Atmospheric Variability and Measurement Uncertainty: Pitfalls in Averaging in situ Data
Satellite measurements and atmospheric models, two essential components of the integrated global observing system, provide crucial tools for monitoring and predicting regional and global foci, spanning numerous Earth Science fields. Unfortunately, models can lack the spatial and temporal resolution needed to resolve finer scale structure. Satellite measurements also have similar tempo-spatial restriction issues, but additionally can only measure certain species and can have biases that must be evaluated. Ground measurement networks are critical components of this system, by providing both independent inputs of species needed by models (including those that satellites do not provide) and assisting with investigation of biases in satellite products. Similarly, aircraft measurements play a vital role in closing the gaps between satellite measurements, model products, and ground monitoring networks by providing high accuracy, high-resolution data on local to regional spatial scales. Therefore, both ground-based and airborne observations are widely used to assess model predictions and satellite observations. One of the great challenges in using both ground and aircraft data in this fashion is matching the data temporally and spatially to the model/satellite data. A meaningful comparison with model or satellite requires a solid assessment of the variability of the in-situ measurements, which include both the instrument uncertainty and the statistical uncertainty due to atmospheric variability. While instrument uncertainty is generally more straightforwardly characterized, it can be challenging to accurately capture this variability uncertainty as it often presents in a non-Gaussian manner (e.g. emission plumes, frontal passages). We will present results examining spatial and temporal variability over a selection of scales relevant to satellite measurements and models of several in situ measurement species spanning both airborne and ground measurements. The extent of non-Gaussian variability will be quantified, and we will discuss additional statistical parameters that help assess the fitness of gaussian variability assumption when temporally or spatially averaging.