the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Validation of formaldehyde products from three satellite retrievals (OMI SAO, OMPS-NPP SAO, and OMI BIRA) in the marine atmosphere with four seasons of ATom aircraft observations
Abstract. Formaldehyde (HCHO) in the atmosphere is an intermediate product from the oxidation of methane and non-methane volatile organic compounds. In remote marine regions, HCHO variability is closely related to atmospheric oxidation capacity and modeled HCHO in these regions is usually added as a global satellite HCHO background. Thus, it is important to understand and validate the levels of satellite HCHO over the remote oceans. Here we intercompare three satellite retrievals of total HCHO columns (OMI-SAO (v004), OMPS-NPP SAO, and OMI BIRA) and validate them against in situ observations from the NASA Atmospheric Tomography Mission (ATom) mission. All retrievals are correlated with ATom integrated columns over remote oceans, with OMI SAO (v004) showing the best agreement. Three satellite HCHO retrievals and in situ ATom columns all generally captured the spatial and seasonal distributions of HCHO in the remote ocean atmosphere. Retrieval bias varies by latitude and season, but a persistent low bias is found in all products at high latitudes and the general low bias is most severe for the OMI BIRA product. Examination of retrieval components reveals slant column corrections have a larger impact on the retrievals over remote marine regions while AMFs play a smaller role. This study informs that the potential latitude-dependent biases in the retrievals require further investigation for improvement and should be considered when using marine HCHO satellite data, and vertical profiles from in situ instruments are crucial for validating satellite retrievals.
- Preprint
(2238 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(790 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 May 2024
Please refer to the comments in the supplement PDF.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on data averaging', J.-F. Müller, 19 Jul 2024
Hello,
Athough I appreciate the very nice work presented in this paper, I am concerned by the spatial averaging of the OMI column data, as shown on Equation 7. Why this uncertainty weighting? Higher columns have generally a higher uncertainty, in absolute terms (their RELATIVE uncertainty is however generally lower). Equation 7 gives therefore less weight to higher columns. As a consequence, the average is too low. The authors should repeat their calculations by using a regular weighting as given by Equation 6. I played with the OMI data myself and found that the averaging has a substantial impact on the results. I am very curious to see the impact on the analysis presented in this paper.
Best regards,
Jean-Francois Muller
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-72-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #3, 30 Aug 2024
Liao et al., utilize a four-season deployment of Atom aircraft observations to validate three HCHO retrieval products. They demonstrate that these HCHO products generally capture the spatial and seasonal distribution of HCHO in the remote ocean-atmosphere albeit with a low bias. An important result of this study is that the biases in slant column corrections have larger impacts on retrieval than AMFs. The paper is well-organized and includes technical details that fit well into the scope of AMT. I hope the authors can address the following comments before the paper is accepted for publication in AMT.
Major comments:
The conclusion of this paper could be further strengthened. While the study effectively validates these HCHO retrievals and addresses differences in HCHO columns across latitudes and seasons, it would be valuable for the authors to provide practical advice to users of these products. For example, do the authors have any recommendations on which retrieval product is preferable? Would averaging across multiple products yield more accurate results than using a single product? Alternatively, should the spread among the three products be treated as an indicator of uncertainty in HCHO retrieval?
Other comments:
- The OMI satellite overpass time is 1:30 pm local time while the Atom observations were conducted throughout the day. How do you account for the time difference when comparing HCHO retrievals to Atom observations?
- Line 121: the ascents and descents of aircraft measurement cover 200-450 km in horizontal distance, which is larger than the pixel size of satellite retrievals. Also, the aircraft provides in-situ measurements while the satellite measures pixel by pixel. How do you account for the differences in the spatial scales of these two observations?
- It is unclear how you treat cloudy conditions when mapping satellite retrievals to ATOM observations. Do you only select satellite/ATOM observation under clear sky conditions?
- Figure 2: why is there an enhancement of the HCHO column at ~ -60 latitude bins in the OMI BIRA retrieval products?
- Line 313: since negative bias is more pronounced at higher latitudes, does it suggest that the latitude-dependent background correction is insufficient?
- Line 367-368: what does “variability” refer to here? If it refers to uncertainties, a factor of 10 seems too large. If it refers to the full range of corrected slant columns, I don’t understand why this implies that uncertainties in AMF are a minor contributor to overall retrieval error
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-72-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 May 2024
Please refer to the comments in the supplement PDF.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
-
CC1: 'Comment on data averaging', J.-F. Müller, 19 Jul 2024
Hello,
Athough I appreciate the very nice work presented in this paper, I am concerned by the spatial averaging of the OMI column data, as shown on Equation 7. Why this uncertainty weighting? Higher columns have generally a higher uncertainty, in absolute terms (their RELATIVE uncertainty is however generally lower). Equation 7 gives therefore less weight to higher columns. As a consequence, the average is too low. The authors should repeat their calculations by using a regular weighting as given by Equation 6. I played with the OMI data myself and found that the averaging has a substantial impact on the results. I am very curious to see the impact on the analysis presented in this paper.
Best regards,
Jean-Francois Muller
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-72-CC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #3, 30 Aug 2024
Liao et al., utilize a four-season deployment of Atom aircraft observations to validate three HCHO retrieval products. They demonstrate that these HCHO products generally capture the spatial and seasonal distribution of HCHO in the remote ocean-atmosphere albeit with a low bias. An important result of this study is that the biases in slant column corrections have larger impacts on retrieval than AMFs. The paper is well-organized and includes technical details that fit well into the scope of AMT. I hope the authors can address the following comments before the paper is accepted for publication in AMT.
Major comments:
The conclusion of this paper could be further strengthened. While the study effectively validates these HCHO retrievals and addresses differences in HCHO columns across latitudes and seasons, it would be valuable for the authors to provide practical advice to users of these products. For example, do the authors have any recommendations on which retrieval product is preferable? Would averaging across multiple products yield more accurate results than using a single product? Alternatively, should the spread among the three products be treated as an indicator of uncertainty in HCHO retrieval?
Other comments:
- The OMI satellite overpass time is 1:30 pm local time while the Atom observations were conducted throughout the day. How do you account for the time difference when comparing HCHO retrievals to Atom observations?
- Line 121: the ascents and descents of aircraft measurement cover 200-450 km in horizontal distance, which is larger than the pixel size of satellite retrievals. Also, the aircraft provides in-situ measurements while the satellite measures pixel by pixel. How do you account for the differences in the spatial scales of these two observations?
- It is unclear how you treat cloudy conditions when mapping satellite retrievals to ATOM observations. Do you only select satellite/ATOM observation under clear sky conditions?
- Figure 2: why is there an enhancement of the HCHO column at ~ -60 latitude bins in the OMI BIRA retrieval products?
- Line 313: since negative bias is more pronounced at higher latitudes, does it suggest that the latitude-dependent background correction is insufficient?
- Line 367-368: what does “variability” refer to here? If it refers to uncertainties, a factor of 10 seems too large. If it refers to the full range of corrected slant columns, I don’t understand why this implies that uncertainties in AMF are a minor contributor to overall retrieval error
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-72-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jin Liao, 27 Sep 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-72/amt-2024-72-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
317 | 93 | 185 | 595 | 33 | 17 | 14 |
- HTML: 317
- PDF: 93
- XML: 185
- Total: 595
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1