Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.400 IF 3.400
  • IF 5-year value: 3.841 IF 5-year
    3.841
  • CiteScore value: 3.71 CiteScore
    3.71
  • SNIP value: 1.472 SNIP 1.472
  • IPP value: 3.57 IPP 3.57
  • SJR value: 1.770 SJR 1.770
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 70 Scimago H
    index 70
  • h5-index value: 49 h5-index 49
Volume 9, issue 7
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3031–3052, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue: Ten years of Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) observations...

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3031–3052, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3031-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 14 Jul 2016

Research article | 14 Jul 2016

The role of cloud contamination, aerosol layer height and aerosol model in the assessment of the OMI near-UV retrievals over the ocean

Santiago Gassó and Omar Torres
Related authors  
Simulation of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument aerosol index using the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System aerosol reanalysis products
Peter R. Colarco, Santiago Gassó, Changwoo Ahn, Virginie Buchard, Arlindo M. da Silva, and Omar Torres
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 4121–4134, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4121-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-4121-2017, 2017
Short summary
Spaceborne observations of the lidar ratio of marine aerosols
K. W. Dawson, N. Meskhidze, D. Josset, and S. Gassó
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 3241–3255, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3241-2015,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3241-2015, 2015
Related subject area  
Subject: Aerosols | Technique: Remote Sensing | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Aerosol measurements with a shipborne Sun–sky–lunar photometer and collocated multiwavelength Raman polarization lidar over the Atlantic Ocean
Zhenping Yin, Albert Ansmann, Holger Baars, Patric Seifert, Ronny Engelmann, Martin Radenz, Cristofer Jimenez, Alina Herzog, Kevin Ohneiser, Karsten Hanbuch, Luc Blarel, Philippe Goloub, Gaël Dubois, Stephane Victori, and Fabrice Maupin
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 5685–5698, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5685-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5685-2019, 2019
Short summary
Intercomparison of aerosol volume size distributions derived from AERONET ground-based remote sensing and LARGE in situ aircraft profiles during the 2011–2014 DRAGON and DISCOVER-AQ experiments
Joel S. Schafer, Tom F. Eck, Brent N. Holben, Kenneth L. Thornhill, Luke D. Ziemba, Patricia Sawamura, Richard H. Moore, Ilya Slutsker, Bruce E. Anderson, Alexander Sinyuk, David M. Giles, Alexander Smirnov, Andreas J. Beyersdorf, and Edward L. Winstead
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 5289–5301, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5289-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5289-2019, 2019
Short summary
Validation, comparison, and integration of GOCI, AHI, MODIS, MISR, and VIIRS aerosol optical depth over East Asia during the 2016 KORUS-AQ campaign
Myungje Choi, Hyunkwang Lim, Jhoon Kim, Seoyoung Lee, Thomas F. Eck, Brent N. Holben, Michael J. Garay, Edward J. Hyer, Pablo E. Saide, and Hongqing Liu
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 4619–4641, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4619-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4619-2019, 2019
Short summary
Aerosol optical depth comparison between GAW-PFR and AERONET-Cimel radiometers from long-term (2005–2015) 1 min synchronous measurements
Emilio Cuevas, Pedro Miguel Romero-Campos, Natalia Kouremeti, Stelios Kazadzis, Petri Räisänen, Rosa Delia García, Africa Barreto, Carmen Guirado-Fuentes, Ramón Ramos, Carlos Toledano, Fernando Almansa, and Julian Gröbner
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 4309–4337, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4309-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4309-2019, 2019
Short summary
Accuracy assessment of MODIS land aerosol optical thickness algorithms using AERONET measurements over North America
Hiren Jethva, Omar Torres, and Yasuko Yoshida
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 4291–4307, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4291-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4291-2019, 2019
Short summary
Cited articles  
Ahn, C., Torres, O., and Bhartia, P. K.: Comparison of Ozone Monitoring Instrument UV Aerosol Products with Aqua/Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer observations in 2006, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16S27, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008832, 2008.
Ahn, C., Torres, O., and Jethva, H.: Assessment of OMI near-UV aerosol optical depth over land, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020188, 2014.
Buchard, V., da Silva, A. M., Colarco, P. R., Darmenov, A., Randles, C. A., Govindaraju, R., Torres, O., Campbell, J., and Spurr, R.: Using the OMI aerosol index and absorption aerosol optical depth to evaluate the NASA MERRA Aerosol Reanalysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5743–5760, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5743-2015, 2015.
Carn, S., Arlin, A., Krueger, J., Krotkov, N. A., Yang, K., and Evans, K.: Tracking volcanic sulfur dioxide clouds for aviation hazard mitigation, Nat. Hazards, 51, 325–343, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9228-4, 2008.
Publications Copernicus
Download
Notice on corrigendum

The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.

Short summary
Aerosol optical depths derived by the OMI near-UV algorithm are evaluated against independent observations over the ocean. The comparison resulted in differences within the expected levels of uncertainty. In addition, in clear sky conditions, the retrieved AODs compare well with independent measurements but they are biased high in partially cloud-contaminated pixels. Additional sources of discrepancies are documented and will be corrected in future versions of the algorithm.
Aerosol optical depths derived by the OMI near-UV algorithm are evaluated against independent...
Citation