Abstract
To better understand and characterize current uncertainties in the important observational constraint of climate models of aerosol optical depth (AOD), we evaluate and intercompare 14 satellite products, representing nine different retrieval algorithm families using observations from five different sensors on six different platforms. The satellite products (super-observations consisting of 1*1 daily aggregated retrievals drawn from the years 2006, 2008 and 2010) are evaluated with AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) and Maritime Aerosol Network (MAN) data. Results show that different products exhibit different regionally varying biases (both under- and overestimates) that may reach, although a typical bias would be 15 %-25 % (depending on the product). In addition to these biases, the products exhibit random errors that can be 1.6 to 3 times as large. Most products show similar performance, although there are a few exceptions with either larger biases or larger random errors. The intercomparison of satellite products extends this analysis and provides spatial context to it. In particular, we show that aggregated satellite AOD agrees much better than the spatial coverage (often driven by cloud masks) within the 1*1 grid cells. Up to patterns and varies from 10 % (parts of the ocean) to 100 % (central Asia and Australia). More importantly, we show that the diversity may be used as an indication of AOD uncertainty, at least for the better performing products. This provides modellers with a global map of expected AOD uncertainty in satellite products, allows assessment of products away from AERONET sites, can provide guidance for future AERONET locations and offers suggestions for product improvements. We account for statistical and sampling noise in our analyses. Sampling noise, variations due to the evaluation of different subsets of the data, causes important changes in error metrics. The consequences of this noise term for product evaluation are discussed.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 12431 |
Pages (from-to) | 12431-12457 |
Number of pages | 27 |
Journal | Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics |
Volume | 20 |
Issue number | 21 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 30 Oct 2020 |
Funding
We thank the PI(s) and Co-I(s) and their staff for establishing and maintaining the many AERONET sites used in this investigation. The figures in this paper were prepared using David W. Fanning s Coyote Library for IDL. We thank Knut Stamnes and one anonymous reviewer for their useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The work by Nick Schutgens is part of the Vici research programme, project number 016.160.324, which is (partly) financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). Philip Stier was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) project constRaining the EffeCts of Aerosols on Precipitation (RECAP) under the European Union s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme, grant agreement no. 724602, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Natural Environment Research Council project NE/P013406/1 (A-CURE).
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme | |
Knut Stamnes | 016.160.324 |
Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung | |
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme | 724602 |
Natural Environment Research Council | NE/P013406/1 |
European Research Council | |
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek |