4.5 Article

The operational methane retrieval algorithm for TROPOMI

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 5423-5440

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-5423-2016

关键词

-

资金

  1. TROPOMI national programme from the Netherlands Space Office (NSO)
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [BU2599/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents the operational methane retrieval algorithm for the Sentinel 5 Precursor (S5P) satellite and its performance tested on realistic ensembles of simulated measurements. The target product is the column-averaged dry air volume mixing ratio of methane (XCH4), which will be retrieved simultaneously with scattering properties of the atmosphere. The algorithm attempts to fit spectra observed by the shortwave and near-infrared channels of the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) spectrometer aboard S5P. The sensitivity of the retrieval performance to atmospheric scattering properties, atmospheric input data and instrument calibration errors is evaluated. In addition, we investigate the effect of inhomogeneous slit illumination on the instrument spectral response function. Finally, we discuss the cloud filters to be used operationally and as backup. We show that the required accuracy and precision of < 1% for the XCH4 product are met for clear-sky measurements over land surfaces and after appropriate filtering of difficult scenes. The algorithm is very stable, having a convergence rate of 99 %. The forward model error is less than 1% for about 95% of the valid retrievals. Model errors in the input profile of water do not influence the retrieval outcome noticeably. The methane product is expected to meet the requirements if errors in input profiles of pressure and temperature remain below 0.3% and 2 K, respectively. We further find that, of all instrument calibration errors investigated here, our retrievals are the most sensitive to an error in the instrument spectral response function of the shortwave infrared channel.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据