Comparisons of OCO-2 satellite derived XCO<sub>2</sub> with <i>in situ</i> and modeled data over global ocean

Siqi Zhang; Yan Bai; Xianqiang He; Haiqing Huang; Qiangkun Zhu; Fang Gong

doi:10.1007/s13131-021-1844-9

Volume 40 Issue 4

Jun. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > Acta Oceanologica Sinica > 2021 > 40(4): 136-142

Siqi Zhang, Yan Bai, Xianqiang He, Haiqing Huang, Qiangkun Zhu, Fang Gong. Comparisons of OCO-2 satellite derived XCO2 with in situ and modeled data over global ocean[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(4): 136-142. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1844-9

Citation:

Siqi Zhang, Yan Bai, Xianqiang He, Haiqing Huang, Qiangkun Zhu, Fang Gong. Comparisons of OCO-2 satellite derived XCO₂ with in situ and modeled data over global ocean[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(4): 136-142. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1844-9

Citation:

PDF( 1282 KB)

Comparisons of OCO-2 satellite derived XCO₂ with in situ and modeled data over global ocean

doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1844-9

Siqi Zhang^{1, 2, 3},
Yan Bai^{2, 4},
Xianqiang He^{2, 4},
Haiqing Huang²,
Qiangkun Zhu^{2
,
,},
Fang Gong²

1.
State Key Laboratory of Tropical Oceanography, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510301, China
2.
State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment Dynamics, Second Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Hangzhou 310012, China
3.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
4.
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhanjiang), Zhanjiang 524006, China

Funds: The National Key Research and Development Programme of China under contract No. 2017YFA0603004; the Fund of Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhanjiang) (Zhanjiang Bay Laboratory) under contract No. ZJW-2019-08; the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contract Nos 41825014, 41676172 and 41676170; the Global Change and Air-Sea Interaction Project of China under contract Nos GASI-02-SCS-YGST2-01, GASI-02-PACYGST2-01 and GASI-02-IND-YGST2-01.

More Information

Corresponding author: E-mail: zhuqiankun@sio.org.cn)
Received Date: 2020-09-07
Accepted Date: 2020-12-29

Available Online: 2021-05-07

Publish Date: 2021-06-03

Abstract

Abstract

Atmospheric CO₂ is one of key parameters to estimate air-sea CO₂ flux. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite has observed the column-averaged dry-air mole fractions of global atmospheric carbon dioxide (XCO₂) since 2014. In this study, the OCO-2 XCO₂ products were compared between in-situ data from the Total Carbon Column Network (TCCON) and Global Monitoring Division (GMD), and modeling data from CarbonTracker2019 over global ocean and land. Results showed that the OCO-2 XCO₂ data are consistent with the TCCON and GMD in situ XCO₂ data, with mean absolute biases of 0.25×10⁻⁶ and 0.67×10⁻⁶, respectively. Moreover, the OCO-2 XCO₂ data are also consistent with the CarbonTracker2019 modeling XCO₂ data, with mean absolute biases of 0.78×10⁻⁶ over ocean and 1.02×10⁻⁶ over land. The results indicated the high accuracy of the OCO-2 XCO₂ product over global ocean which could be applied to estimate the air-sea CO₂ flux.
- XCO₂,
- OCO-2,
- comparison,
- in situ,
- modeling data

FullText(HTML)

References(44)

References

[1]	Bai Yan, Cai Weijun, He Xianqiang, et al. 2015. A mechanistic semi-analytical method for remotely sensing sea surface pCO₂ in river-dominated coastal oceans: A case study from the East China Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 120(3): 2331–2349. doi: 10.1002/2014JC010632
[2]	Blumenstock T, Hase F, Schneider M, et al. 2014. TCCON data from Izana (ES), Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[3]	Boesch H, Baker D, Connor B, et al. 2011. Global characterization of CO₂ column retrievals from shortwave-infrared satellite observations of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission. Remote Sensing, 3(2): 270–304. doi: 10.3390/rs3020270
[4]	Boesch H, Brown L, Castano R, et al. 2015. Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO)-2. https://docserver.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/public/project/OCO/OCO2_L2_ATBD.V6.pdf [2018-01-21/2018-09-16]
[5]	Bousquet P, Ciais P, Miller J, et al. 2006. Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric methane variability. Nature, 443(7110): 439–443. doi: 10.1038/nature05132
[6]	Bovensmann H, Burrows J P, Buchwitz M, et al. 1999. SCIAMACHY: Mission objectives and measurement modes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56(2): 127–150. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<0127:SMOAMM>2.0.CO;2
[7]	Buchwitz M, Schneising O, Burrows J P, et al. 2007. First direct observation of the atmospheric CO₂ year-to-year increase from space. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7(16): 4249–4256. doi: 10.5194/acp-7-4249-2007
[8]	Cogan A J, Boesch H, Parker R J, et al. 2012. Atmospheric carbon dioxide retrieved from the Greenhouse gases observing satellite (GOSAT): Comparison with ground-based TCCON observations and GEOS-Chem model calculations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D21): D21301
[9]	Connor B J, Boesch H, Toon G, et al. 2008. Orbiting Carbon Observatory: Inverse method and prospective error analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D5): D05305
[10]	Crisp D. 2015. Measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide from space with the orbiting carbon observatory-2(OCO-2). In: Proceedings of SPIE 9607, Earth Observing Systems XX. San Diego, United States: SPIE, 960702
[11]	De Mazière M, Sha M K, Desmet F, et al. 2017. TCCON data from Réunion Island (RE), Release GGG2014. R1. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[12]	Dlugokencky E, Mund J W, Crotwell A M, et al. 2019. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from the NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network, 1968–2018. Boulder, USA: NOAA ESRL Global Monitoring Division
[13]	Eldering A, O'Dell C W, Wennberg P O, et al. 2017. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2: First 18 months of science data products. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10(2): 549–563. doi: 10.5194/amt-10-549-2017
[14]	Forkel M, Carvalhais N, Rödenbeck C, et al. 2016. Enhanced seasonal CO2 exchange caused by amplified plant productivity in northern ecosystems. Science, 351(6274): 696–699. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4971
[15]	Graven H D, Keeling R F, Piper S C, et al. 2013. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO₂ by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science, 341(6150): 1085–1089. doi: 10.1126/science.1239207
[16]	Gray J M, Frolking S, Kort E A, et al. 2014. Direct human influence on atmospheric CO₂ seasonality from increased cropland productivity. Nature, 515(7527): 398–401. doi: 10.1038/nature13957
[17]	Griffith D W T, Deutscher N M, Velazco V A, et al. 2014a. TCCON data from Darwin (AU), Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[18]	Griffith D W T, Velazco V A, Deutscher N M, et al. 2014b. TCCON data from Wollongong (AU), Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[19]	Grise K M, Polvani L M. 2017. Understanding the time scales of the tropospheric circulation response to abrupt CO₂ forcing in the Southern Hemisphere: seasonality and the role of the stratosphere. Journal of Climate, 30(21): 8497–8515. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0849.1
[20]	Hase F, Blumenstock T, Dohe S, et al. 2017. TCCON data from Karlsruhe (DE), Release GGG2014R1. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[21]	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 847–940
[22]	IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[23]	Iraci L T, Podolske J, Hillyard P W, et al. 2016a. TCCON data from Edwards (US), Release GGG2014R1, Pasadena, California. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[24]	Iraci L T, Podolske J, Hillyard P W, et al. 2016b. TCCON data from Indianapolis (US), Release GGG2014R1, Pasadena, California. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[25]	Jacobson A R, Schuldt K N, Miller J B, et al. 2020. CarbonTracker CT2019. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/CT2019/CT2019_doc.php [2018-04-19]
[26]	Jenkinson D S, Adams D E, Wild A. 1991. Model estimates of CO₂ emissions from soil in response to global warming. Nature, 351(6324): 304–306. doi: 10.1038/351304a0
[27]	Joiner J, Yoshida Y, Vasilkov A, et al. 2011. First observations of global and seasonal terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from space. Biogeosciences, 8(3): 637–651. doi: 10.5194/bg-8-637-2011
[28]	Kawakami S, Ohyama H, Arai K, et al. 2014. TCCON data from Saga (JP), Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[29]	Kivi R, Heikkinen P, Kyr. 2014. TCCON data from Sodankyla (FI), Release GGG2014R0. 637–651. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[30]	Liang A L, Gong W, Han G, et al. 2017. Comparison of satellite-observed XCO₂ from GOSAT, OCO-2, and ground-based TCCON. Remote Sensing, 9(10): 1033. doi: 10.3390/rs9101033
[31]	Maki T, Ikegami M, Fujita T, et al. 2010. New technique to analyse global distributions of CO₂ concentrations and fluxes from non-processed observational data. Tellus B, 62(5): 797–809. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2010.00488.x
[32]	Northcott D, Sevadjian J, Sancho-Gallegos D A, et al. 2019. Impacts of urban carbon dioxide emissions on sea-air flux and ocean acidification in nearshore waters. PLoS One, 14(3): e0214403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214403
[33]	Notholt J, Petri C, Warneke T, et al. 2014. TCCON data from Bremen (DE), Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[34]	Notholt J, Warneke T, Petri C, et al. 2017. TCCON data from Ny Ålesund, Spitsbergen (NO), Release GGG2014. R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[35]	Peters W, Jacobson A R, Sweeney C, et al. 2007. An atmospheric perspective on North American carbon dioxide exchange: CarbonTracker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(48): 18925–18930. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0708986104
[36]	Sherlock V, Connor B J, Robinson J, et al. 2014a. TCCON data from Lauder (NZ), 120HR, Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[37]	Sherlock V, Connor B J, Robinson J, et al. 2014b. TCCON data from Lauder (NZ), 125HR, Release GGG2014R0. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[38]	Song Xuelian, Bai Yan, Cai Weijun, et al. 2016. Remote sensing of sea surface pCO₂ in the bering sea in summer based on a Mechanistic Semi-Analytical Algorithm (MeSAA). Remote Sensing, 8(7): 558. doi: 10.3390/rs8070558
[39]	Strong K, Mendonca J, Weave D, et al. 2017. TCCON data from Eureka (CA), Release GGG2014R1. https://data.caltech.edu/records/293 [2017-09-13/2018-04-19]
[40]	Williams I N, Riley W J, Torn M S, et al. 2014. Biases in regional carbon budgets from covariation of surface fluxes and weather in transport model inversions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(3): 1571–1585. doi: 10.5194/acp-14-1571-2014
[41]	Wunch D, Toon G C, Blavier J F L, et al. 2011. The total carbon column observing network. Philosophical Transactions. Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 369(1943): 2087–2112
[42]	Wunch D, Wennberg P O, Osterman G, et al. 2017. Comparisons of the orbiting carbon observatory-2(OCO-2) XCO₂ measurements with TCCON. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 10: 2209–2238. doi: 10.5194/amt-10-2209-2017
[43]	Yokota T, Yoshida Y, Eguchi N, et al. 2009. Global concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄ retrieved from GOSAT: First preliminary results. Sola, 5: 160–163. doi: 10.2151/sola.2009-041
[44]	Zeng Ning, Zhao Fang, Collatz G J, et al. 2014. Agricultural green revolution as a driver of increasing atmospheric CO₂ seasonal amplitude. Nature, 515(7527): 394–397. doi: 10.1038/nature13893