Validation of Methane and Carbon Monoxide from Sentinel-5 Precursor using TCCON and NDACC-IRWG stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Sentinel-5 Precursor (S5P) mission with the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) onboard has been measuring solar radiation backscattered by the Earth's atmosphere and its surface since its launch on 13 October 2017. Methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) data with a spatial resolution (initially 7 x 7 km2, upgraded to 5.5 x 7 km2 on 6th of August 2019) have been retrieved from shortwave infrared (SWIR) and near-infrared (NIR) measurements since the end of November 2017 and made available to the experts for early validation and quality checks before the official product release. In this paper, we present for the first time the S5P CH4 and CO validation results (covering a period from November 2017 to September 2020) using global Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) and Infrared Working Group of the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC-IRWG) network data, accounting for a priori alignment and smoothing uncertainties in the validation, and testing the sensitivity of validation results towards the application of advanced co-location criteria.We found that the required bias (systematic error) of 1.5 % and random error of 1 % for the S5P standard and bias-corrected methane data are met for measurements over land surfaces with pixels having quality assurance (QA) value > 0.5. The systematic difference between the S5P standard XCH4 and TCCON data is on average −0.69 ± 0.73 %. The systematic difference changes to a value of −0.25 ± 0.57 % for the S5P bias-corrected XCH4 data. We found a correlation of above 0.6 for most stations, which is mostly dominated by the seasonal cycle. The contributions of smoothing uncertainty at the individual stations are estimated and found to be dependent on the location. The highest contribution of the smoothing uncertainty is observed for mid-latitude TCCON stations and high latitude stations for NDACC. A seasonal dependency of the relative bias is seen. We observe a high bias during the springtime measurements at high SZA and a decreasing bias with increasing SZA for the rest of the year.We found that the required bias (systematic error) of 15 % and random error of < 10 % for the S5P carbon monoxide data are met in general for measurements over all surfaces with pixels having quality assurance value of > 0.5. There are a few stations where this is not the case, mostly due to co-location mismatches and the limited availability of co-located data. We compared the S5P XCO data with respect to standard TCCON XCO and unscaled TCCON XCO (without application of the empirical scaling factor) data sets. The systematic difference between the S5P XCO and the TCCON data is on average 9.14 ± 3.33 % (standard TCCON XCO data) and 2.36 ± 3.22 % (unscaled TCCON XCO data). We found that the systematic difference between the S5P CO column and NDACC CO column data (excluding two stations that were obvious outliers) is on average 6.44 ± 3.79 %. We found a correlation of above 0.9 for most TCCON and NDACC stations indicating that the temporal variations in CO column captured by the ground-based instruments are reproduced very similarly by the S5P CO column. The contribution of smoothing uncertainty at the individual stations is estimated and found to be significant. They are found to be dependent on the location with large changes seen for stations located in the Southern Hemisphere as compared to the Northern Hemisphere and at highly polluted stations. A cone co-location criterion, which gives a better match between the ground-based instrument's line-of-sight and satellite pixels, seems to give better results for high latitude stations and stations located close to emission sources. The validation results for the clear-sky and cloud cases of S5P pixels are comparable to the validation results including all pixels with quality assurance value of > 0.5. We observe that the relative bias increases with increasing SZA. We estimated this increase is about 10 % over the complete range of measurement SZAs.The study shows the high quality of S5P CH4 and CO data by validating the products against reference global TCCON and NDACC stations covering a wide range of latitudinal bands, atmospheric conditions, and surface conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".