# Presentation: 608310

## TES CO Validation

**Comparisons have done**
**AVE 2004: ****Argus**** **
**PAVE 2005 (Feb03): ****DACOM**
**MOPITT****: Sept20-21, 2004, run2147**
**MLS****: Sept20-21, 2004, run2147**
**ACE****: Sept20-21, 2004, run2147**
**GEOS-CHEM****: run2147**
**L1B spectra: filter 1A1 vs S-HIS**
**Future comparisons**
**MOPITT: more dates, averaging kernel...**
**AIRS****: averaging kernel?**
**MLS, ACE, MIPAS, SCIAMACHY**
**More AVE, ****INTEX****, other aircraft in-situ, *****e.g.,***** NOAA/CMDL **
**MOZAIC****.  Ground based?**
**L1B spectra: filter 1A1 vs AIRS & S-HIS**
**More model comparisons?**
**Issues**
**Not good coincidences in time and space**
**Applying Averaging Kernel to both TES and the other profiles**
**Nadir vs Nadir, e.g., TES-MOPITT, TES-AIRS**
**Nadir vs Limb , e.g., TES-MLS, TES nadir vs TES limb *****etc.***
**TES nadir vs *****in-situ***
**TES CO data availability**

## TES CO Validation: 

- Comparisons to Argus CO Measurements in AVE 2004

- Ming Luo
- Updated: August 2005

| Date | Oct.31 | Nov.3 | Nov.5 | Nov.7 | Nov.9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TES Run | 2262 | 2282 | 2290 | 2298 | 2305 |

## Some Useful Information about TES / Argus Measurements

| Date |  | Oct. 31 | Nov. 3 | Nov. 5 | Nov. 7 | Nov.9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TES Run |  | 2262 | 2282 | 2290 | 2298 | 2305 |
| Distance to Argus (km) | Takeoff /Landing | 560-100 | 160-170 | 130-20 | 410-270 | 700-420 |
|  | Diving | 10-15 | 130-150 | 60-150 |  | 20-200 |
| Time From Argus (hours) | Takeoff /Landing | 2.0 & 2.5 | 2.5&2.2 | 1.9 & 2.7 | 2 & 2.5 | 3 & 1.7 |
|  | Diving | 0.5-1.5 | 0.4-1.0 | 0.4-1.3 |  | (-1.0)-0.75 |
| DOF | Takeoff /Landing | 1.3 | 1.2-1.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2-1.3 |
|  | Diving | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.2 |  | 1.1 |
| Cloud OD | Takeoff /Landing | <0.1 | <0.1 – 10. | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 |
|  | Diving | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 |  | <0.6 |

**Some Useful Information about TES / Argus Measurements**

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Slide 8

## Slide 9

## Slide 10

## Slide 11

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## Slide 15

## Slide 16

## Slide 17

## Slide 18

## xret = Ax + (I – A)xa + ε

**(retrieval error due to **
** ****measurement error)**

- Retrieved profile **x****ret** relates to the true profile **x** and a priori profile **x****a** as
- (*C. Rodgers,* Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding, 2000)

**where ****A**** is the averaging kernel matrix. **

## Slide 20

## Slide 21

## Slide 22

## Slide 23

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Slide 26

## Slide 27

## Slide 28

## Slide 29

## Slide 30

## Remarks

- Total of 18 Aircraft CO profiles.  4-6 TES profiles are selected to compare with each of them – total of 43 TES profiles.
- The Argus CO profiles are all extended upward and downward to the ground (for the diving profiles) using shifted TES a priori profile before applying TES averaging kernel and a priori profile.
- For comparison, the Argus CO profiles are converted to “TES nadir retrieval equivalent” profiles via applying TES averaging kernels and a priori profile: x = A(xargus – xa) + xa.
- The differences between Argus and TES CO profiles are within TES retrieval errors and equivalent to CO spatial / temporal variabilities detected in both TES and Argus profiles.
- No obvious systematic biases are found in comparisons between Argus and TES CO measurements.
- Argus CO is higher in upward (takeoff) than downward (landing)?

## TES CO Validation: 

- Comparisons to DACOM CO Measurements in PAVE 2005

- Ming Luo
- Updated: September 2005

| Date | Feb.03 |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TES Run | 2614 |  |  |  |  |

## Some Useful Information about TES / DACOM Measurements

| Date |  | Feb. 03 |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TES Run |  | 2614 |  |  |  |  |
| Distance to DECOM (km) | Takeoff /Landing | N/A |  |  |  |  |
|  | Diving | 105 - 320 |  |  |  |  |
| Time From DECOM (hours) | Takeoff /Landing | N/A |  |  |  |  |
|  | Diving | 0.-1.6 |  |  |  |  |
| DOF | Takeoff /Landing |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | Diving | 0.26 – 0.36 |  |  |  |  |
| Cloud OD | Takeoff /Landing |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | Diving | 0.05, 0.35 |  |  |  |  |

**Some Useful Information about TES / DACOM Measurements**

## Slide 34

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Slide 37

## Remarks

- For Feb.03, 2005, 2 Aircraft CO profiles are used. 3 TES profiles are available to compare with each of them – total of 6 comparisons.
- The DACOM CO profiles are extended upward using shifted TES a priori profile before applying TES averaging kernel and a priori profile.
- For comparison, the DACOM CO profiles are converted to “TES nadir retrieval equivalent” profiles via applying TES averaging kernels and a priori profile: x = A(xargus – xa) + xa.
- In higher latitudes, 42N in this case, the DOF (degree of freedom for signal) for TES CO profiles are only ~0.3.

## TES CO Validation: 

- Comparisons to MLS Measurements

- Ming Luo & Mark Filipiak
- Updated: September 2005

| Date | Sept.20-21 |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| TES Run | 2147 |  |

## Slide 40

## Slide 41

## Slide 42

## Slide 43

## TES vs MLS, Latitude = 76S, ...... 48S

**TES**** vs ****MLS****, Latitude = 76S, ...... 48S**

## TES vs MLS, Latitude = 43S, ...... 1.1N

**TES**** vs ****MLS****, Latitude = 43S, ...... 1.1N**

## TES vs MLS, Latitude = 6N, ...... 31N

**TES**** vs ****MLS****, Latitude = 6N, ...... 31N**

## TES vs MLS, Latitude = 36N, ...... 78N

**TES**** vs ****MLS****, Latitude = 36N, ...... 78N**

## Slide 48

## (Provided by Dong Wu, MLS fast retrieval, Feb 2005)

**(Provided by Dong Wu, MLS fast retrieval, Feb 2005)**

## Remarks

- At 215 hPa, MLS CO VMR are higher than TES and models.
- At 147 hPa, MLS CO VMR are higher than TES in low latitudes and lower than TES in high latitudes.
- MLS “fast retrieval” CO results with better defined spectral ranges at 215 hPa are lower than MLS V1.51 results, implying better agreement with TES  .
- The role of averaging kernel on nadir retrievals – does it tend to reduce the slops of CO profiles?

## TES CO Validation: 

- Comparisons to MOPITT Measurements Sept20-21, 2004

- Ming Luo
- Updated: September 2005

## Slide 52

## Slide 53

## Slide 54

## Slide 55

## Slide 56

## Slide 57

## Slide 58

## Slide 59

## Slide 60

## xret = Ax + (I – A)xa + ε

**(retrieval error due to **
** ****measurement error)**

- Retrieved profile **x****ret** relates to the true profile **x** and a priori profile **x****a** as
- (*C. Rodgers,* Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding, 2000)

**where ****A**** is the averaging kernel matrix. **

## Examples illustrating the roles of averaging kernel and a priori on retrievals

**Examples illustrating the roles of averaging kernel and a priori on retrievals**

**(2)**

**(1)**

## Slide 63

## Slide 64

## Slide 65

## Slide 66

## Slide 67

## Slide 68

## Slide 69

## Slide 70

## Slide 71

## Slide 72

## Slide 73

## Slide 74

## Remarks

- Due to instrument alignment drift, the signal strength of TES filer 1A1 used for CO retrieval demonstrates a trend of declining, to about 80% in 20 days, 60% in 120 days, and stabilized to 40-50% since then.  It is quite possible that the successful CO retrievals will be only limited to the low latitudes for observations taken in 2005. The planed optical bench warm-up should increase the signal strength in 1A1.
- TES CO retrievals are mapped to Level 3 uniform lat/lon grids and images of CO at any given pressure level and total column are generated.  In a global scale, TES CO agree well with that of MOPITT qualitatively.
- The Degree-of-Freedom in Signal for TES CO retrievals are about 0.5-1.5, up to about 2 in some regions and below 0.5 in some regions of high latitudes or cloudy scenes.  MOPITT has similar vertical resolutions.
- TES CO profiles are interpolated to six MOPITT product pressure levels and a MOPITT profile closest to a given TES measurement location is identified for qualitative comparison.  This direct comparison is not quite correct since the two observing systems used different a priori information for the retrievals.  These comparison nevertheless reveals some interesting results.
- In +/- 5deg latitude average, TES and MOPITT CO agrees ~10% in pressure levels 500-250 hPh where both instruments are most sensitive to their measurement signals.
- In 850-700 hPa, TES CO is lower than MOPITT CO in Southern latitudes while agree well in the northern latitudes.  This indicates a higher CO a priori is used by MOPITT retrievals.
- In 150 hPa, the disagreement of TES and  MOPITT CO shows that TES has stronger latitudinal dependent (a model a priori) than MOPITT (a constant a priori).