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
  • [31] Sex differences in mental rotation: Top-down versus bottom-up processing
    Butler, Tracy
    Imperato-McGinley, Julianne
    Pan, Hong
    Voyer, Daniel
    Cordero, Juan
    Zhu, Yuan-Shan
    Stern, Emily
    Silbersweig, David
    NEUROIMAGE, 2006, 32 (01) : 445 - 456
  • [32] BOTTOM-UP VERSUS TOP-DOWN - AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE AUTOMATIC-ATTENDED DILEMMA
    BANQUET, JP
    SMITH, MJ
    RENAULT, B
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1990, 13 (02) : 233 - 233
  • [33] Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy
    Awh, Edward
    Belopolsky, Artem V.
    Theeuwes, Jan
    TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2012, 16 (08) : 437 - 443
  • [35] Top-down versus Bottom-up Regulation of Coral Cover in the Florida Keys
    Smith, K. M.
    Childress, M. J.
    INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY, 2017, 57 : E410 - E410
  • [36] Top-down versus bottom-up oxidation of a neonicotinoid pesticide by OH radicals
    Wang, Xinke
    Wang, Weihong
    Wingen, Lisa M.
    Perraud, Veronique
    Finlayson-Pitts, Barbara J.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2024, 121 (07)
  • [37] Online Crowdsourcing Campaigns: Bottom-Up versus Top-Down Process Model
    Ren, Jie
    Ozturk, Pinar
    Yeoh, William
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2019, 59 (03) : 266 - 276
  • [38] TOP-DOWN VERSUS BOTTOM-UP THEORIES OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING
    HEADEY, B
    VEENHOVEN, R
    WEARING, A
    SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH, 1991, 24 (01) : 81 - 100
  • [39] Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval
    Florian Waszak
    Roland Pfister
    Andrea Kiesel
    Psychological Research, 2013, 77 : 611 - 617
  • [40] Bottom-up versus top-down factor investing: an alpha forecasting perspective
    Zurek, Martin
    Heinrich, Lars
    JOURNAL OF ASSET MANAGEMENT, 2021, 22 (01) : 11 - 29