Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Colm Sweeney

Publications and source records attributed to Colm Sweeney.

Satellite Soil Moisture Data Assimilation Impacts on Modeling Weather Variables and Ozone in the Southeastern US – Part 2: Sensitivity to Dry-Deposition Parameterizations

Ozone (O3) dry deposition is a major O3 sink. As a follow-up study of Huang et al. (2021), we quantify the impact of satellite soil moisture (SM) on model representations of this process when different dry-deposition parameterizations are implemented, based on which the implications for interpreting O3 air pollution levels and assessing the O3 impacts on human and ecosystem health are provided. The SM data from NASA's Soil Moisture Active Passive mission are assimilated into the Noah-Multiparameterization (Noah-MP) land surface model within the NASA Land Information System framework, semicoupled with Weather Research and Forecasting model with online Chemistry (WRF-Chem) regional-scale simulations covering the southeastern US. Major changes in the modeling system used include enabling the dynamic vegetation option, adding the irrigation process, and updating the scheme for the surface exchange coefficient. Two dry-deposition schemes are implemented, i.e., the Wesely scheme and a “dynamic” scheme, in the latter of which dry-deposition parameterization is coupled with photosynthesis and vegetation dynamics. It is demonstrated that, when the dynamic scheme is applied, the simulated O3 dry-deposition velocities vd and their stomatal and cuticular portions, as well as the total O3 fluxes Ft, are larger overall; vd and Ft are 2–3 times more sensitive to the SM changes due to the data assimilation (DA). Further, through case studies at two forested sites with different soil types and hydrological regimes, we highlight that, applying the Community Land Model type of SM factor controlling stomatal resistance (i.e., β factor) scheme in replacement of the Noah-type β factor scheme reduced the v(d) sensitivity to SM changes by ∼75 % at one site, while it doubled this sensitivity at the other site. Referring to multiple evaluation datasets, which may be associated with variable extents of uncertainty, the model performance of vegetation, surface fluxes, weather, and surface O3 concentrations shows mixed responses to the DA, some of which display land cover dependency. Finally, using model-derived concentration- and flux-based policy-relevant O3 metrics as well as their matching exposure–response functions, the relative biomass/crop yield losses for several types of vegetation/crops are estimated to be within a wide range of 1 %–17 %. Their sensitivities to the model's dry-deposition scheme and the implementation of SM DA are discussed.

Min Huang↗

Using Atmospheric Trace Gas Vertical Profiles to Evaluate Model Fluxes: A Case Study of Arctic-Cap Observations and Geos Simulations for the ABoVE Domain

Accurate estimates of carbon–climate feedbacks require an independent means for evaluating surface flux models at regional scales. The altitude-integrated enhancement (AIE) derived from the Arctic Carbon Atmospheric Profiles (Arctic-CAP) project demonstrates the utility of this bulk quantity for surface flux model evaluation. This bulk quantity leverages background mole fraction values from the middle free troposphere, is agnostic to uncertainties in boundary layer height, and can be derived from model estimates of mole fractions and vertical gradients. To demonstrate the utility of the bulk quantity, six airborne profiling surveys of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and carbon monoxide (CO) throughout Alaska and northwestern Canada between April and November 2017 were completed as part of NASA’s Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE). The Arctic-CAP sampling strategy involved acquiring vertical profiles of CO2, CH4, and CO from the surface to 5 km altitude at 25 sites around the ABoVE domain on a 4- to 6-week time interval. All Arctic-CAP measurements were compared to a global simulation using the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) modeling system. Comparisons of the AIE bulk quantity from aircraft observations and GEOS simulations of atmospheric CO2, CH4, and CO highlight the fidelity of the modeled surface fluxes. The model–data comparison over the ABoVE domain reveals that while current state-of-the-art models and flux estimates are able to capture broad-scale spatial and temporal patterns in near-surface CO2 and CH4 concentrations, more work is needed to resolve fine-scale flux features that are captured in CO observations

CO2↗

Tropospheric Age-of-Air: Influence of SF6 Emissions on Recent Surface Trends and Model Biases

The mean age since air was last at the Northern Hemisphere (NH) midlatitude surface is a fundamental property of tropospheric transport. Here we approximate the mean age in terms of an "SF6 age" (ΓSF6), derived from surface and aircraft measurements of SF6 that are broader in spatial scope and cover a longer time period (1997-2018) than considered previously. At the surface, ΓSF6 increases from near-zero values north of 30°N to ~1.5 years over the Southern Hemisphere (SH) extratropics, with the largest meridional gradients occurring in the tropics. By comparison, vertical gradients in ΓSF6 are weak throughout, with only slight increases/decreases with height in the NH/SH. The broader spatial coverage of the measurements reveals strong variations in the seasonal cycle of ΓSF6 within the (sub)tropics that are weaker over the Atlantic and Paci c oceans, compared to over the Indian Ocean. Observations from 2000-2018 reveal that the SF6 age at sites in the SH has been decreasing by ~0.12 yr/dec. However, this decrease is not due to changes in transport but, rather, is likely related to changes in emissions, which have increased globally and reportedly shifted from northern midlatitudes into the subtropics. Simulations, which reproduce the SF6 age trends, show no decreases in an age-of-air tracer, reinforcing the fact that ΓSF6 represents only an approximation to the mean age. Finally, the modeled SF6 ages are older than observed, by ~0.3-0.4 years throughout the southern extratropics. We show that this bias is partly related to an overestimation in simulated SF6 near emissions regions,

Mean age↗

Validation of Carbon Trace Gas Profile Retrievals from the NOAA-Unique Combined Atmospheric Processing System for the Cross-Track Infrared Sounder

This paper provides an overview of the validation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operational retrievals of atmospheric carbon trace gas profiles, specifically carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), from the NOAA-Unique Combined Atmospheric Processing System (NUCAPS), a NOAA enterprise algorithm that retrieves atmospheric profile environmental data records (EDRs) under global non-precipitating (clear to partly cloudy) conditions. Vertical information about atmospheric trace gases is obtained from the Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS), an infrared Fourier transform spectrometer that measures high resolution Earth radiance spectra from NOAA operational low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, including the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) and follow-on Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) series beginning with NOAA-20. The NUCAPS CO, CH4, and CO2 profile EDRs are rigorously validated in this paper using well-established independent truth datasets, namely total column data from ground-based Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) sites, and in situ vertical profile data obtained from aircraft and balloon platforms via the NASA Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) mission and NOAA AirCore sampler, respectively. Statistical analyses using these datasets demonstrate that the NUCAPS carbon gas profile EDRs generally meet JPSS Level 1 global performance requirements, with the absolute accuracy and precision of CO 5% and 15%, respectively, in layers where CrIS has vertical sensitivity; CH4 and CO2 product accuracies are both found to be within ±1%, with precisions of ≈1.5% and ⪅0.5%, respectively, throughout the tropospheric column.

satellite cal/val; error analysis; greenhouse gase↗

Global-scale distribution of ozone in the remote troposphere from ATom and HIPPO airborne field missions

Ozone is a key constituent of the troposphere, where it drives photochemical processes, impacts air quality, and acts as a climate forcer. Large-scale in situ observations of ozone commensurate with the grid resolution of current Earth system models are necessary to validate model outputs and satellite retrievals. In this paper, we examine measurements from the Atmospheric Tomography (ATom; four deployments in 2016–2018) and the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO; five deployments in 2009–2011) experiments, two global-scale airborne campaigns covering the Pacific and Atlantic basins. ATom and HIPPO represent the first global-scale, vertically resolved measurements of O3 distributions throughout the troposphere, with HIPPO sampling the atmosphere over the Pacific and ATom sampling both the Pacific and Atlantic. Given the relatively limited temporal resolution of these two campaigns, we first compare ATom and HIPPO ozone data to longer-term observational records to establish the representativeness of our dataset. We show that these two airborne campaigns captured on average 53 %, 54 %, and 38 % of the ozone variability in the marine boundary layer, free troposphere, and upper troposphere–lower stratosphere (UTLS), respectively, at nine well-established ozonesonde sites. Additionally, ATom captured the most frequent ozone concentrations measured by regular commercial aircraft flights in the northern Atlantic UTLS. We then use the repeated vertical profiles from these two campaigns to confirm and extend the existing knowledge of tropospheric ozone spatial and vertical distributions throughout the remote troposphere. We highlight a clear hemispheric gradient, with greater ozone in the Northern Hemisphere, consistent with greater precursor emissions and consistent with previous modeling and satellite studies. We also show that the ozone distribution below 8 km was similar in the extra-tropics of the Atlantic and Pacific basins, likely due to zonal circulation patterns. However, twice as much ozone was found in the tropical Atlantic as in the tropical Pacific, due to well-documented dynamical patterns transporting continental air masses over the Atlantic. Finally, we show that the seasonal variability of tropospheric ozone over the Pacific and the Atlantic basins is driven year-round by transported continental plumes and photochemistry, and the vertical distribution is driven by photochemistry and mixing with stratospheric air. This new dataset provides additional constraints for global climate and chemistry models to improve our understanding of both ozone production and loss processes in remote regions, as well as the influence of anthropogenic emissions on baseline ozone.

ATom, aircraft profiles, Atlantic pollution, ozone↗

Missing OH Reactivity in the Global Marine Boundary Layer

The hydroxyl radical (OH) reacts with thousands of chemical species in the atmosphere, initiating their removal and the chemical reaction sequences that produce ozone, secondary aerosols, and gas-phase acids. OH reactivity, which is the inverse of OH lifetime,influences the OH abundance and the ability of OH to cleanse the atmosphere. The NASA Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) campaign used instruments on the NASA DC-8 aircraft to measure OH reactivity and more than 100 trace chemical species. ATom presented a unique opportunity to test the completeness of the OH reactivity calculated from the chemical species measurements by comparing it to the measured OH reactivity over two oceans across four seasons. Although, throughout much of the free troposphere, the calculated OH reactivity was below the limit-of-detection for the ATom instrument used to measure OH reactivity, the instrument was able to measure the OH reactivity in and just above the marine boundary layer. The mean measured value of OH reactivity in the marine boundary layer across all latitudes and all ATom deployments was 1.9 s-1, which is 0.5 s-1larger than the mean calculated OH reactivity. The missing OH reactivity, the difference between the measured and calculated OH reactivity, varied between 0 s-1to 3.5 s-1, with the highest values over the Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean. Correlations of missing OH reactivity with formaldehyde, dimethyl sulfide, butanal, and sea surface temperature suggest the presence of unmeasured or unknown volatile organic compounds or oxygenated volatile organic compounds associated with ocean emissions.

NASA Atmospheric Tomography (ATom)↗

TROPOMI Methane Validation in the GeoCarb Domain

Objective: GeoCarb validation •Purpose: •Do the four TCCON sites in the GeoCarb domain characterize satellite validation? •Method: •Assess the error estimates globally vs. in the GeoCarb domain •Assess the use of GML/DOE aircraft for CH4 validation •Systematic error estimate (from Kulawik, 2016): •+ regional bias (stdevof average bias versus validation at each station) •+ correlated error (stdev of daily average versus validation) •-co-location error (above quantities for model@satelliteminus model@valid) •-validation error (systematic error of validation estimates, e.g. model extension) Aircraft validation error •CH4 profile extension error estimate: 7 ppb •Extend aircraft observations to the top of the atmosphere with different model configurations •CAMS, scaling to stratosphere, then taking stratosphere •Extend by repeating top aircraft value to the troposphere, then taking CAMS •Extend with GEOS-Chem run (from 2010). •Difference CAMS-Scale vs. CAMS-Tropo: •3.6 +-5.5 ppb •Systematic error: 6.6 ppb •Extending aircraft to tropopause is blatantly wrong, but these two have the same stratosphere. •Difference CAMS-Scale vs. GEOS-Scale: •6.2 +-8.7 ppb •Do not consider bias since model is 10 years off. Systematic error ~8.7 ppb. •Estimate of systematic error from profile extension (possibly underestimated, resulting in possibly higher TROPOMI error estimate) •7 ppb •Would likely vary some by season, site, other conditions •Aircraft measurement error: 1 ppb •1 ppb from measurement error3

TROMPOMI↗