Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “tropoe”

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.

40 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1998

A TOMS-Based View of Tropical Tropospheric Ozone (OTTO) From Large Fires Associated with the 1997-1998 El Nino

Since the launch of Earth-Probe TOMS in July 1 996, we have been producing tropical tropospheric ozone (TTO) maps (10S - 10N), in gridded format, l x 2 degrees, in near-real time. These images, along with images from the full ADEOS-TOMS record of TTO (Sept. 1996 - May 1997) can be viewed on a homepage: http://metosrv2.umd,edu/-tropo). The TTO maps, based on the modified-residual method of Hudson and Thompson [1998], have been validated using ozonesondes from Ascension (8S, 15W), Nairobi (2S, 36E) and American Samoa (14S, 171W). The fires associated with El Nino-induced dryness are exhibited regionally as high tropospheric ozone column (> 60 Dobson Units) with high absorbing aerosol (smoke) signal in TOMS [J. R. Herman, personal communication, 1998]. Episodes of high TTO in 1997-98 will be shown. Regional TTO over Indonesia during the 1997-98 period will be highlighted and comparisons will be made with TTO in that region taken from the 1979-92 Nimbus/TOMS TTO record.

Thompson, Anne M.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Widespread Biomass Burning Smoke Throughout the Remote Troposphere

Biomass burning emits ~34–41 Tg yr−1 of smoke aerosol to the atmosphere. Biomass burning aerosol directly influences the Earth’s climate by attenuation of solar and terrestrial radiation; however, its abundance and distribution on a global scale are poorly constrained, particularly after plumes dilute into the background remote troposphere and are subject to removal by clouds and precipitation. Here we report global-scale, airborne measurements of biomass burning aerosol in the remote tropo-sphere. Measurements were taken during four series of seasonal flights over the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean basins, each with near pole-to-pole latitude coverage. We find that biomass burning particles in the remote troposphere are dilute but ubiquitous, accounting for one-quarter of the accumulation-mode aerosol number and one-fifth of the aerosol mass. Comparing our obser-vations with a high-resolution global aerosol model, we find that the model overestimates biomass burning aerosol mass in the remote troposphere with a mean bias of >400%, largely due to insufficient wet removal by in-cloud precipitation. After updat-ing the model’s aerosol removal scheme we find that, on a global scale, dilute smoke contributes as much as denser plumes to biomass burning’s scattering and absorption effects on the Earth’s radiation field.

Biomass burning↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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↗
DOE OSTI2023

Impact of Seasonal Snow-Cover Change on the Observed and Simulated State of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer in a High-Altitude Mountain Valley

The structure and evolution of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) under clear-sky fair weather conditions over mountainous terrain is dominated by the diurnal cycle of the surface energy balance and thus strongly depends on surface snow cover. We use data from three passive ground-based infrared spectrometers deployed in the East River Valley in Colorado's Rocky Mountains to investigate the response of the thermal ABL structure to changes in surface energy balance during the seasonal transition from low to high snow cover. Temperature profiles were retrieved from the infrared radiances using the optimal estimation physical retrieval Tropospheric Remotely Observed Profiling via Optimal Estimation. A nocturnal surface inversion formed in the valley during clear-sky days, which was subsequently mixed out during daytime with the development of a convective boundary layer when snow cover was low. Over high snow cover, a very shallow convective boundary layer formed, above which the inversion persisted through the daytime hours. We compare these observations to NOAA's operational High-Resolution-Rapid-Refresh model and find large warm biases on clear-sky days resulting from the model's inability to form strong nocturnal inversions and to maintain the stable stratification in the valley during daytime when there was snow on the ground. We suggest several factors contributing to the large model errors. These are (a) the inability of the model to represent well-developed thermally driven flows likely due to the too coarse horizontal grid spacing (3 km), (b) too much convective mixing during daytime, and (c) too strong vertical coupling between the valley atmosphere and the free troposphere.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗