Articles | Volume 9, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4843-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4843-2016
Research article
 | 
28 Sep 2016
Research article |  | 28 Sep 2016

Evaluation of column-averaged methane in models and TCCON with a focus on the stratosphere

Andreas Ostler, Ralf Sussmann, Prabir K. Patra, Sander Houweling, Marko De Bruine, Gabriele P. Stiller, Florian J. Haenel, Johannes Plieninger, Philippe Bousquet, Yi Yin, Marielle Saunois, Kaley A. Walker, Nicholas M. Deutscher, David W. T. Griffith, Thomas Blumenstock, Frank Hase, Thorsten Warneke, Zhiting Wang, Rigel Kivi, and John Robinson

Related authors

The imprint of stratospheric transport on column-averaged methane
A. Ostler, R. Sussmann, P. K. Patra, P. O. Wennberg, N. M. Deutscher, D. W. T. Griffith, T. Blumenstock, F. Hase, R. Kivi, T. Warneke, Z. Wang, M. De Mazière, J. Robinson, and H. Ohyama
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-15-20395-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-15-20395-2015, 2015
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Multistation intercomparison of column-averaged methane from NDACC and TCCON: impact of dynamical variability
A. Ostler, R. Sussmann, M. Rettinger, N. M. Deutscher, S. Dohe, F. Hase, N. Jones, M. Palm, and B.-M. Sinnhuber
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 4081–4101, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-4081-2014,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-4081-2014, 2014
Short summary
Retrieval of cirrus cloud optical thickness and top altitude from geostationary remote sensing
S. Kox, L. Bugliaro, and A. Ostler
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3233–3246, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3233-2014,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3233-2014, 2014

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

Alexe, M., Bergamaschi, P., Segers, A., Detmers, R., Butz, A., Hasekamp, O., Guerlet, S., Parker, R., Boesch, H., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Sweeney, C., Wofsy, S. C., and Kort, E. A.: Inverse modelling of CH4 emissions for 2010–2011 using different satellite retrieval products from GOSAT and SCIAMACHY, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 113–133, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-113-2015, 2015.
Belikov, D. A., Maksyutov, S., Sherlock, V., Aoki, S., Deutscher, N. M., Dohe, S., Griffith, D., Kyro, E., Morino, I., Nakazawa, T., Notholt, J., Rettinger, M., Schneider, M., Sussmann, R., Toon, G. C., Wennberg, P. O., and Wunch, D.: Simulations of column-averaged CO2 and CH4 using the NIES TM with a hybrid sigma-isentropic (σθ) vertical coordinate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1713–1732, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1713-2013, 2013.
Bergamaschi, P., Krol, M., Dentener, F., Vermeulen, A., Meinhardt, F., Graul, R., Ramonet, M., Peters, W., and Dlugokencky, E. J.: Inverse modelling of national and European CH4 emissions using the atmospheric zoom model TM5, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2431–2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2431-2005, 2005.
Bergamaschi, P., Houweling, S., Segers, A., Krol, M., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Wofsy, S. C., Kort, E. A., Sweeney, C., Schuck, T., Brenninkmeijer, C., Chen, H., Beck, V., and Gerbig, C.: Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st century: inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and NOAA surface measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 7350–7369, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50480, 2013.
Download
Short summary
Our evaluation of column-averaged methane (XCH4) in models and TCCON reveals latitudinal biases between 0.4 % and 2.1 % originating from an inter-model spread in stratospheric CH4. Substituting model stratospheric CH4 fields by satellite data significantly reduces the large XCH4 bias observed for one model. For other models, showing only minor biases, the impact is ambiguous; i.e., the satellite uncertainty range hinders a more accurate model evaluation needed to improve inverse modeling.