1. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group What are the benefits of geostationary (GEO) measurements for constraining emissions and chemical processes? Answer using pilot demonstrations of high resolution data from in-situ and remote sensing platforms, along with forward and inverse modeling analysis. -assess an expanded suite of topics in 2013 (AOD and HCHO) -target specific questions related to emissions, beyond accounting and beyond GEO lifetime -compare value added of GEO relative to LEO -utilize products from OSSE WGs

2. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group I. Constraining anthropogenic emissions with satellite observations of HCHO Si-Wan Kim, NOAA/CU CIRES Greg Frost, NOAA/CU CIRES Michael Trainer, NOAA Rokjin Park, Seoul National University Simulate and evaluate HCHO in LA Basin for CalNex 2010 Explore sensitivity of LEO and GEO HCHO columns to different emissions inventories, including temporal variability Parallel work using satellite and field observations of NO2 to constrain NOx emissions in California Explore formation of other secondary species (O3, glyoxal) using modeling with field measurements and satellite data

3. WRF-Chem: Sensitivity to Emission Inventories NO 2 columns HCHO columns Glyoxal columns O 3 (PBL)

4. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group II. Constraints on NO2 emissions and chemistry Ron Cohen (UC Berkeley) Sensor array on 2km grid for CO 2, NO 2, O 3, … Nodes deployed on school rooftops a) Use measurements from BEACON to characterize subgrid scale variability of NO 2, CO and other gases http://beacon.berkeley.edu/

5. Cohen-Emissions WG b) Use models and satellite observations to understand links between meteorology and NO x lifetime

6. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group III. Constraints on sector-specific emissions contributions to CH4 Kevin Wecht, Harvard Helen Worden, NCAR John Worden, JPL Nicolas Bousserez, Andre Perkins, Daven Henze CU Boulder Greg Frost, NOAA/CU CIRES Bob Chatfield, NASA AMES

7. OSSEs to evaluate the utility of GEO-CAPE methane observations for constraining North American emissions 1.0 2.0 Can we detect doubling of emissions from natural gas in the western US? How do results compare to traditional LEO capabilities? Step 1: Perturb model natural gas emissions by 2x in west. Step 2: Sample model atmosphere with GEOCAPE obs. operator Step 3: Assimilate pseudo-obs into GEOS-Chem adjoint inversion GEOS-Chem CTM GEOS-Chem Adjoint GEOS-Chem CTM 0.750.0 200 1000 Pressure [hpa] Rows of GEOCAPE averaging kernel matrix 0.1 hPa 954 hPa Perturbed/prior emissions “Observed” enhancement Observation Platform Error reduction in perturbed region Error reduction in North America GEOCAPE88 %96 % TES-like LEO8 %93 % Both GEOCAPE and LEO capture N.A. emissions. Only GEOCAPE locates emissions within the perturbed region. [ppb] Emission error reduction achieved in OSSE

8. Address key questions using new inverse modeling diagnostics. How many emissions have been constrained independently?  Degree Of Freedom for Signal (DOFs) To what extent are different CH4 sources (e.g., natural vs Oil&Gas) constrained independently from each other?  Averaging kernel (or resolution) matrix Example for toy CO2 inversion using pseudo GOSAT data: 0 0.33 0.67 1.00 Self-sensitivity ( ) DOFs=48.6 GOSAT CO 2 monthly observations (2009/07)

9. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group IV. Constraining aerosol sources with geostationary measurements Jun Wang (UNL) Daven Henze (CUB)

10. Constraining aerosol sources with geostationary measurements -radiances from TEMPO and GOES-R estimated for a variaty of different geostationary configurations (e.g., separating angle between the two instruments over North America) -Utilize atmospheric samples from the OSSE group’s WRF-Chem 4 km nature runs. -Aerosol WG activity: estimate the potential for constraining aerosol optical depth and possibly single scattering albedo. -Emissions WG activity: extended to consider the potential for these radiances to constrain emissions using GEOS-Chem adjoint model -Case studies targeting BC emissions from wildfires in the west during 2010/2011 will be targeted. -Ability to constrain aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions using satellite AOD demonstrated in case studies (Wang et al., 2013; Xu et al., submitted). -Global OSSE WG activity: extend to global scales, GEOS-5 nature run, constellation impacts.

11. GEO-CAPE Emissions Working Group V. Constraints from geostationary observations on NH 3 fluxes and associated PM 2.5 concentrations Karen Cady-Peirira (AER Inc.) Jesse Bash (US EPA), Juliet Zhu, Daven Henze (CU Boulder)

12. Constraints from geostationary observations on NH 3 fluxes and associated PM 2.5 concentrations Motivation NH 3 can impact PM 2.5 concentrations by regulating NH 4 NO 3 Elevated aerosol nitrate concentrations linked to treatment of NH 3 sources and sinks NH 3 sources projected to increase, rivaling NO 2 as source of reactive nitrogen deposition in the coming decades Progress hindered by uncertainty in NH 3 fluxes N r tot NO y NH x RCP 8.5 6 4.5 2.6 Fabien Paulot et al., in prep Walker et al., 2012 measured [µg/m 3 ] GEOS-Chem [µg/m 3 ] US CA Paulot et al., 2012

13. Constraints from geostationary observations on NH 3 fluxes and associated PM 2.5 concentrations Motivation NH 3 can impact PM 2.5 concentrations by regulating NH 4 NO 3 Elevated aerosol nitrate concentrations linked to treatment of NH 3 sources and sinks NH 3 sources projected to increase, rivaling NO 2 as source of reactive nitrogen deposition in the coming decades Progress hindered by uncertainty in NH 3 fluxes GEO-CAPE Working Group Activities for 2012 / 2013 Bidirectional air-surface exchange, fertilizer emissions, and diurnal variability of livestock emissions updated in GEOS-Chem and CMAQ Ensembles of model simulations run at 0.5 x 0.667 (GEOS-Chem) and 12 km (CMAQ) with different emissions process configuration. Model fields sampled according to LEO and GEO strategies; pseudo retrievals derived using TES algorithm Differences in pseudo observations show the potential for constraining NH 3 emissions processes using GEO vs LEO remote sensing instruments.

14. TES overpass time Current air quality models do not well represent the diurnal variability of livestock emissions (Jeong et al., submitted; Zhu et al., 2013). Existing NH 3 monitoring networks (2 week average) or remote sensing observations (twice a day) are insufficient to characterize NH 3 diurnal variability. Improved representation of NH 3 diurnal variability impacts reactive nitrogen deposition and particulate formation. High bias in GEOS-Chem aerosol nitrate reduced by up to 1 ug/m3. Workplan: CMAQ and GEOS-Chem & pseudo NH3 GEO-CAPE observations to assess the potential for geostationary measurements to constrain models’ diurnal emissions schemes. 2013 WG: diurnal variability of NH3 emissions

15. -what can we use from the regional and global OSSE groups? -nature runs, averaging kernels -to what extent do we focus on constraints on emissions vs chemical processing, deposition, etc.? can we be the chemistry / emissions WG? -discovery about holes in models (e.g., VOC budget in SJ Valley) -can emissions WG findings help other WGs? What outputs are needed? -how do we adjust our activities to adapt to TEMPO / GCIRI future? - does alignment / positioning / timing impact benefit of collocated measurements? - CO / NOx, CO / VOC correlations, value high & contingent upon CO sensitivity - what lasting knowledge will we have acquired regarding emissions (which are constantly changing) after the lifetime of GEO-CAPE instrument(s)? -Can we be the chemistry / emissions WG? -will we be prepared for inverse modeling capabilities at regional scale (4km) by 2020? -??? Topics for discussion

16. Extra slides

17. Model NO x lifetime vs. wind speed. L Valin et al., GRL 2013

18. Riyadh Low water, less OH, more NO 2 High water, more OH, less NO 2 Valin and Cohen in prep

19. H2OH2O lifetime shorter longer Valin and Cohen in prep

20. WRF-Chem NO 2 columns Los Angeles Basin NO 2 columns (10 15 molec. cm -2 ) LAX Pasadena Fontana Irvine Ontario Riverside 14 LST

21. WRF-Chem: Diurnal variations of NO 2, HCHO, Glyoxal, and O 3 NO 2 columnsHCHO columns Glyoxal columns O 3 (PBL)

22. 2012 WG: will geostationary observations help constraint NH 3 bidirectional fluxes? - NH 3 retrievals were sampled from a CMAQ 4km simulated atmosphere Geostationary retrievals of NH 3 RVMR (ppb). Differences between each source model and base-case: Bidi - Base Bidi-F - Base Bidi-F - Bidi (x) location of TES global survey observations Conclusion: A geostationary instrument could quantify differences in NH 3 concentrations due to changes in the processes governing NH 3 deposition and evasion. Existing remote sensing capabilities can not likely discern such differences. - June 9 th at 13:00, prior to peak difference in modeled NO 3 - on June 10 th - Radiative transfer model with applied noise used to get radiances - “TES like” error characteristics and sensitivities (i.e., A k )

23. 2012 WG: impacts if bidi fluxes of NH 3 sources on NO 3 - Bidi: increased NO 3 at CSN (10%) and IMPROVE (44%) sites Bidi-F (+50% more fertilizer): increased NO 3 at CSN (21%) and IMPROVE (19%) sites Corresponding aerosol NO 3 - with different treatments of NH 3 sources: Comparison to observations: All model cases underestimate NO 3 concentrations Biases were ~10% less at CSN sites and ~20% less at IMPROVE sites in bidi case CSNBaseBidiBidi-F 07/0107/0407/0707/10 Geostationary NH 3 retrievals would be instrumental in testing and evaluating NH 3 air-surface exchange algorithms and emissions inventories. This would better inform policy makers’ assessments of current environmental conditions and identify mitigation strategies for: Conditions leading to nitrate PM episodes Excessive nutrient depositions Conclusions