Articles | Volume 9, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016
Research article
 | 
04 Aug 2016
Research article |  | 04 Aug 2016

How big is an OMI pixel?

Martin de Graaf, Holger Sihler, Lieuwe G. Tilstra, and Piet Stammes

Related authors

A directional surface reflectance climatology determined from TROPOMI observations
Lieuwe G. Tilstra, Martin de Graaf, Victor J. H. Trees, Pavel Litvinov, Oleg Dubovik, and Piet Stammes
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2235–2256, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2235-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2235-2024, 2024
Short summary
Aerosol first indirect effect of African smoke at the cloud base of marine cumulus clouds over Ascension Island, southern Atlantic Ocean
Martin de Graaf, Karolina Sarna, Jessica Brown, Elma V. Tenner, Manon Schenkels, and David P. Donovan
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5373–5391, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5373-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5373-2023, 2023
Short summary
Validation of the TROPOMI/S5P aerosol layer height using EARLINET lidars
Konstantinos Michailidis, Maria-Elissavet Koukouli, Dimitris Balis, J. Pepijn Veefkind, Martin de Graaf, Lucia Mona, Nikolaos Papagianopoulos, Gesolmina Pappalardo, Ioanna Tsikoudi, Vassilis Amiridis, Eleni Marinou, Anna Gialitaki, Rodanthi-Elisavet Mamouri, Argyro Nisantzi, Daniele Bortoli, Maria João Costa, Vanda Salgueiro, Alexandros Papayannis, Maria Mylonaki, Lucas Alados-Arboledas, Salvatore Romano, Maria Rita Perrone, and Holger Baars
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1919–1940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1919-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1919-2023, 2023
Short summary
The CLoud–Aerosol–Radiation Interaction and Forcing: Year 2017 (CLARIFY-2017) measurement campaign
Jim M. Haywood, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Nicolas Bellouin, Alan Blyth, Keith N. Bower, Melissa Brooks, Ken Carslaw, Haochi Che, Hugh Coe, Michael I. Cotterell, Ian Crawford, Zhiqiang Cui, Nicholas Davies, Beth Dingley, Paul Field, Paola Formenti, Hamish Gordon, Martin de Graaf, Ross Herbert, Ben Johnson, Anthony C. Jones, Justin M. Langridge, Florent Malavelle, Daniel G. Partridge, Fanny Peers, Jens Redemann, Philip Stier, Kate Szpek, Jonathan W. Taylor, Duncan Watson-Parris, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, and Paquita Zuidema
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1049–1084, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1049-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1049-2021, 2021
Short summary
Effects of clouds on the UV Absorbing Aerosol Index from TROPOMI
Maurits L. Kooreman, Piet Stammes, Victor Trees, Maarten Sneep, L. Gijsbert Tilstra, Martin de Graaf, Deborah C. Stein Zweers, Ping Wang, Olaf N. E. Tuinder, and J. Pepijn Veefkind
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 6407–6426, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6407-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6407-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Clouds | Technique: Remote Sensing | Topic: Instruments and Platforms
The first microwave and submillimetre closure study using particle models of oriented ice hydrometeors to simulate polarimetric measurements of ice clouds
Karina McCusker, Anthony J. Baran, Chris Westbrook, Stuart Fox, Patrick Eriksson, Richard Cotton, Julien Delanoë, and Florian Ewald
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3533–3552, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3533-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Polarization upgrade of specMACS: calibration and characterization of the 2D RGB polarization-resolving cameras
Anna Weber, Tobias Kölling, Veronika Pörtge, Andreas Baumgartner, Clemens Rammeloo, Tobias Zinner, and Bernhard Mayer
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1419–1439, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1419-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1419-2024, 2024
Short summary
Detection of small drizzle droplets in a large cloud chamber using ultrahigh-resolution radar
Zeen Zhu, Fan Yang, Pavlos Kollias, Raymond A. Shaw, Alex B. Kostinski, Steve Krueger, Katia Lamer, Nithin Allwayin, and Mariko Oue
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1133–1143, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1133-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1133-2024, 2024
Short summary
W-band SZ relationships for rimed snow particles: observational evidence from combined airborne and ground-based observations
Shelby Fuller, Samuel A. Marlow, Samuel Haimov, Matthew Burkhart, Kevin Shaffer, Austin Morgan, and Jefferson R. Snider
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 6123–6142, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-6123-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-6123-2023, 2023
Short summary
The generation of EarthCARE L1 test data sets using atmospheric model data sets
David P. Donovan, Pavlos Kollias, Almudena Velázquez Blázquez, and Gerd-Jan van Zadelhoff
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5327–5356, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5327-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5327-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Anderson, G. P., Clough, S. A., Kneizys, F. X., Chetwynd, J. H., and Shettle, E. P.: AFGL Atmospheric constituent profiles, Tech. Rep. AFGL-TR-86-0110, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, 1986.
Bhartia, P. K., McPeters, R. D., Flynn, L. E., Taylor, S., Kramarova, N. A., Frith, S., Fisher, B., and DeLand, M.: Solar Backscatter UV (SBUV) total ozone and profile algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2533–2548, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2533-2013, 2013.
Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noël, S., Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 127–150, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<0127:SMOAMM>2.0.CO;2, 1999.
Burrows, J. P., Weber, M., Buchwitz, M., Rozanov, V., Ladstätter-Weißenmayer, A., Richter, A., DeBeek, R., Hoogen, R., Bramstedt, K., Eichmann, K.-U., Eisinger, M., and Perner, D.: The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME): Mission Concept and First Scientific Results, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<0151:TGOMEG>2.0.CO;2, 1999.
de Graaf, M., Tilstra, L. G., Wang, P., and Stammes, P.: Retrieval of the aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from spaceborne spectrometry, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D07207, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160, 2012.
Download
Short summary
The shapes and sizes of the FoV from the OMI satellite instrument were determined with extensive lab tests but never verified after launch. Here, collocated measurements from MODIS, flying in formation, were used to find the most optimal shape of the OMI FoV. This shape is not quadrangular, as suggested by the provided corner coordinates of a pixel, but rather super-Gaussian shaped and overlapping with the FoV of neighbouring pixels.