On the zero-level offset in the GOSAT TANSO-FTS O₂ A band and the quality of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF): comparison of SIF between GOSAT and OCO-2

• Main Authors: H. Oshio, Y. Yoshida, T. Matsunaga
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2019-12-01
• Series: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
• Online Access: https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/12/6721/2019/amt-12-6721-2019.pdf

<p>Satellite remote sensing of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) has attracted attention as a method for improving the estimation accuracy of the photosynthetic production of terrestrial vegetation in recent years. The Greenhouse gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) has the ability to observe both SIF and the concentrations of <span class="inline-formula">CO₂</span> and <span class="inline-formula">CH₄</span> and thus is expected to contribute to the understanding of the global carbon budget. Evaluating artefact signals (e.g. zero-level offset caused by non-linearity in the analogue circuit in the case of GOSAT) is effective for inferring the instrument status and important for retrieving SIF from satellite measurements. Here we investigate the characteristics of the zero-level offset and the consistency of satellite-derived SIFs by comparing the derived SIF with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) SIF at multiple spatial scales (footprint to global). The zero-level offset was evaluated using filling-in signals over bare soil while investigating the criteria for identifying barren areas. An analysis of the temporal variation of the zero-level offset over a period of 9 years suggests that the radiometric sensitivity of the GOSAT spectrometer changed after switching the optics path selector in January 2015. The GOSAT SIF was highly consistent with the OCO-2 SIF, with a bias within 0.1&thinsp;mW&thinsp;m<span class="inline-formula">⁻²</span>&thinsp;nm<span class="inline-formula">⁻¹</span>&thinsp;sr<span class="inline-formula">⁻¹</span> for most months and an inter-region bias of about 0.2&thinsp;mW&thinsp;m<span class="inline-formula">⁻²</span>&thinsp;nm<span class="inline-formula">⁻¹</span>&thinsp;sr<span class="inline-formula">⁻¹</span>. Our results agree with the previous comparisons and support the consistency among the present satellite SIF data, which is important for the utilization of those data.</p>