Articles | Volume 9, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-683-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-683-2016
Research article
 | 
29 Feb 2016
Research article |  | 29 Feb 2016

Consistent evaluation of ACOS-GOSAT, BESD-SCIAMACHY, CarbonTracker, and MACC through comparisons to TCCON

Susan Kulawik, Debra Wunch, Christopher O'Dell, Christian Frankenberg, Maximilian Reuter, Tomohiro Oda, Frederic Chevallier, Vanessa Sherlock, Michael Buchwitz, Greg Osterman, Charles E. Miller, Paul O. Wennberg, David Griffith, Isamu Morino, Manvendra K. Dubey, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Justus Notholt, Frank Hase, Thorsten Warneke, Ralf Sussmann, John Robinson, Kimberly Strong, Matthias Schneider, Martine De Mazière, Kei Shiomi, Dietrich G. Feist, Laura T. Iraci, and Joyce Wolf

Viewed

Total article views: 7,423 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
4,184 2,742 497 7,423 155 163
  • HTML: 4,184
  • PDF: 2,742
  • XML: 497
  • Total: 7,423
  • BibTeX: 155
  • EndNote: 163
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2015)

Cited

Saved (preprint)

Latest update: 29 Feb 2024
Download
Short summary
To accurately estimate source and sink locations of carbon dioxide, systematic errors in satellite measurements and models must be characterized. This paper examines two satellite data sets (GOSAT, launched 2009, and SCIAMACHY, launched 2002), and two models (CarbonTracker and MACC) vs. the TCCON CO2 validation data set. We assess biases and errors by season and latitude, satellite performance under averaging, and diurnal variability. Our findings are useful for assimilation of satellite data.