skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO 2 and XCH 4 with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data

Abstract

We describe a method for removing systematic biases of column-averaged dry air mole fractions of CO 2 (XCO 2) and CH 4 (XCH 4) derived from short-wavelength infrared (SWIR) spectra of the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT). We conduct correlation analyses between the GOSAT biases and simultaneously retrieved auxiliary parameters. We use these correlations to bias correct the GOSAT data, removing these spurious correlations. Data from the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) were used as reference values for this regression analysis. To evaluate the effectiveness of this correction method, the uncorrected/corrected GOSAT data were compared to independent XCO 2 and XCH 4 data derived from aircraft measurements taken for the Comprehensive Observation Network for TRace gases by AIrLiner (CONTRAIL) project, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole observations (HIPPO) program, and the GOSAT validation aircraft observation campaign over Japan. These comparisons demonstrate that the empirically derived bias correction improves the agreement between GOSAT XCO 2/XCH 4 and the aircraft data. Finally, we present spatial distributions and temporal variations of the derived GOSAT biases.

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [4];  [5];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10];  [10];  [11];  [11] more »;  [12];  [12];  [13];  [13];  [14];  [15];  [15];  [16];  [16];  [17];  [10];  [18];  [18];  [19];  [2];  [20];  [20];  [20];  [21];  [21];  [21];  [22];  [23];  [24];  [25];  [26] « less
  1. National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba (Japan); Akita Prefectural Univ., Akita (Japan)
  2. National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba (Japan)
  3. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States); Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, ON (Canada)
  4. California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
  5. Univ. of Wollongong, NSW (Australia)
  6. Univ. of Wollongong, NSW (Australia); Univ. of Bremen, Bremen (Germany)
  7. Univ. of Bremen, Bremen (Germany)
  8. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder (New Zealand)
  9. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder (New Zealand); Lab. de Meteorologie Dynamique, Palaiseau (France)
  10. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe (Germany)
  11. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen (Germany)
  12. Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Sodankyla (Finland)
  13. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Tsukuba (Japan)
  14. Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (IASB-BIRA), Brussels (Belgium)
  15. Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (MPI-BGC), Jena (Germany)
  16. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN (United States)
  17. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
  18. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (United States)
  19. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (United States); Bey Area Environmental Research Institute, Petaluma, CA (United States)
  20. Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Tsukuba (Japan)
  21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Boulder, CO (United States)
  22. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
  23. Japan Meteorological Agency, Tokyo (Japan)
  24. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA (United States)
  25. Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, CA (United States); California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States); Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (United States)
  26. National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba (Japan); Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Tsukuba (Japan); NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER) (SC-23)
OSTI Identifier:
1379543
Grant/Contract Number:
AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (Online)
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Name: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (Online); Journal Volume: 9; Journal Issue: 8; Journal ID: ISSN 1867-8548
Publisher:
European Geosciences Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Inoue, Makoto, Morino, Isamu, Uchino, Osamu, Nakatsuru, Takahiro, Yoshida, Yukio, Yokota, Tatsuya, Wunch, Debra, Wennberg, Paul O., Roehl, Coleen M., Griffith, David W. T., Velazco, Voltaire A., Deutscher, Nicholas M., Warneke, Thorsten, Notholt, Justus, Robinson, John, Sherlock, Vanessa, Hase, Frank, Blumenstock, Thomas, Rettinger, Markus, Sussmann, Ralf, Kyro, Esko, Kivi, Rigel, Shiomi, Kei, Kawakami, Shuji, De Maziere, Martine, Arnold, Sabrina G., Feist, Dietrich G., Barrow, Erica A., Barney, James, Dubey, Manvendra, Schneider, Matthias, Iraci, Laura T., Podolske, James R., Hillyard, Patrick W., Machida, Toshinobu, Sawa, Yousuke, Tsuboi, Kazuhiro, Matsueda, Hidekazu, Sweeney, Colm, Tans, Pieter P., Andrews, Arlyn E., Biraud, Sebastien C., Fukuyama, Yukio, Pittman, Jasna V., Kort, Eric A., and Tanaka, Tomoaki. Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO2 and XCH4 with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.5194/amt-9-3491-2016.
Inoue, Makoto, Morino, Isamu, Uchino, Osamu, Nakatsuru, Takahiro, Yoshida, Yukio, Yokota, Tatsuya, Wunch, Debra, Wennberg, Paul O., Roehl, Coleen M., Griffith, David W. T., Velazco, Voltaire A., Deutscher, Nicholas M., Warneke, Thorsten, Notholt, Justus, Robinson, John, Sherlock, Vanessa, Hase, Frank, Blumenstock, Thomas, Rettinger, Markus, Sussmann, Ralf, Kyro, Esko, Kivi, Rigel, Shiomi, Kei, Kawakami, Shuji, De Maziere, Martine, Arnold, Sabrina G., Feist, Dietrich G., Barrow, Erica A., Barney, James, Dubey, Manvendra, Schneider, Matthias, Iraci, Laura T., Podolske, James R., Hillyard, Patrick W., Machida, Toshinobu, Sawa, Yousuke, Tsuboi, Kazuhiro, Matsueda, Hidekazu, Sweeney, Colm, Tans, Pieter P., Andrews, Arlyn E., Biraud, Sebastien C., Fukuyama, Yukio, Pittman, Jasna V., Kort, Eric A., & Tanaka, Tomoaki. Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO2 and XCH4 with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data. United States. doi:10.5194/amt-9-3491-2016.
Inoue, Makoto, Morino, Isamu, Uchino, Osamu, Nakatsuru, Takahiro, Yoshida, Yukio, Yokota, Tatsuya, Wunch, Debra, Wennberg, Paul O., Roehl, Coleen M., Griffith, David W. T., Velazco, Voltaire A., Deutscher, Nicholas M., Warneke, Thorsten, Notholt, Justus, Robinson, John, Sherlock, Vanessa, Hase, Frank, Blumenstock, Thomas, Rettinger, Markus, Sussmann, Ralf, Kyro, Esko, Kivi, Rigel, Shiomi, Kei, Kawakami, Shuji, De Maziere, Martine, Arnold, Sabrina G., Feist, Dietrich G., Barrow, Erica A., Barney, James, Dubey, Manvendra, Schneider, Matthias, Iraci, Laura T., Podolske, James R., Hillyard, Patrick W., Machida, Toshinobu, Sawa, Yousuke, Tsuboi, Kazuhiro, Matsueda, Hidekazu, Sweeney, Colm, Tans, Pieter P., Andrews, Arlyn E., Biraud, Sebastien C., Fukuyama, Yukio, Pittman, Jasna V., Kort, Eric A., and Tanaka, Tomoaki. 2016. "Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO2 and XCH4 with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data". United States. doi:10.5194/amt-9-3491-2016. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1379543.
@article{osti_1379543,
title = {Bias corrections of GOSAT SWIR XCO2 and XCH4 with TCCON data and their evaluation using aircraft measurement data},
author = {Inoue, Makoto and Morino, Isamu and Uchino, Osamu and Nakatsuru, Takahiro and Yoshida, Yukio and Yokota, Tatsuya and Wunch, Debra and Wennberg, Paul O. and Roehl, Coleen M. and Griffith, David W. T. and Velazco, Voltaire A. and Deutscher, Nicholas M. and Warneke, Thorsten and Notholt, Justus and Robinson, John and Sherlock, Vanessa and Hase, Frank and Blumenstock, Thomas and Rettinger, Markus and Sussmann, Ralf and Kyro, Esko and Kivi, Rigel and Shiomi, Kei and Kawakami, Shuji and De Maziere, Martine and Arnold, Sabrina G. and Feist, Dietrich G. and Barrow, Erica A. and Barney, James and Dubey, Manvendra and Schneider, Matthias and Iraci, Laura T. and Podolske, James R. and Hillyard, Patrick W. and Machida, Toshinobu and Sawa, Yousuke and Tsuboi, Kazuhiro and Matsueda, Hidekazu and Sweeney, Colm and Tans, Pieter P. and Andrews, Arlyn E. and Biraud, Sebastien C. and Fukuyama, Yukio and Pittman, Jasna V. and Kort, Eric A. and Tanaka, Tomoaki},
abstractNote = {We describe a method for removing systematic biases of column-averaged dry air mole fractions of CO2 (XCO2) and CH4 (XCH4) derived from short-wavelength infrared (SWIR) spectra of the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT). We conduct correlation analyses between the GOSAT biases and simultaneously retrieved auxiliary parameters. We use these correlations to bias correct the GOSAT data, removing these spurious correlations. Data from the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) were used as reference values for this regression analysis. To evaluate the effectiveness of this correction method, the uncorrected/corrected GOSAT data were compared to independent XCO2 and XCH4 data derived from aircraft measurements taken for the Comprehensive Observation Network for TRace gases by AIrLiner (CONTRAIL) project, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole observations (HIPPO) program, and the GOSAT validation aircraft observation campaign over Japan. These comparisons demonstrate that the empirically derived bias correction improves the agreement between GOSAT XCO2/XCH4 and the aircraft data. Finally, we present spatial distributions and temporal variations of the derived GOSAT biases.},
doi = {10.5194/amt-9-3491-2016},
journal = {Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (Online)},
number = 8,
volume = 9,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 8
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Save / Share:
  • Consistent validation of satellite CO 2 estimates is a prerequisite for using multiple satellite CO 2 measurements for joint flux inversion, and for establishing an accurate long-term atmospheric CO 2 data record. We focus on validating model and satellite observation attributes that impact flux estimates and CO 2 assimilation, including accurate error estimates, correlated and random errors, overall biases, biases by season and latitude, the impact of coincidence criteria, validation of seasonal cycle phase and amplitude, yearly growth, and daily variability. We evaluate dry air mole fraction (X CO 2) for GOSAT (ACOS b3.5) and SCIAMACHY (BESD v2.00.08) as wellmore » as the CarbonTracker (CT2013b) simulated CO 2 mole fraction fields and the MACC CO 2 inversion system (v13.1) and compare these to TCCON observations (GGG2014). We find standard deviations of 0.9 ppm, 0.9, 1.7, and 2.1 ppm versus TCCON for CT2013b, MACC, GOSAT, and SCIAMACHY, respectively, with the single target errors 1.9 and 0.9 times the predicted errors for GOSAT and SCIAMACHY, respectively. When satellite data are averaged and interpreted according to error 2 = a 2+ b 2 / n (where n are the number of observations averaged, a are the systematic (correlated) errors, and b are the random (uncorrelated) errors), we find that the correlated error term a = 0.6 ppm and the uncorrelated error term b = 1.7 ppm for GOSAT and a = 1.0 ppm, b = 1.4 ppm for SCIAMACHY regional averages. Biases at individual stations have year-to-year variability of ~ 0.3 ppm, with biases larger than the TCCON predicted bias uncertainty of 0.4 ppm at many stations. Using fitting software, we find that GOSAT underpredicts the seasonal cycle amplitude in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) between 46–53° N. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), CT2013b underestimates the seasonal cycle amplitude. Biases are calculated for 3-month intervals and indicate the months that contribute to the observed amplitude differences. The seasonal cycle phase indicates whether a dataset or model lags another dataset in time. We calculate this at a subset of stations where there is adequate satellite data, and find that the GOSAT retrieved phase improves substantially over the prior and the SCIAMACHY retrieved phase improves substantially for 2 of 7 sites. The models reproduce the measured seasonal cycle phase well except for at Lauder125 (CT2013b), Darwin (MACC), and Izana (+ 10 days, CT2013b), as for Bremen and Four Corners, which are highly influenced by local effects. We compare the variability within one day between TCCON and models in JJA; there is correlation between 0.2 and 0.8 in the NH, with models showing 10–100 % the variability of TCCON at different stations (except Bremen and Four Corners which have no variability compared to TCCON) and CT2013b showing more variability than MACC. This paper highlights findings that provide inputs to estimate flux errors in model assimilations, and places where models and satellites need further investigation, e.g. the SH for models and 45–67° N for GOSAT« less
  • We use 2009–2011 space-borne methane observations from the Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) to estimate global and North American methane emissions with 4° × 5° and up to 50 km × 50 km spatial resolution, respectively. GEOS-Chem and GOSAT data are first evaluated with atmospheric methane observations from surface and tower networks (NOAA/ESRL, TCCON) and aircraft (NOAA/ESRL, HIPPO), using the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model as a platform to facilitate comparison of GOSAT with in situ data. This identifies a high-latitude bias between the GOSAT data and GEOS-Chem that we correct via quadratic regression. Our global adjoint-based inversion yields a totalmore » methane source of 539 Tg a −1 with some important regional corrections to the EDGARv4.2 inventory used as a prior. Results serve as dynamic boundary conditions for an analytical inversion of North American methane emissions using radial basis functions to achieve high resolution of large sources and provide error characterization. We infer a US anthropogenic methane source of 40.2–42.7 Tg a -1, as compared to 24.9–27.0 Tg a -1 in the EDGAR and EPA bottom-up inventories, and 30.0–44.5 Tg a -1 in recent inverse studies. Our estimate is supported by independent surface and aircraft data and by previous inverse studies for California. We find that the emissions are highest in the southern–central US, the Central Valley of California, and Florida wetlands; large isolated point sources such as the US Four Corners also contribute. Using prior information on source locations, we attribute 29–44 % of US anthropogenic methane emissions to livestock, 22–31 % to oil/gas, 20 % to landfills/wastewater, and 11–15 % to coal. Wetlands contribute an additional 9.0–10.1 Tg a -1.« less
  • We use 2009–2011 space-borne methane observations from the Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) to estimate global and North American methane emissions with 4° × 5° and up to 50 km × 50 km spatial resolution, respectively. GEOS-Chem and GOSAT data are first evaluated with atmospheric methane observations from surface and tower networks (NOAA/ESRL, TCCON) and aircraft (NOAA/ESRL, HIPPO), using the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model as a platform to facilitate comparison of GOSAT with in situ data. This identifies a high-latitude bias between the GOSAT data and GEOS-Chem that we correct via quadratic regression. Our global adjoint-based inversion yields a totalmore » methane source of 539 Tg a −1 with some important regional corrections to the EDGARv4.2 inventory used as a prior. Results serve as dynamic boundary conditions for an analytical inversion of North American methane emissions using radial basis functions to achieve high resolution of large sources and provide error characterization. We infer a US anthropogenic methane source of 40.2–42.7 Tg a -1, as compared to 24.9–27.0 Tg a -1 in the EDGAR and EPA bottom-up inventories, and 30.0–44.5 Tg a -1 in recent inverse studies. Our estimate is supported by independent surface and aircraft data and by previous inverse studies for California. We find that the emissions are highest in the southern–central US, the Central Valley of California, and Florida wetlands; large isolated point sources such as the US Four Corners also contribute. Using prior information on source locations, we attribute 29–44 % of US anthropogenic methane emissions to livestock, 22–31 % to oil/gas, 20 % to landfills/wastewater, and 11–15 % to coal. Wetlands contribute an additional 9.0–10.1 Tg a -1.« less
    Cited by 39