Published in

European Geosciences Union, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 12(16), p. 3173-3209, 2023

DOI: 10.5194/amt-16-3173-2023

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Evaluating the consistency between OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO<sub>2</sub> estimates derived from the NASA ACOS version 10 retrieval algorithm

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The version 10 (v10) Atmospheric Carbon Observations from Space (ACOS) Level 2 full-physics (L2FP) retrieval algorithm has been applied to multiyear records of observations from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 and 3 sensors (OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively) to provide estimates of the carbon dioxide (CO2) column-averaged dry-air mole fraction (XCO2). In this study, a number of improvements to the ACOS v10 L2FP algorithm are described. The post-processing quality filtering and bias correction of the XCO2 estimates against multiple truth proxies are also discussed. The OCO v10 data volumes and XCO2 estimates from the two sensors for the time period of August 2019 through February 2022 are compared, highlighting differences in spatiotemporal sampling but demonstrating broad agreement between the two sensors where they overlap in time and space. A number of evaluation sources applied to both sensors suggest they are broadly similar in data and error characteristics. Mean OCO-3 differences relative to collocated OCO-2 data are approximately 0.2 and −0.3 ppm for land and ocean observations, respectively. Comparison of XCO2 estimates to collocated Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) measurements shows root mean squared errors (RMSEs) of approximately 0.8 and 0.9 ppm for OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively. An evaluation against XCO2 fields derived from atmospheric inversion systems that assimilated only near-surface CO2 observations, i.e., did not assimilate satellite CO2 measurements, yielded RMSEs of 1.0 and 1.1 ppm for OCO-2 and OCO-3, respectively. Evaluation of uncertainties in XCO2 over small areas, as well as XCO2 biases across land–ocean crossings, also indicates similar behavior in the error characteristics of both sensors. Taken together, these results demonstrate a broad consistency of OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO2 measurements, suggesting they may be used together for scientific analyses.