Accounting for meteorological biases in simulated plumes using smarter metrics

In the next few years, numerous satellites with high-resolution instruments dedicated to the imaging of atmospheric gaseous compounds will be launched, to finely monitor emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants. Processing the resulting images of plumes from cities and industrial plants to infer the emissions of these sources can be challenging. In particular traditional atmospheric inversion techniques, relying on objective comparisons to simulations with atmospheric chemistry transport models, may poorly fit the observed plume due to modelling errors rather than due to uncertainties in the emissions. The present article discusses how these images can be adequately compared to simulated concentrations to limit the weight of modelling errors due to the meteorology used to analyse the images. For such comparisons, the usual pixel-wise ℒ2 norm may not be suitable, since it does not linearly penalise a displacement between two identical plumes. By definition, such a metric considers a displacement as an accumulation of significant local amplitude discrepancies. This is the so-called double penalty issue. To avoid this issue, we propose three solutions: (i) compensate for position error, due to a displacement, before the local comparison; (ii) use non-local metrics of density distribution comparison; and (iii) use a combination of the first two solutions. All the metrics are evaluated using first a catalogue of analytical plumes and then more realistic plumes simulated with a mesoscale Eulerian atmospheric transport model, with an emphasis on the sensitivity of the metrics to position error and the concentration values within the plumes. As expected, the metrics with the upstream correction are found to be less sensitive to position error in both analytical and realistic conditions. Furthermore, in realistic cases, we evaluate the weight of changes in the norm and the direction of the four-dimensional wind fields in our metric values. This comparison highlights the link between differences in the synoptic-scale winds direction and position error. Hence the contribution of the latter to our new metrics is reduced, thus limiting misinterpretation. Furthermore, the new metrics also avoid the double penalty issue.