – summary

Mauna Loa: fair correlation (63-81%) between Jan. 2008 - Dec.2012 IASI (<200 km of Mauna Loa) and MLO in-situ measurements taken. MLO in-situ dataset is correlated by 70-95% from year-to-year, whereas the IASI dataset correlates between 15%-85% from year-to-year. Inter-annual variability (comparing month-to-month in nearby years) in CH4 at Mauna Loa is about 0.02 ppmv, which is less than the intra-annual variability (about 0.06 ppm).

Page 18: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B

Metop-A vs. Metop-B - nearest-pixel

Page 19: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B

Metop-A vs. Metop-B – retrieval products

Page 20: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B

Metop-A vs. Metop-B – pixel dependence

CH4 concentrations Other retrieved parameters

Day/night ocean/land separated

Page 21: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B

Metop-A vs. Metop-B – scan angle dependence

CH4 concentrations Other retrieved parameters

Day/night, ocean/land separated

Page 22: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Pixel/Scan Dependence Metop-A/-B

Metop-A vs. Metop-B – summary

Retrieval products: Pixel-by-pixel analysis shows that 82% of collocated Metop-A and –B measurements gave retrieved CH4 within retrieval error of each other, with a 70% correlation overall. The global distribution analysis showed that the mean difference globally between Metop-A and –B distributions was less than 0.00017 ppmv with a standard deviation of less than 0.008 ppmv.

Products consistency: Slight dependence between IASI pixels/scan angles and the retrieval products (0.008 ppmv and 0.007 ppmv respectively). Error on individual retrievals ~0.03 ppmv, but many individual retrievals averaged in this analysis.

Page 23: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Cloud ContaminationComparison of different flags

Page 24: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Cloud ContaminationStratification with cloud fraction

Page 25: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Cloud ContaminationSummary

The effect of cloud contamination on the retrieved concentrations of CH4 assessed using • the cloud fraction retrieved within the RAL retrieval • the cloud fractions from AVHRR/3• the cloud fraction from IASI L2 products.

The three sets of cloud fractions are uncorrelated.

The concentration of retrieved CH4 generally becomes increasingly scattered over the full 1.65-1.85 ppmv range as the cloud fraction increases, with the average retrieved CH4 column-average VMR unchanged from 1.75 for all cloud fractions.

Page 26: Task 4 - Validation: Progress Meeting 2 R. Siddans, B. Kerridge, Jane Hurley STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

• TCCON & GOSAT L2 comparison (up to 96% correlation)• MLO case study: fair correlation IASI/MLO (63-81%).

- interannual variability 0.02 ppmv - intra-annual variability 0.06 ppmv

• Retrieval products: Pixel-by-pixel analysis shows that 82% of collocated Metop-A and –B measurements gave retrieved CH4 within retrieval error of each other, with a 70% correlation overall

• Product consistency: Slight dependence between IASI pixels/scan angles and the retrieval products (0.008 ppmv and 0.007 ppmv respectively). Error on individual retrievals ~0.03 ppmv, but many individual retrievals averaged in this analysis.

• Cloud contamination: increases scatter on retrieved CH4, but doesn’t alter mean XVMR retrieved.

Summary