Articles | Volume 10, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2759-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2759-2017
Research article
 | 
31 Jul 2017
Research article |  | 31 Jul 2017

Evaluation and attribution of OCO-2 XCO2 uncertainties

John R. Worden, Gary Doran, Susan Kulawik, Annmarie Eldering, David Crisp, Christian Frankenberg, Chris O'Dell, and Kevin Bowman

Related authors

Characterization and evaluation of AIRS-based estimates of the deuterium content of water vapor
John R. Worden, Susan S. Kulawik, Dejian Fu, Vivienne H. Payne, Alan E. Lipton, Igor Polonsky, Yuguang He, Karen Cady-Pereira, Jean-Luc Moncet, Robert L. Herman, Fredrick W. Irion, and Kevin W. Bowman
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 2331–2339, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2331-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2331-2019, 2019
Short summary
Quantifying lower tropospheric methane concentrations using GOSAT near-IR and TES thermal IR measurements
J. R. Worden, A. J. Turner, A. Bloom, S. S. Kulawik, J. Liu, M. Lee, R. Weidner, K. Bowman, C. Frankenberg, R. Parker, and V. H. Payne
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 3433–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3433-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3433-2015, 2015
Short summary
CH4 and CO distributions over tropical fires during October 2006 as observed by the Aura TES satellite instrument and modeled by GEOS-Chem
J. Worden, K. Wecht, C. Frankenberg, M. Alvarado, K. Bowman, E. Kort, S. Kulawik, M. Lee, V. Payne, and H. Worden
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3679–3692, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3679-2013,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3679-2013, 2013

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: Remote Sensing | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
First evaluation of the GEMS glyoxal products against TROPOMI and ground-based measurements
Eunjo S. Ha, Rokjin J. Park, Hyeong-Ahn Kwon, Gitaek T. Lee, Sieun D. Lee, Seunga Shin, Dong-Won Lee, Hyunkee Hong, Christophe Lerot, Isabelle De Smedt, Thomas Danckaert, Francois Hendrick, and Hitoshi Irie
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6369–6384, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6369-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6369-2024, 2024
Short summary
Validation of GEMS tropospheric NO2 columns and their diurnal variation with ground-based DOAS measurements
Kezia Lange, Andreas Richter, Tim Bösch, Bianca Zilker, Miriam Latsch, Lisa K. Behrens, Chisom M. Okafor, Hartmut Bösch, John P. Burrows, Alexis Merlaud, Gaia Pinardi, Caroline Fayt, Martina M. Friedrich, Ermioni Dimitropoulou, Michel Van Roozendael, Steffen Ziegler, Simona Ripperger-Lukosiunaite, Leon Kuhn, Bianca Lauster, Thomas Wagner, Hyunkee Hong, Donghee Kim, Lim-Seok Chang, Kangho Bae, Chang-Keun Song, Jong-Uk Park, and Hanlim Lee
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6315–6344, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6315-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6315-2024, 2024
Short summary
Using open-path dual-comb spectroscopy to monitor methane emissions from simulated grazing cattle
Chinthaka Weerasekara, Lindsay C. Morris, Nathan A. Malarich, Fabrizio R. Giorgetta, Daniel I. Herman, Kevin C. Cossel, Nathan R. Newbury, Clenton E. Owensby, Stephen M. Welch, Cosmin Blaga, Brett D. DePaola, Ian Coddington, Brian R. Washburn, and Eduardo A. Santos
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 6107–6117, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6107-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-6107-2024, 2024
Short summary
Greenhouse gas column observations from a portable spectrometer in Uganda
Neil Humpage, Hartmut Boesch, William Okello, Jia Chen, Florian Dietrich, Mark F. Lunt, Liang Feng, Paul I. Palmer, and Frank Hase
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5679–5707, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5679-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5679-2024, 2024
Short summary
Independent validation of IASI/MetOp-A LMD and RAL CH4 products using CAMS model, in situ profiles, and ground-based FTIR measurements
Bart Dils, Minqiang Zhou, Claude Camy-Peyret, Martine De Mazière, Yannick Kangah, Bavo Langerock, Pascal Prunet, Carmine Serio, Richard Siddans, and Brian Kerridge
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5491–5524, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5491-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5491-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Bösch, H., Toon, G. C., Sen, B., Washenfelder, R. A., wennberg, P., buchwitz, M., de Beek, R., Burrows, J., Crisp, D., Christi, M., Connor, B., Natraj, V., and Yung, Y.: Space-based near-infrared CO2 measurements: Testing the Orbiting Carbon Observatory retrieval algorithm and validation concept using SCIAMACHY observations over Park Falls, Wisconsin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D23302, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007080, 2006.
Boesch, H., Baker, D., Connor, B., Crisp, D., and Miller, C.: Global Characterization of CO2 Column Retrievals from Shortwave-Infrared Satellite Observations of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Mission, Remote Sensing, 3, 270–304, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3020270, 2011.
Bowman, K. W., Rodgers, C. D., Kulawik, S. S., Worden, J., Sarkissian, E., Osterman, G., Steck, T., Lou, M., Eldering, A., and Shephard, M.: Tropospheric emission spectrometer: Retrieval method and error analysis, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1297–1307, 2006.
Boxe, C. S., Worden, J. R., Bowman, K. W., Kulawik, S. S., Neu, J. L., Ford, W. C., Osterman, G. B., Herman, R. L., Eldering, A., Tarasick, D. W., Thompson, A. M., Doughty, D. C., Hoffmann, M. R., and Oltmans, S. J.: Validation of northern latitude Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer stare ozone profiles with ARC-IONS sondes during ARCTAS: sensitivity, bias and error analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 9901–9914, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-9901-2010, 2010.
Connor, B. J., Boesch, H., Toon, G., Sen, B., Miller, C., and Crisp, D.: Orbiting Carbon Observatory: Inverse method and prospective error analysis, J. Geophys. Res, 113, D05305, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008336, 2008.
Download
Short summary
This paper evaluates the uncertainties of the total column carbon dioxide (XCO2) measurements from the NASA OCO-2 instrument by comparing observed variations in small geographical regions to the calculated uncertainties of the data within this region. In general we find that the reported XCO2 precision is related to that expected from the XCO2 radiance noise. However, the reported accuracy is at least smaller than the actual accuracy by a factor of 2–4.