Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative inverse analysis of satellite (MOPITT) and aircraft (TRACE‐P) observations to estimate Asian sources of carbon monoxide

Open access
Heald, Colette L., Jacob, Daniel J., Jones, Dylan B. A., Palmer, Paul I., Logan, Jennifer A., Streets, D. G., Sachse, Glen W., Gille, John C., Hoffman, Ross N., Nehrkorn, Thomas·2004·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

We use an inverse model analysis to compare the top‐down constraints on Asian sources of carbon monoxide (CO) in spring 2001 from (1) daily MOPITT satellite observations of CO columns over Asia and the neighboring oceans and (2) aircraft observations of CO concentrations in Asian outflow from the TRACE‐P aircraft mission over the northwest Pacific. The inversion uses the maximum a posteriori method (MAP) and the GEOS‐CHEM chemical transport model (CTM) as the forward model. Detailed error characterization is presented, including spatial correlation of the model transport error. Nighttime MOPITT observations appear to be biased and are excluded from the inverse analysis. We find that MOPITT and TRACE‐P observations are independently consistent in the constraints that they provide on Asian CO sources, with the exception of southeast Asia for which the MOPITT observations support a more modest decrease in emissions than suggested by the aircraft observations. Our analysis indicates that the observations do not allow us to differentiate source types (i.e., anthropogenic versus biomass burning) within a region. MOPITT provides ten pieces of information to constrain the geographical distribution of CO sources, while TRACE‐P provides only four. The greater information from MOPITT reflects its ability to observe all outflow and source regions. We conducted a number of sensitivity studies for the inverse model analysis using the MOPITT data. Temporal averaging of the MOPITT data (weekly and beyond) degrades the ability to constrain regional sources. Merging source regions beyond what is appropriate after careful selection of the state vector leads to significant aggregation errors. Calculations for an ensemble of realistic assumptions lead to a range of inverse model solutions that has greater uncertainty than the a posteriori errors for the MAP solution. Our best estimate of total Asian CO sources is 361 Tg yr−1, over half of which is attributed to east Asia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2004jd005185

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 312

Metadata

Authors
Heald, C. L., Jacob, D. J., Jones, D. B. A., Palmer, P. I., Logan, J. A., Streets, D. G., Sachse, G. W., Gille, J. C., Hoffman, R. N., & Nehrkorn, T.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2004-12-11
Volume
109
Issue
D23
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139206491
Cited by
312
References
1
FWCI
9.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative inverse analysis of satellite (MOPITT) and aircraft (TRACE‐P) observations to estimate Asian sources of carbon monoxide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2004jd005185
The paper
Heald, C. L., Jacob, D. J., Jones, D. B. A., Palmer, P. I., Logan, J. A., Streets, D. G., Sachse, G. W., Gille, J. C., Hoffman, R. N., & Nehrkorn, T. (2004). Comparative inverse analysis of satellite (MOPITT) and aircraft (TRACE‐P) observations to estimate Asian sources of carbon monoxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004jd005185

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.