The new Pandora total ozone algorithm including the retrieval of

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

KNMI Ozone Satellite Observations

Advertisements

18th OMI Science Team Meeting

Algorithm improvements for Dutch OMI NO2 retrievals (towards v3.0)

WP 3: Absorbing Aerosol Index (AAI) WP 10: Level-1 validation L.G. Tilstra 1, I. Aben 2, and P. Stammes 1 1 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

An update on Brewer Umkehr retrievals Dr. Irina Petropavlovskikh, ESRL/CIRES, Boulder, CO Bob Evans, NOAA/ESRL Patrick Disterhoft, ESRL/CIRES Kathy Lantz,

Presentation on OMPS Nadir Mapper Wavelength Shift Adjustment for Earth-view Measurements.

ASCO WG on ozone cross sections Ground based measurements of total ozone Alkis Bais (on behalf of the ASCO WG) 9/26/2013COST ES12017, Manchester,

Results from the OMPS Nadir Instruments on Suomi NPP Satellite

Data assimilation of trace gases in a regional chemical transport model: the impact on model forecasts E. Emili 1, O. Pannekoucke 1,2, E. Jaumouillé 2,

Institut für Umweltphysik/Fernerkundung Physik/Elektrotechnik Fachbereich 1 Retrieval of SCIAMACHY limb measurements: First Results A. Rozanov, V. Rozanov,

CPI International UV/Vis Limb Workshop Bremen, April Development of Generalized Limb Scattering Retrieval Algorithms Jerry Lumpe & Ed Cólon.

Xiong Liu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics December 20, 2004 Direct Tropospheric Ozone Retrieval from GOME.

Single-Channel Speech Enhancement in Both White and Colored Noise Xin Lei Xiao Li Han Yan June 5, 2002.

Extracting Atmospheric and Surface Information from AVIRIS Spectra Vijay Natraj, Daniel Feldman, Xun Jiang, Jack Margolis and Yuk Yung California Institute.

KNMI, The Netherlands * SCIAMACHY validation workshop, Bremen, 6 Dec ‘04 Large scale validation of SCIAMACHY nadir reflectance Gijs van.

1 Global Observations of Sulfur Dioxide from GOME Xiong Liu 1, Kelly Chance 1, Neil Moore 2, Randall V. Martin 1,2, and Dylan Jones 3 1 Harvard-Smithsonian.

Cirrus Cloud Boundaries from the Moisture Profile Q-6: HS Sounder Constituent Profiling Capabilities W. Smith 1,2, B. Pierce 3, and Z. Chen 2 1 University.

Brewer Ozone Spectrophotometer Internal Stray Light Issues Vladimir Savastiouk Tom McElroy Some points for discussion.

Anna Serdyuchenko, Victor Gorshelev, Mark Weber John P. Burrows University of Bremen, Institute for Environmental Physics OSU, Columbus OH, USA1.

Cloud algorithms and applications for TEMPO Joanna Joiner, Alexander Vasilkov, Nick Krotkov, Sergey Marchenko, Eun-Su Yang, Sunny Choi (NASA GSFC)

Occurrence of TOMS V7 Level-2 Ozone Anomalies over Cloudy Areas Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 and Jae Kim 1,3 1. Department of Atmospheric Science,

1 Detection and Determination of Channel Frequency Shift in AMSU-A Observations Cheng-Zhi Zou and Wenhui Wang IGARSS 2011, Vancouver, Canada, July 24-28,

Elena Spinei and George Mount Washington State University 1 CINDI workshop March 2010.

Page 1 Validation by Model Assimilation and/or Satellite Intercomparison - ESRIN 9–13 December 2002 Validation of ENVISAT trace gas data products by comparison.

Direct Sun measurements of NO 2 column abundances from Table Mountain, California: Retrieval method and intercomparison of low and high resolution spectrometers.

A. Bracher, L. N. Lamsal, M. Weber, J. P. Burrows University of Bremen, FB 1, Institute of Environmental Physics, P O Box , D Bremen, Germany.

SAO OMI formaldehyde, water vapor and glyoxal retrievals Gonzalo Gonzalez Abad Helen Wang Christopher Miller Kelly Chance Xiong Liu Thomas Kurosu OMI Science.

Research Vignette: The TransCom3 Time-Dependent Global CO 2 Flux Inversion … and More David F. Baker NCAR 12 July 2007 David F. Baker NCAR 12 July 2007.

Satellite-based inversion of NOx emissions using the adjoint of CMAQ Amir Hakami, John H. Seinfeld (Caltech) Qinbin Li (JPL) Daewon W. Byun, Violeta Coarfa,

Satellite and Ground-based Total Column Ozone Comparisons- Latest Results and Remaining Issues Gordon Labow 1, Rich McPeters 2, P.K. Bhartia 2 1 =Science.

Measuring UV aerosol absorption. Why is aerosol UV absorption important ? Change in boundary layer ozone mixing ratios as a result of direct aerosol forcing.

Validation of SCIAMACHY total ozone: ESA/DLR V5(W) and IUP WFDOAS V2(W) M. Weber, S. Dikty, J. P.Burrows, M. Coldewey-Egbers (1), V. E. Fioletov (2), S.

Slide 1 NATO UNCLASSIFIEDMeeting title – Location - Date Satellite Inter-calibration of MODIS and VIIRS sensors Preliminary results A. Alvarez, G. Pennucci,

Comparison of OMI NO 2 with Ground-based Direct Sun Measurements at NASA GSFC and JPL Table Mountain during Summer 2007 George H. Mount & Elena Spinei.

Automated Fitting of High-Resolution Spectra of HAeBe stars Improving fundamental parameters Jason Grunhut Queen’s University/RMC.

A Long Term Data Record of the Ozone Vertical Distribution IN43B-1150 by Richard McPeters 1, Stacey Frith 2, and Val Soika 3 1) NASA GSFC

OZONE PRODUCTS S5P Verification Workshop 20/05/2015 MPIC, Mainz.

Evaluation of OMI total column ozone with four different algorithms SAO OE, NASA TOMS, KNMI OE/DOAS Juseon Bak 1, Jae H. Kim 1, Xiong Liu 2 1 Pusan National.

Trace gas algorithms for TEMPO G. Gonzalez Abad 1, X. Liu 1, C. Miller 1, H. Wang 1, C. Nowlan 2 and K. Chance 1 1 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

C. Lerot 1, M. Koukouli 2, T. Danckaert 1, D. Balis 2, and M. Van Roozendael 1 1 BIRA-IASB, Belgium 2 LAP/AUTH, Greece S5P L2 Verification Meeting – 19-20/05/2015.

TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 1. Scattering Phase Function Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert Loughman.

Limb Retrieval at IFE/IUP in Bremen Working team: A. Rozanov, K.-U. Eichmann, C. v. Savigny, J. Kaiser Tests based on level 0 data Normalisation by –Solar.

Recent Solar Irradiance Data From SBUV/2 and OMI Matthew DeLand and Sergey Marchenko Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI) SOLID WP-2 Workshop.

Kelly Chance Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Xiong Liu, Christopher Sioris, Robert Spurr, Thomas Kurosu, Randall Martin,

1 Xiong Liu Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics K.V. Chance, C.E. Sioris, R.J.D. Spurr, T.P. Kurosu, R.V. Martin, M.J. Newchurch,

Retrieval of cloud parameters from the new sensor generation satellite multispectral measurement F. ROMANO and V. CUOMO ITSC-XII Lorne, Victoria, Australia.

TOMS Ozone Retrieval Sensitivity to Assumption of Lambertian Cloud Surface Part 2. In-cloud Multiple Scattering Xiong Liu, 1 Mike Newchurch, 1,2 Robert.

March 21, ‘06 comp. May 5, ‘06 comp Summary ~4% swath angle dependent difference Up to 9% difference over clouds Differences correlate with snow/ice.

OMI Total Column Ozone compared with the Suomi NPP OMPS Mapper OMI Science Team Meeting, De Bilt, Netherlands 31 August – 2 September, 2015 Richard McPeters.

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Requirements Consolidation of the Near-Infrared Channel of the GMES-Sentinel-5 UVNS Instrument: Initial trade-off: Height-resolved.

VFISV update and effects of the variation of HMI filter profiles on the inversions R. Centeno and S. Tomczyk Rebecca Centeno SDO SWG meeting -- Sept 9,

OMI BSDF Validation Using Antarctic and Greenland Ice Glen Jaross and Jeremy Warner Science Systems and Applications, Inc. Lanham, Maryland, USA Outline.

Bayesian Conditional Random Fields using Power EP Tom Minka Joint work with Yuan Qi and Martin Szummer.

Group Presentation, July 17, 2013

G. Mevi1,2, G. Muscari1, P. P. Bertagnolio1, I. Fiorucci1

V2.0 minus V2.5 RSAS Tangent Height Difference Orbit 3761

Quantifying uncertainties of OMI NO2 data

COS FUV Flat Fields and Signal-to-Noise Characteristics

Meteorological Satellite Center Japan Meteorological Agency

Requirements Consolidation of the Near-Infrared Channel of the GMES-Sentinel-5 UVNS Instrument: FP, 25 April 2014, ESTEC Height-resolved aerosol R.Siddans.

G. Mevi1,2, G. Muscari1, P. P. Bertagnolio1, I. Fiorucci1

INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING

Randall Martin, Daniel Jacob, Jennifer Logan, Paul Palmer

Component decomposition of IASI measurements

Example of PCR, interpretation of calibration equations

Impact of approximations in the recommended Dobson algorithm on total column ozone measurements at four Australian sites M.B. Tully 1 1 Bureau of Meteorology,

Monitoring and assimilation of SCIAMACHY data at ECMWF

Retrieval of SO2 Vertical Columns from SCIAMACHY and OMI: Air Mass Factor Algorithm Development and Validation Chulkyu Lee, Aaron van Dokelaar, Gray O’Byrne:

Ozone Comparison between Pandora #34, the Dobson #061, OMI, and OMPS at Boulder Colorado for the period December 2013 – June J. Herman, R Evans,

TEMPO and PANDORA Pandcora observations of NO2 when clouds are present

Presentation transcript:

The new Pandora total ozone algorithm including the retrieval of effective ozone temperature Martin Tiefengraber, Alexander Cede

TO3 difference Pandora vs. OMI Langley, Virginia (38.9, -77.2) OMI: OMTO3 v8.5 Pandora standard TO3 OMI - Pandora Seasonal cycle ~ -10 to + 10 DU Temperature?

Pandora standard TO3 algorithm Fitting window: 310 to 330 nm Background poly: 4 Offset poly: 0 XSec: Brion / Daumont / Malicet (BDM) 225 K Absorption free reference (theoretical reference)

Include TEff fit TEff fit fails Reasons: Spectral stray light No absolute calibration spectral feature due to stray light what to say about absolute calibration

“Synthetic” ozone-free reference including TEff fit SC 528 DU TEff 221 K Reference: take noon time data and add estimated SC and TEff. Only unique set of SC and TEff SC 307 DU TEff 228 K How do we know SC and TEff values? Auto-Cross-Calibration

Auto-Cross-Calibration ∆TEff +5 K ∆TEff 0 K ∆SC +5 DU ∆SC + 0 K ∆SC + 5 K ∆SC 0 K First guess SC = theoretical reference First guess TEff = 225K Minimize difference between: Day1(refDay1) and Day1(refDay2) up to now: cumbersome iterative approach

Theoretical and synthetic reference Theoretical reference and best guess synthetic reference What about additional noise due to TEff fitting?

Additional noise when including TEff fit Additional noise due to TEff fit: from ~ 1.2 DU to ~ 1.6 DU Enhanced point to point variation ↔ TEff variation Single points retrieval possible no actual noise estimation!

TO3 difference Pandora vs. OMI I Pandora TO3 retrieval with TEffO3 from TOMS climatology Seasonal cycle: ~ -10 to +10 ~ -9 to +5 Note: TOMS v8.5 doesn’t use ozone weighted temperature. Instead a Beers law approximation for each layer is applied and the radiance sensitivity is computed.

TO3 difference Pandora vs. OMI II Pandora TO3 retrieval with TEffO3 fitted Seasonal cycle ~ -10 to +10 ~ -9 to +5 ~ -9 to +7

TO3 difference Pandora vs. OMI III TEff based on: TOMS O3 profile (with TO3 corrected) fixed temperature climatology NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis: actual temperature profile fixed O3 profile (US std. atmos.)

Conclusions / What’s next? Season cycle (TO3 OMI-Pandora) cannot be explained by temperature only New field calibration method applied “Auto-Cross-Calibration” TEff retrieval reasonable (single points retrieval) TO3 + TEff retrieval with theoretical reference Spectral stray light correction (matrix method) Absolute calibration

Thank you very much !

Side note: effect of O3 absorption cross section TO3(Serdyuchenko) > TO3(BDM) TEffO3(Serdyuchenko) TEffO3(BDM)

Backup slide: definition TEff TEff= i=1 N T i ∗ n O3, i i=1 N n O3, i