The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations

It is often implicitly assumed that over suitably long periods the mean of observations and models should be comparable, even if they have different temporal sampling. We assess the errors incurred due to ignoring temporal sampling and show that they are of similar magnitude as (but smaller than) ac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Main Authors: N. A. J. Schutgens, D. G. Partridge, P. Stier
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016
https://doaj.org/article/a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159 2023-05-15T13:06:26+02:00 The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations N. A. J. Schutgens D. G. Partridge P. Stier 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016 https://doaj.org/article/a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159 EN eng Copernicus Publications https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/1065/2016/acp-16-1065-2016.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1680-7316 https://doaj.org/toc/1680-7324 doi:10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016 1680-7316 1680-7324 https://doaj.org/article/a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol 16, Pp 1065-1079 (2016) Physics QC1-999 Chemistry QD1-999 article 2016 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016 2022-12-31T00:25:00Z It is often implicitly assumed that over suitably long periods the mean of observations and models should be comparable, even if they have different temporal sampling. We assess the errors incurred due to ignoring temporal sampling and show that they are of similar magnitude as (but smaller than) actual model errors (20–60 %). Using temporal sampling from remote-sensing data sets, the satellite imager MODIS (MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and the ground-based sun photometer network AERONET (AErosol Robotic NETwork), and three different global aerosol models, we compare annual and monthly averages of full model data to sampled model data. Our results show that sampling errors as large as 100 % in AOT (aerosol optical thickness), 0.4 in AE (Ångström Exponent) and 0.05 in SSA (single scattering albedo) are possible. Even in daily averages, sampling errors can be significant. Moreover these sampling errors are often correlated over long distances giving rise to artificial contrasts between pristine and polluted events and regions. Additionally, we provide evidence that suggests that models will underestimate these errors. To prevent sampling errors, model data should be temporally collocated to the observations before any analysis is made. We also discuss how this work has consequences for in situ measurements (e.g. aircraft campaigns or surface measurements) in model evaluation. Although this study is framed in the context of model evaluation, it has a clear and direct relevance to climatologies derived from observational data sets. Article in Journal/Newspaper Aerosol Robotic Network Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16 2 1065 1079
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic Physics
QC1-999
Chemistry
QD1-999
spellingShingle Physics
QC1-999
Chemistry
QD1-999
N. A. J. Schutgens
D. G. Partridge
P. Stier
The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
topic_facet Physics
QC1-999
Chemistry
QD1-999
description It is often implicitly assumed that over suitably long periods the mean of observations and models should be comparable, even if they have different temporal sampling. We assess the errors incurred due to ignoring temporal sampling and show that they are of similar magnitude as (but smaller than) actual model errors (20–60 %). Using temporal sampling from remote-sensing data sets, the satellite imager MODIS (MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and the ground-based sun photometer network AERONET (AErosol Robotic NETwork), and three different global aerosol models, we compare annual and monthly averages of full model data to sampled model data. Our results show that sampling errors as large as 100 % in AOT (aerosol optical thickness), 0.4 in AE (Ångström Exponent) and 0.05 in SSA (single scattering albedo) are possible. Even in daily averages, sampling errors can be significant. Moreover these sampling errors are often correlated over long distances giving rise to artificial contrasts between pristine and polluted events and regions. Additionally, we provide evidence that suggests that models will underestimate these errors. To prevent sampling errors, model data should be temporally collocated to the observations before any analysis is made. We also discuss how this work has consequences for in situ measurements (e.g. aircraft campaigns or surface measurements) in model evaluation. Although this study is framed in the context of model evaluation, it has a clear and direct relevance to climatologies derived from observational data sets.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author N. A. J. Schutgens
D. G. Partridge
P. Stier
author_facet N. A. J. Schutgens
D. G. Partridge
P. Stier
author_sort N. A. J. Schutgens
title The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
title_short The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
title_full The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
title_fullStr The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
title_full_unstemmed The importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
title_sort importance of temporal collocation for the evaluation of aerosol models with observations
publisher Copernicus Publications
publishDate 2016
url https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016
https://doaj.org/article/a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159
genre Aerosol Robotic Network
genre_facet Aerosol Robotic Network
op_source Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol 16, Pp 1065-1079 (2016)
op_relation https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/1065/2016/acp-16-1065-2016.pdf
https://doaj.org/toc/1680-7316
https://doaj.org/toc/1680-7324
doi:10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016
1680-7316
1680-7324
https://doaj.org/article/a745e1a59f024989925c981df9fd6159
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1065-2016
container_title Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
container_volume 16
container_issue 2
container_start_page 1065
op_container_end_page 1079
_version_ 1766005460578598912