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 Gassó1 and Omar Torres2 Santiago Gassó and Omar Torres
  • 1Climate and Radiation Laboratory, NASA/GSFC, Code 613, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
  • 2Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, NASA/GSFC, Code 614, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

Abstract. Retrievals of aerosol optical depth (AOD) at 388 nm over the ocean from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) two-channel near-UV algorithm (OMAERUV) have been compared with independent AOD measurements. The analysis was carried out over the open ocean (OMI and MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) AOD comparisons) and over coastal and island sites (OMI and AERONET, the AErosol RObotic NETwork). Additionally, a research version of the retrieval algorithm (using MODIS and CALIOP (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization) information as constraints) was utilized to evaluate the sensitivity of the retrieval to different assumed aerosol properties.

Overall, the comparison resulted in differences (OMI minus independent measurements) within the expected levels of uncertainty for the OMI AOD retrievals (0.1 for AOD < 0.3, 30 % for AOD > 0.3). Using examples from case studies with outliers, the reasons that led to the observed differences were examined with specific purpose to determine whether they are related to instrument limitations (i.e., pixel size, calibration) or algorithm assumptions (such as aerosol shape, aerosol height).

The analysis confirms that OMAERUV does an adequate job at rejecting cloudy scenes within the instrument's capabilities. There is a residual cloud contamination in OMI pixels with quality flag 0 (the best conditions for aerosol retrieval according to the algorithm), resulting in a bias towards high AODs in OMAERUV. This bias is more pronounced at low concentrations of absorbing aerosols (AOD 388 nm  ∼  < 0.5). For higher aerosol loadings, the bias remains within OMI's AOD uncertainties.

In pixels where OMAERUV assigned a dust aerosol model, a fraction of them (< 20 %) had retrieved AODs significantly lower than AERONET and MODIS AODs. In a case study, a detailed examination of the aerosol height from CALIOP and the AODs from MODIS, along with sensitivity tests, was carried out by varying the different assumed parameters in the retrieval (imaginary index of refraction, size distribution, aerosol height, particle shape). It was found that the spherical shape assumption for dust in the current retrieval is the main cause of the underestimate. In addition, it is demonstrated in an example how an incorrect assumption of the aerosol height can lead to an underestimate. Nevertheless, this is not as significant as the effect of particle shape. These findings will be incorporated in a future version of the retrieval algorithm.

Please read the corrigendum first before accessing the article.
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