Science Panel Perspective Aircraft Profiling

Aircraft Profiling: What have we learned for TEMPO validation? NO2 (ppb) Altitude (m asl) 500 Milwaukee NO2 plumes can be at very low altitudes over water 10s of meters above the lake Challenging for TEMPO to measure (& for aircraft profiling) GeoTASO did seem to “see” the NO2 off Milwaukee Plume from Chicago GeoTASO captured a narrow power plant plume very well At 200-400 meters above land Plume is 10-30 m thick with NO2 up to 23 ppb Still need to do quantitative comparisons

Science Panel Perspective Aircraft Profiling What have we learned for TEMPO validation? (cont’d) UAV during OWLETS: high ozone near the surface (John Sullivan) Lack of vertical information from satellites can limits its usefulness (Mike Newchurch & Jay Al-Saadi) Options: Need to get at near-surface ozone Supplemental approaches: field campaigns versus sustained measurements, possibly in combination with models How would TEMPO have been used to support the campaigns? High temporal resolution: column measurements from each hour of a flight Good spatial coverage: put flight measurements into larger regional context Track plumes as they’re transported How do we design special TEMPO observations for focused field campaigns? Try to get better spatial resolution over small areas How do we link diurnally resolved columns to boundary layer dynamics? How do we expand NO2 validation efforts to HCHO and O3 ?