Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> Inversion Error Analysis and Accuracy Verification

Qinqin Li; Xianhua Wang; Hanhan Ye; Shichao Wu; Chao Li; Xiaodi Wang

doi:10.3788/AOS202040.0601003

Acta Optica Sinica, Volume. 40, Issue 6, 0601003(2020)

Atmospheric CO₂ Inversion Error Analysis and Accuracy Verification

Qinqin Li^1,2, Xianhua Wang^1、*, Hanhan Ye¹, Shichao Wu^1,2, Chao Li^1,2, and Xiaodi Wang^1,2

¹Key Laboratory of Optical Calibration and Characterization, Anhui Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China

²University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(10)

Fig. 1. Effect of aerosol scattering on XCO₂ inversion under different reflectance conditions. (a) Rural; (b) urban

Download full size

Fig. 2. XCO₂ inversion error caused by atmospheric temperature profile

Download full size

Fig. 3. XCO₂ inversion error caused by surface atmospheric pressure

Download full size

Fig. 4. XCO₂ inversion error caused by surface reflectance

Download full size

Fig. 5. GMI sample map

Download full size

Table 1. Main technical parameters of GMI

View table

Table 1. Main technical parameters of GMI

Band	Band-1	Band-2	Band-3	Band-4
Spectral range /cm^-1	13004--13175	6317.1--6377.6	6031.4--6090.1	4859.1--3894.8
Sampling interval /cm^-1	0.020	0.003	0.007	0.004
Spectral resolution /cm^-1	0.60		0.27
Signal to noise ratio	300	300	250	250

Table 2. Variation range of factors used for simulation study
View table
Table 2. Variation range of factors used for simulation study
Parameter Range of variation
Solar zenith angle /(°) 30
Observation zenith angle /(°) 0
Aerosol model Rural, urban
AOD(0.55 μm) 0.01,0.05,0.10,0.15,0.20,0.25,0.30
Surface reflectance 0.05,0.10,0.20,0.30,0.60

Table 3. Parameters and perturbation quantity
View table
Table 3. Parameters and perturbation quantity
Parameter Perturbation quantity
Surface atmospheric pressure /% -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5
Atmospheric temperature profile /K ±0.5 ±1 ±1.5 ±2 ±2.5 ±3
Surface reflectance -0.25 -0.20 -0.10 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.35

Table 4. Data update and operation of TCCON sites in September

View table

Table 4. Data update and operation of TCCON sites in September

Site	Operational?	Description
Ascension_Island	No	Solar tracker has arrived in Germany for repairs
Caltech	Yes
Edwards	Yes
East Trout Lake	Yes	Sunlight blockage resolved
Eureka	Yes	Instrument aligned
Garmisch	Yes	operational
Izana	Yes	Normal mixed NIR-MIR operation
Karlsruhe	Yes	Instrument is operational, overpass operation possible during working days
Lamont	Yes
Lauder	Yes	125 HR operational
Saga	Yes	Vacuum pump was repaired on January 5,2016
Sodankyla	Yes
Zugspitze	Yes	Operational
Park_Falls	Yes

Table 5. Difference of GMI data and TCCON data at each site

View table

Table 5. Difference of GMI data and TCCON data at each site

Site	Latitude /(°)	Number of data	Difference	Proportion of difference
Site	Latitude /(°)	Number of data	Average /10^-6		σ /10^-6		Average /%	σ /%
Saga	33.24	2	-0.0704	1.6278		-0.02	0.40
Caltech	34.14	18	-2.5361	2.5200		-0.62	0.62
Edwards	34.96	24	-0.3447	2.4047		-0.09	0.59
Beijing	40.05	9	0.5545	2.8977		0.14	0.72
Park Falls	45.94	6	1.6167	2.6287		0.28	0.65
Karlsruhe	49.1	5	-1.0817	2.8937		-0.27	0.71
Sodankyla	67.37	6	-3.3496	3.1588		0.83	0.79
Lauder	-45.04	8	-2.2634	3.1802		-0.56	0.79
Total		78	-1.0639	2.9331		-0.26	0.72
Note: Different is the result of XCO₂ by GMI SWIR minus XCO₂ by g-b FTS; proportion of difference is obtained by dividing the aforementioned difference by XCO₂ by g-b FTS.

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Qinqin Li, Xianhua Wang, Hanhan Ye, Shichao Wu, Chao Li, Xiaodi Wang. Atmospheric CO₂ Inversion Error Analysis and Accuracy Verification[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2020, 40(6): 0601003

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites