Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.248 IF 3.248
  • IF 5-year value: 3.650 IF 5-year 3.650
  • CiteScore value: 3.37 CiteScore 3.37
  • SNIP value: 1.253 SNIP 1.253
  • SJR value: 1.869 SJR 1.869
  • IPP value: 3.29 IPP 3.29
  • h5-index value: 47 h5-index 47
  • Scimago H index value: 60 Scimago H index 60
Volume 9, issue 2 | Copyright
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 683-709, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-683-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 29 Feb 2016

Research article | 29 Feb 2016

Consistent evaluation of ACOS-GOSAT, BESD-SCIAMACHY, CarbonTracker, and MACC through comparisons to TCCON

Susan Kulawik et al.
Viewed
Total article views: 2,598 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,230 1,199 169 2,598 56 57
  • HTML: 1,230
  • PDF: 1,199
  • XML: 169
  • Total: 2,598
  • BibTeX: 56
  • EndNote: 57
Views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 22 Jun 2015)
Cited
Saved (final revised paper)
No saved metrics found.
Saved (discussion paper)
Discussed (final revised paper)
No discussed metrics found.
Discussed (discussion paper)
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 13 Aug 2018
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
To accurately estimate source and sink locations of carbon dioxide, systematic errors in satellite measurements and models must be characterized. This paper examines two satellite data sets (GOSAT, launched 2009, and SCIAMACHY, launched 2002), and two models (CarbonTracker and MACC) vs. the TCCON CO2 validation data set. We assess biases and errors by season and latitude, satellite performance under averaging, and diurnal variability. Our findings are useful for assimilation of satellite data.
To accurately estimate source and sink locations of carbon dioxide, systematic errors in...
Citation
Share