4.7 Article

Spatial Retrievals of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from Satellite Observations

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13040571

Keywords

OCO-2; OCO-3; carbon dioxide; retrieval techniques; spatial correlation; inverse modeling

Funding

  1. Orbiting Carbon Observatory2/3 (OCO-2/3) missions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a spatial statistical framework for simultaneous multi-footprint retrievals of carbon dioxide (CO2). The method includes spatial correlation across different elements of the state vector, resulting in improved posterior inferences and reduced retrieval error correlation across locations.
Modern remote-sensing retrievals often invoke a Bayesian approach to infer atmospheric properties from observed radiances. In this approach, plausible mean states and variability for the quantities of interest are encoded in a prior distribution. Recent developments have devised prior assumptions for the correlation among atmospheric constituents and across observing locations. This work formulates a spatial statistical framework for simultaneous multi-footprint retrievals of carbon dioxide (CO2) with application to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2/3 (OCO-2/3). Formally, the retrieval state vector is extended to include atmospheric and surface conditions at many footprints in a small region, and a prior distribution that assumes spatial correlation across these locations is assumed. This spatial prior allows the length-scale, or range, of spatial correlation to vary between different elements of the state vector. Various single- and multi-footprint retrievals are compared in a simulation study. A spatial prior that also includes relatively large prior variances for CO2 results in posterior inferences that most accurately represent the true state and that reduce the correlation in retrieval error across locations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available