Open AccessComparison of tropospheric NO 2 from in situ aircraft measurements with near‐real‐time and standard product data from OMI
Author(s) -
Bucsela E. J.,
Perring A. E.,
Cohen R. C.,
Boersma K. F.,
Celarier E. A.,
Gleason J. F.,
Wenig M. O.,
Bertram T. H.,
Wooldridge P. J.,
Dirksen R.,
Veefkind J. P.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/2007jd008838
Subject(s) - troposphere , ozone monitoring instrument , environmental science , satellite , in situ , a priori and a posteriori , meteorology , tropospheric ozone , angstrom , product (mathematics) , data set , atmospheric sciences , remote sensing , statistics , mathematics , geography , geology , physics , chemistry , philosophy , geometry , epistemology , astronomy , crystallography
We present an analysis of in situ NO 2 measurements from aircraft experiments between summer 2004 and spring 2006. The data are from the INTEX‐A, PAVE, and INTEX‐B campaigns and constitute the most comprehensive set of tropospheric NO 2 profiles to date. Profile shapes from INTEX‐A and PAVE are found to be qualitatively similar to annual mean profiles from the GEOS‐Chem model. Using profiles from the INTEX‐B campaign, we perform error‐weighted linear regressions to compare the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) tropospheric NO 2 columns from the near‐real‐time product (NRT) and standard product (SP) with the integrated in situ columns. Results indicate that the OMI SP algorithm yields NO 2 amounts lower than the in situ columns by a factor of 0.86 (±0.2) and that NO 2 amounts from the NRT algorithm are higher than the in situ data by a factor of 1.68 (±0.6). The correlation between the satellite and in situ data is good ( r = 0.83) for both algorithms. Using averaging kernels, the influence of the algorithm's a priori profiles on the satellite retrieval is explored. Results imply that air mass factors from the a priori profiles are on average slightly larger (∼10%) than those from the measured profiles, but the differences are not significant.