Direct top-down estimates of biomass burning CO emissions using TES and MOPITT versus bottom-up GFED inventory

被引:32
|
作者
Pechony, Olga [1 ,2 ]
Shindell, Drew T. [1 ,2 ]
Faluvegi, Greg [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] NASA, Goddard Inst Space Studies, New York, NY 10025 USA
[2] Columbia Earth Inst, New York, NY USA
关键词
Carbon monoxide; Biomass burning emissions; MOPITT; TES; GFED; Climate model; NADIR RETRIEVALS; CARBON-MONOXIDE; BURNED AREA; SATELLITE; SPECTROMETER; VARIABILITY; POLLUTION; OZONE; SIMULATIONS; CHEMISTRY;
D O I
10.1002/jgrd.50624
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
In this study, we utilize near-simultaneous observations from two sets of multiple satellite sensors to segregate Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) and Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) CO observations over active fire sources from those made over clear background. Hence, we obtain direct estimates of biomass burning CO emissions without invoking inverse modeling as in traditional top-down methods. We find considerable differences between Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) versions 2.1 and 3.1 and satellite-based emission estimates in many regions. Both inventories appear to greatly underestimate South and Southeast Asia emissions, for example. On global scales, however, CO emissions in both inventories and in the MOPITT-based analysis agree reasonably well, with the largest bias (30%) found in the Northern Hemisphere spring. In the Southern Hemisphere, there is a one-month shift between the GFED and MOPITT-based fire emissions peak. Afternoon tropical fire emissions retrieved from TES are about two times higher than the morning MOPITT retrievals. This appears to be both a real difference due to the diurnal fire activity variations, and a bias due to the scarcity of TES data.
引用
收藏
页码:8054 / 8066
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up
    Nisbet, Euan
    Weiss, Ray
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2010, 328 (5983) : 1241 - 1243
  • [2] Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Macroeconomics
    De Grauwe, Paul
    [J]. CESIFO ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2010, 56 (04) : 465 - 497
  • [3] Bottom-up versus top-down lawmaking
    Rachlinski, Jeffrey J.
    [J]. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW, 2006, 73 (03): : 933 - 964
  • [4] Global geological methane emissions: An update of top-down and bottom-up estimates
    Etiope, Giuseppe
    Schwietzke, Stefan
    [J]. ELEMENTA-SCIENCE OF THE ANTHROPOCENE, 2019, 7
  • [5] Agricultural ammonia emissions in China: reconciling bottom-up and top-down estimates
    Zhang, Lin
    Chen, Youfan
    Zhao, Yuanhong
    Henze, Daven K.
    Zhu, Liye
    Song, Yu
    Paulot, Fabien
    Liu, Xuejun
    Pan, Yuepeng
    Lin, Yi
    Huang, Binxiang
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2018, 18 (01) : 339 - 355
  • [6] TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP FORECASTING STRATEGIES
    SCHWARZKOPF, AB
    TERSINE, RJ
    MORRIS, JS
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH, 1988, 26 (11) : 1833 - 1843
  • [7] Visual attention: Bottom-up versus top-down
    Connor, CE
    Egeth, HE
    Yantis, S
    [J]. CURRENT BIOLOGY, 2004, 14 (19) : R850 - R852
  • [8] Top-down versus bottom-up approaches in proteomics
    Wehr, Tim
    [J]. LC GC NORTH AMERICA, 2006, 24 (09) : 1004 - +
  • [9] Questions of direction - Top-down versus bottom-up
    Lindley, D
    [J]. NATURE, 2001, 410 (6826) : 305 - 305
  • [10] Top-down and bottom-up estimates of anthropogenic methyl bromide emissions from eastern China
    Choi, Haklim
    Park, Mi-Kyung
    Fraser, Paul J.
    Park, Hyeri
    Geum, Sohyeon
    Muhle, Jens
    Kim, Jooil
    Porter, Ian
    Salameh, Peter K.
    Harth, Christina M.
    Dunse, Bronwyn L.
    Krummel, Paul B.
    Weiss, Ray F.
    O'Doherty, Simon
    Young, Dickon
    Park, Sunyoung
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2022, 22 (08) : 5157 - 5173