Evaluation of the GOSAT/GOSAT-2 XCO2 proxy XCH4 product by comparison with TCCON observations over China
Abstract. Methane (CH₄) is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO₂) and its accurate monitoring supports China's "dual carbon" goals. Satellites enable global monitoring of CH₄, supported by various sensors and retrieval techniques. Among them, the XCO₂ proxy method derives the column-averaged dry-air mole fraction of CH₄ (XCH₄) from the XCH₄/XCO₂ ratio and an independent estimate of XCO₂. By exploiting the overlapping absorption bands of CH₄ and CO₂ near 1.6 μm and assuming similar vertical distributions, the ratio eliminates common retrieval errors, providing an accurate estimate of XCH₄. In this study, four XCO₂ proxy methane products, GOSAT SRPR, OCPR, FOCAL Proxy, and GOSAT-2 SRPR, are evaluated using TCCON ground-based observations at the Hefei and Xianghe sites in China. The comparison shows that the GOSAT products (OCPR, SRPR, FOCAL Proxy) are more accurate at Xianghe, while GOSAT-2 products (SRPR) are similar at both sites with better performance than each of the GOSAT products (>50 % meeting GCOS requirements). All products, except OCPR, overestimate XCH₄ at Hefei and underestimate XCH₄ at Xianghe, which stems from both XCO₂ prior model errors and spatial inconsistency between satellite and ground-based measurements. Furthermore, the overestimation of the ratio implies that the fundamental assumption of the XCO₂ proxy method is not fulfilled, primarily due to bias in raw XCH₄. This study provides key error characteristics and spatial-seasonal biases in current satellite proxy methane products over China, providing a scientific basis for future retrieval optimization.
GENERAL COMMENTS
GOSAT provides the longest continuous record and its data have been processed by various algorithms. GOSAT-2 has higher signal offers higher signal-to-noise ratio than GOSAT. Therefore, the detailed comparison between GOSAT and GOSAt-2, validated against the TCCON data is essential for the seamless integration of both satellites. The manuscript should provide GOSAT and GOSAT-2 difference in sampling pattern, number of successful retrievals in more detail. In addition, the authors should check the observation condition, particularly the use of intelligent pointing function of GOSAT-2. Usually, intelligent pointing is not applied allied to TCCON validation sites in order to repeatedly target the same footprint. Overall, several aspects of the manuscript are insufficiently described. Major revisions are needed before publication.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
(1) Abstract, lines 22 and 23
Description of “more accurate” and “better performance” are unclear.
(2) Abstract, Lin 26
“due to bias in raw XCH4” is not clear
(3) Page 4 lines 130 and 132
“The spectral resolution in the SWIR of approximately 0.2 cm⁻¹ is better than that of TANSO-FTS, is not accurate. The value is the spectral sampling interval. The spectral resolution and optical throughput of GOSAT and GOSAT-2 are approximately the same.
Signal-to-noise ratio of GOSAT-2 is slightly better.
The mission requirements for GOSAT launched in 2009 and GOSAT-2 launched in 2018 are defined differently. The authors should refer to Suto, et al, AMT 2014 for GOSAT-2 rather than Kuze et al., 2009.
(4) Page 6, Line 205
OCO-2 does not have the CH4 absorption band. Is the term “OCO-2 Proxy” correct?
(5) Page 13, Table 3
Observation period of GOSAT is much longer than that of GOSAT-2. Does the table 3 data use the same period for both satellites?
In addition, the geolocation matching criteria for example the maximum allowable distance between the satellite footprint center and the TCCON site should be described in more detail.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
(1) Reference
Add Suto et al., Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 14, 2013-2039, 2021