Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “OMI”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2007

OMI Total and Tropospheric Column Nitrogen Dioxide: Version 2 Status

The at-launch version of the OM1 NO2 total and tropospheric NO2 algorithm made a number of assumptions about instrument performance. Our knowledge of tropospheric NO2 has increased in the 3 years since the inital version was delivered. The results of the post-launch validation campaigns and improved atmospheric modelling has lead to changes in the NO2 retrieval algorithm. The algorithm changes and the impacts on the data products will be presented.

Gleason, James↗
NASA NTRS2012

Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Depth Above Clouds from OMI Observations: Sensitivity Analysis, Case Studies

A large fraction of the atmospheric aerosol load reaching the free troposphere is frequently located above low clouds. Most commonly observed aerosols above clouds are carbonaceous particles generally associated with biomass burning and boreal forest fires, and mineral aerosols originated in arid and semi-arid regions and transported across large distances, often above clouds. Because these aerosols absorb solar radiation, their role in the radiative transfer balance of the earth atmosphere system is especially important. The generally negative (cooling) top of the atmosphere direct effect of absorbing aerosols, may turn into warming when the light-absorbing particles are located above clouds. The actual effect depends on the aerosol load and the single scattering albedo, and on the geometric cloud fraction. In spite of its potential significance, the role of aerosols above clouds is not adequately accounted for in the assessment of aerosol radiative forcing effects due to the lack of measurements. In this paper we discuss the basis of a simple technique that uses near-UV observations to simultaneously derive the optical depth of both the aerosol layer and the underlying cloud for overcast conditions. The two-parameter retrieval method described here makes use of the UV aerosol index and reflectance measurements at 388 nm. A detailed sensitivity analysis indicates that the measured radiances depend mainly on the aerosol absorption exponent and aerosol-cloud separation. The technique was applied to above-cloud aerosol events over the Southern Atlantic Ocean yielding realistic results as indicated by indirect evaluation methods. An error analysis indicates that for typical overcast cloudy conditions and aerosol loads, the aerosol optical depth can be retrieved with an accuracy of approximately 54% whereas the cloud optical depth can be derived within 17% of the true value.

Torres, O.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Characterize Aerosols from MODIS MISR OMI MERRA-2: Dynamic Image Browse Perspective

Among the known atmospheric constituents, aerosols still represent the greatest uncertainty in climate research. To understand the uncertainty is to bring altogether of observational (in-situ and remote sensing) and modeling datasets and inter-compare them synergistically for a wide variety of applications that can bring far-reaching benefits to the science community and the broader society. These benefits can best be achieved if these earth science data (satellite and modeling) are well utilized and interpreted. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, despite the abundance and relative maturity of numerous satellite-borne sensors routinely measure aerosols. There is often disagreement between similar aerosol parameters retrieved from different sensors, leaving users confused as to which sensors to trust for answering important science questions about the distribution, properties, and impacts of aerosols. NASA Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) have developed a new visualization service (NASA Level 2 Data Quality Visualization, DQViz)supporting various visualization and data accessing capabilities from satellite Level 2(MODISMISROMI) and long term assimilated aerosols from NASA Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2 displaying at their own native physical-retrieved spatial resolution. Functionality will include selecting data sources (e.g., multiple parameters under the same measurement), defining area-of-interest and temporal extents, zooming, panning, overlaying, sliding, and data subsetting and reformatting.

data quality↗
NASA NTRS2018

A New Global Anthropogenic SO2 Emission Inventory for the Last Decade: A Mosaic of Satellite-Derived and Bottom-Up Emissions

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) measurements from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) satellite sensor have been used to detect emissions from large point sources. Emissions from over 400 sources have been quantified individually based on OMI observations, accounting for about a half of total reported anthropogenic SO2 emissions. Here we report a newly developed emission inventory, OMI-HTAP, by combining these OMI-based emission estimates and the conventional bottom-up inventory, HTAP, for smaller sources that OMI is not able to detect. OMI-HTAP includes emissions from OMI-detected sources that are not captured in previous leading bottom-up inventories, enabling more accurate emission estimates for regions with such missing sources. In addition, our approach offers the possibility of rapid updates to emissions from large point sources that can be detected by satellites. Our methodology applied to OMI-HTAP can also be used to merge improved satellite-derived estimates with other multi-year bottom-up inventories, which may further improve the accuracy of the emission trends. OMI-HTAP SO2 emissions estimates for Persian Gulf, Mexico, and Russia are 59%, 65%, and 56% larger than HTAP estimates, respectively, in year 2010. We have evaluated the OMI-HTAP inventory by performing simulations with the Goddard Earth Observing System version 5 (GEOS-5) model. The GEOS-5 simulated SO2 concentrations driven by both HTAP and OMI-HTAP were compared against in situ measurements. We focus for the validation on year 2010 for which HTAP is most valid and for which a relatively large number of in situ measurements are available. Results show that the OMI-HTAP inventory improves the agreement between the model and observations, in particular over the US, with the normalized mean bias decreasing from 0.41 (HTAP) to -0.03 (OMI-HTAP) for year 2010. Simulations with the OMI-HTAP inventory capture the worldwide major trends of large anthropogenic SO2 emissions that are observed with OMI. Correlation coefficients of the observed and modelled surface SO2 in 2014 increase from 0.16 (HTAP) to 0.59 (OMI-HTAP) and the normalized mean bias dropped from 0.29 (HTAP) to 0.05 (OMI-HTAP), when we updated 2010 HTAP emissions with 2014 OMI-HTAP emissions in the model.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)↗
NASA NTRS2023

Satellite Remote-Sensing Capability to Assess Tropospheric-Column Ratios of Formaldehyde and Nitrogen Dioxide: Case Study During the Long Island Sound Tropospheric Ozone Study 2018 (LISTOS 2018) Field Campaign

Satellite retrievals of tropospheric-column formaldehyde (HCHO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) are frequently used to investigate the sensitivity of ozone (O 3 ) production to emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic carbon compounds. This study inter-compared the systematic biases and uncertainties in retrievals of NO 2 and HCHO, as well as resulting HCHO–NO 2 ratios (FNRs), from two commonly applied satellite sensors to investigate O 3 production sensitivities (Ozone Monitoring Instrument, OMI, and TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument, TROPOMI) using airborne remote-sensing data taken during the Long Island Sound Tropospheric Ozone Study 2018 between 25 June and 6 September 2018. Compared to aircraft-based HCHO and NO 2 observations, the accuracy of OMI and TROPOMI were magnitude-dependent with high biases in clean environments and a tendency towards more accurate comparisons to even low biases in moderately polluted to polluted regions. OMI and TROPOMI NO 2 systematic biases were similar in magnitude (normalized median bias, NMB = 5 %–6 %; linear regression slope ≈ 0.5–0.6), with OMI having a high median bias and TROPOMI resulting in small low biases. Campaign-averaged uncertainties in the three satellite retrievals (NASA OMI; Quality Assurance for Essential Climate Variables, QA4ECV OMI; and TROPOMI) of NO 2 were generally similar, with TROPOMI retrievals having slightly less spread in the data compared to OMI. The three satellite products differed more when evaluating HCHO retrievals. Campaign-averaged tropospheric HCHO retrievals all had linear regression slopes ∼0.5 and NMBs of 39 %, 17 %, 13 %, and 23 % for NASA OMI, QA4ECV OMI, and TROPOMI at finer (0.05° x 0.05°) and coarser (0.15° x 0.15°) spatial resolution, respectively. Campaign-averaged uncertainty values (root mean square error, RMSE) in NASA and QA4ECV OMI HCHO retrievals were ~9.0 x 10 15 molecules cm –2 (∼ 50 %–55 % of mean column abundance), and the higher-spatial-resolution retrievals from TROPOMI resulted in RMSE values ∼30 % lower. Spatially averaging TROPOMI tropospheric-column HCHO, along with NO 2 and FNRs, to resolutions similar to the OMI reduced the uncertainty in these retrievals. Systematic biases in OMI and TROPOMI NO 2 and HCHO retrievals tended to cancel out, resulting in all three satellite products comparing well to observed FNRs. However, while satellite-derived FNRs had minimal campaign-averaged median biases, unresolved errors in the indicator species did not cancel out in FNR calculations, resulting in large RMSE values compared to observations. Uncertainties in HCHO retrievals were determined to drive the unresolved biases in FNR retrievals.

Matthew S. Johnson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessment of Long-term Trends in the Collection 4 Total Ozone Record from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument

Long-term changes in total ozone affect the amount of harmful UV radiation reaching Earth’s surface and reflect progress made towards recovery of stratospheric ozone. Satellite total ozone data are also used to estimate long-term trends in tropospheric ozone, a reactive and potent greenhouse gas, by subtracting the stratospheric column timeseries from that of total ozone. For these scientific applications, the long-term stability should be better than 1%. Left unchecked, instrument calibration drift can produce a trend of this magnitude or greater. NASA has produced nearly twenty years of total ozone data from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) using the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) algorithm. The drift in the OMI instrument as monitored by ice radiance calibration has been relatively slow, but it has reached a level of ~3% over the mission lifetime. This drift was corrected in the recently released Collection 4 OMI calibrated radiances, updating the Collection 3 calibration released in 2006. We have reprocessed the OMI total ozone record using the Collection 4 calibration and updates to the TOMS algorithm. We summarize these changes and evaluate their impact by comparing to the previous Collection 3 OMI dataset, the Suomi NPP Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite Nadir Mapper (OMPS-NM) and Solar Backscatter UV (SBUV) Merged Ozone Dataset (MOD) total ozone records and other independent satellite total ozone datasets. Climatological radiance residuals from OMI and OMPS-NM are calculated and compared to investigate differences in spectral calibration that can cause drifts in long-term total ozone trends. We also analyze the tropospheric ozone record produced using the Collection 4 OMI total ozone and stratospheric column ozone from MLS. Collection 3 OMI data processed with the TOMS algorithm show a positive drift relative to other satellite and ground-based data of 1-2 DU per decade. Initial results show that this drift is reduced in Collection 4 OMI, due to the updated OMI calibration. In this work we will quantify the improvements in Collection 4 OMI relative to independent data sources at both the ozone and radiance level

Collection 4 OMI Total Ozone↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Development of Two Science Investigator-led Processing Systems (SIPS) for NASA's Earth Observation System (EOS)

In 2001, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics started the construction of a science Investigator-led Processing System (SIPS) for processing data from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) which will launch on the Aura platform in mid 2004. The Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) is a contribution of the Netherlands Agency for Aerospace Programs (NIVR) in collaboration with the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) to the Earth Observing System (EOS) Aura mission. It will continue the Total Ozone Monitoring System (TOMS) record for total ozone and other atmospheric parameters related to ozone chemistry and climate. OMI measurements will be highly synergistic with the other instruments on the EOS Aura platform. The LTP previously developed the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) Data Processing System (MODAPS), which has been in full operations since the launches of the Terra and Aqua spacecrafts in December, 1999 and May, 2002 respectively. During that time, it has continually evolved to better support the needs of the MODIS team. We now run multiple instances of the system managing faster than real time reprocessings of the data as well as continuing forward processing. The new OMI Data Processing System (OMIDAPS) was adapted from the MODAPS. It will ingest raw data from the satellite ground station and process it to produce calibrated, geolocated higher level data products. These data products will be transmitted to the Goddard Distributed Active Archive Center (GDAAC) instance of the Earth Observing System (EOS) Data and Information System (EOSDIS) for long term archive and distribution to the public. The OMIDAPS will also provide data distribution to the OMI Science Team for quality assessment, algorithm improvement, calibration, etc. We have taken advantage of lessons learned from the MODIS experience and software already developed for MODIS. We made some changes in the hardware system organization, database and software to adapt the system for OMI. We replaced the fundamental database system, Sybase, with an Open Source RDBMS called PostgreSQL, and based the entire OMIDAPS on a cluster of Linux based commodity computers rather than the large SGI servers that MODAPS uses. Rather than relying on a central I/O server host, the new system distributes its data archive among multiple server hosts in the cluster. OMI is also customizing the graphical user interfaces and reporting structure to more closely meet the needs of the OMI Science Team. Prior to 2003, simulated OMI data and the science algorithms were not ready for production testing. We initially constructed a prototype system and tested using a 25 year dataset of Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) and Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Instrument (SBUV) data. This prototype system provided a platform to support the adaptation of the algorithms for OMI, and provided reprocessing of the historical data aiding in its analysis. In a recent reanalysis of the TOMS data, the OMIDAPS processed 108,000 full orbits of data through 4 processing steps per orbit, producing about 800,000 files (400 GiB) of level 2 and greater data files. More recently we have installed two instances of the OMIDAPS for integration and testing of OM1 science processes as they get delivered from the Science Team. A Test instance of the OMIDAPS has also supported a series of "Interface Confidence Tests" (ICTs) and End-to-End Ground System tests to ensure the launch readiness of the system. This paper will discuss the high-level hardware, software, and database organization of the OMIDAPS and how it builds on the MODAPS heritage system. It will also provide an overview of the testing and implementation of the production OMIDAPS.

Tilmes, Curt↗
NASA NTRS2017

Simulation of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument Aerosol Index Using the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System Aerosol Reanalysis Products

We provide an analysis of the commonly used Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) aerosol index (AI) product for qualitative detection of the presence and loading of absorbing aerosols. In our analysis, simulated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiances are produced at the OMI footprints from a model atmosphere and aerosol profile provided by the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS-5) Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications aerosol reanalysis (MERRAero). Having established the credibility of the MERRAero simulation of the OMI AI in a previous paper we describe updates in the approach and aerosol optical property assumptions. The OMI TOA radiances are computed in cloud-free conditions from the MERRAero atmospheric state, and the AI is calculated. The simulated TOA radiances are fed to the OMI aerosol retrieval algorithms, and its retrieved AI (OMAERUV AI) is compared to the MERRAero calculated AI. Two main sources of discrepancy are discussed: one pertaining the OMI algorithm assumptions of the surface pressure, which are generally different from what the actual surface pressure of an observation is, and the other related to simplifying assumptions in the molecular atmosphere radiative transfer used in the OMI algorithms. Surface pressure assumptions lead to systematic biases in the OMAERUV AI, particularly over the oceans. Simplifications in the molecular radiative transfer lead to biases particularly in regions of topography intermediate to surface pressures of 600hPa and 1013.25hPa. Generally, the errors in the OMI AI due to these considerations are less than 0.2 in magnitude, though larger errors are possible, particularly over land. We recommend that future versions of the OMI algorithms use surface pressures from readily available atmospheric analyses combined with high-spatial resolution topographic maps and include more surface pressure nodal points in their radiative transfer lookup tables.

remote sensing↗