the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Importance of subpixel Earth surface reflectance and altitude for atmospheric trace gas retrievals from passive satellite instruments
Abstract. Satellite retrievals of atmospheric greenhouse gas columns are used to obtain information about greenhouse gas sources and sinks by inverse modeling. Such an application requires high accuracy, as even small biases of the retrieved concentrations may result in large errors of the inferred rates of surface emissions (source) and deposition, surface uptake or removal in the atmosphere (sinks). For example, for the upcoming satellite mission dedicated to carbon dioxide monitoring (CO2M), co-funded by ESA and the European Commission for the Copernicus Programme, the accuracy of the dry-air column-averaged CO2 mole fraction (XCO2) is required to be better than 0.5 ppm. Here we investigate a potentially important systematic error source, namely XCO2 biases due to correlated sub-pixel variability of surface reflectance (albedo) and altitude. To minimize this error source we propose the use of an albedo-weighted surface altitude which better represents the satellite’s spatial sample than the unweighted average by using a linearized theoretical analysis. We use Copernicus Sentinel-2 data combined with Copernicus Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data and the Fast atmOspheric traCe gAs retrievaL (FOCAL) algorithm and create a variety of self-consistent experiments to test this theory. First, we conduct experiments with defined conditions and second, we apply the methodology to some real-world examples: the Bełchatów power plant in Poland, the Black Forest in Germany, the region around Mont Blanc in the European Alps and the whole country of Germany. In all these examples, we find that using the albedo-weighted average of the surface altitude reduces biases at locations with heterogeneous surface structure to values below the requirements for future satellite missions. In addition, we developed a possible post-processing equation to account for this process, because high-resolution albedo currently is not measured simultaneously with satellite instruments. We also find that filter parameters connected to the surface roughness might be relaxed when using the albedo-weighted surface altitude in the retrievals. Furthermore, we examine the dependence of the XCO2 errors on the size of the spatial samples and find that the errors become larger with larger spatial samples, but are generally smaller by more than a factor of four when using the albedo-weighted instead of the unweighted average of the surface altitude. In conclusion, we show that the use of the albedo-weighted surface altitude in the retrieval process results in significant reduction of the XCO2 bias compared to the use of the unweighted mean altitude, as currently used in most retrieval schemes.
- Preprint
(11422 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5980 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1458', Lu Zhang, 22 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1458/egusphere-2026-1458-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1458-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1458', Robert Roland Nelson, 27 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1458/egusphere-2026-1458-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1458', Anonymous Referee #3, 31 May 2026
This manuscript investigates an important and practically relevant error source in passive satellite retrievals of greenhouse-gas column abundances. Biases in XCO2 caused by correlated sub-pixel variability in surface reflectance and surface altitude. The authors argue that the conventional use of an unweighted mean surface altitude within a satellite ground pixel can misrepresent the effective light path when brighter sub-pixel areas are preferentially located at higher or lower elevations. To address this issue, they derive an albedo-weighted effective surface altitude and test the concept using Copernicus Sentinel-2/HLS surface reflectance, Copernicus DEM data, and the FOCAL-CO2M retrieval framework. The manuscript applies the method to idealized two-part pixels and to several real-world examples. The study also proposes an empirical post-processing correction and discusses implications for surface-roughness filtering and spatial-sample size.
I recommend minor revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Major comments
1. The manuscript suggests that the albedo-weighted surface altitude should be used in trace-gas retrievals and that it can reduce biases below future mission requirements. This is a potentially important conclusion, but the evidence presented is not yet sufficient to support it in an operational sense.
The study uses FOCAL-CO2M to generate simulated spectra and then retrieves XCO2 with FOCAL-CO2M using either unweighted or albedo-weighted altitude input. The authors also state that no radiance noise is added, although a realistic uncertainty based on signal-to-noise ratio is used in the inversion.
I recommend that the authors revise the abstract, conclusions, and relevant parts of Section 4 to make clear that the demonstrated improvement applies to self-consistent FOCAL-CO2M simulations under controlled assumptions. Statements such as “below the requirements for future satellite missions” should be qualified, particularly because the Mont Blanc example still shows substantial residual errors even after applying the albedo-weighted altitude. A more appropriate conclusion would be that the method substantially reduces one specific component of terrain-related XCO2 bias and may be valuable for future retrieval development, but that its operational benefit remains to be demonstrated under realistic measurement and forward-model uncertainties.
2. In the theoretical derivation in Section 2, the authors derive an exact effective altitude expression under a simplified Lambert-Beer framework and then apply a first-order Taylor expansion around the mean surface altitude. This leads to the albedo-weighted surface altitude. The derivation is elegant and physically intuitive, but the validity of the first-order approximation is not sufficiently quantified.
The manuscript states that the expansion assumes the deviations of individual sub-pixel altitudes from the mean altitude are small enough. However, later applications include cases with large sub-pixel altitude variations, including mountainous terrain and surface-roughness bins extending to several hundred meters. In such cases, second-order and higher-order terms may not be negligible. The Mont Blanc case appears to be an example where the albedo-weighted approach still leaves residual XCO2 errors of order ppm, suggesting that the first-order approximation or other simplified assumptions break down for strongly heterogeneous high-mountain scenes.
I suggest the authors add a dedicated analysis comparing the exact effective altitude from their non-linear expression with the first-order albedo-weighted approximation. This should be done across a representative range of altitude variability, albedo contrast, background altitude, solar/viewing geometry, and optical depth. Such an analysis would allow the authors to define a validity domain, for example in terms of surface roughness, maximum sub-pixel altitude range, albedo contrast, or expected XCO2 residual.
3. The paper discusses scattering using a small number of prescribed scattering scenarios. This is useful, but the range appears limited. In the appendix, the authors test no scattering and two scattering cases with different optical thickness and scattering-layer pressure. The resulting correlations suggest that the empirical correction remains broadly useful, but one of the scattering cases has much lower explanatory power than the others.
I suggest the authors avoid statements implying that the proposed correction is valid over a wide range of scattering conditions unless a broader sensitivity analysis is performed. A more complete test would vary aerosol optical depth, scattering-layer height, Ångström exponent, surface albedo level, solar zenith angle, and viewing geometry. At minimum, the authors should explicitly state that the scattering sensitivity is limited to the few prescribed scenarios tested in this study.
4. The manuscript presents several real-world examples with useful maps and qualitative discussion. A summary table would greatly improve readability and allow readers to compare the performance of the unweighted, albedo-weighted, and post-processed approaches.
Adding a table for each test region is recommended, which can include the number of valid spatial samples, mean bias, median bias, standard deviation, RMSE, etc. This table should include at least Bełchatów, the Black Forest, Mont Blanc, and Germany.
Such a table would also clarify where the method works very well and where it still leaves large residual errors.
Minor comments
- The abstract should explicitly state that the study is based on self-consistent simulations, not on real CO2M observations or independent satellite retrieval validation.
- Line 75: The phrase “this examples shows” should be corrected to “this example shows”.
- Line 81: The phrase “the first of three satellite” should be corrected to “the first of three satellites”.
- In Eq. (13), the summation index appears to be written as (i=a). Please check whether this should be (i=1).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1458-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 322 | 163 | 24 | 509 | 42 | 18 | 19 |
- HTML: 322
- PDF: 163
- XML: 24
- Total: 509
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1