1. Science Panel Perspective
Aircraft Profiling

2. 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 meters above land
Plume is m thick with NO2 up to 23 ppb
Still need to do quantitative comparisons

3. 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 ?