Representativeness of the Arosa/Davos Measurements for the Analysis of the Global Total Column Ozone Behavior

Rozanov, Eugene; Egorova, ‪Tatiana; Egli, Luca; Karagodin‐Doyennel, Arseniy; Sukhodolov, Timofei; Schill, Herbert; Stübi, René; Gröbner, Julian

doi:10.3389/feart.2021.675084

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nowadays, there are many chemistry-transport models (CTMs) and chemistry-climate models (CCMs) which differ in coverage of the Earth (global and regional), spatial and temporal resolution, considered physical and chemical processes and other characteristics. Series of studies have demonstrated successful implementation of the models for investigating the atmospheric ozone content variations, determination of main factors influencing stratospheric ozone and estimation of the future and past of the ozonosphere [36][37][38][39][40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurements and Modelling of Total Ozone Columns near St. Petersburg, Russia

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The observed ozone layer depletion is influenced by continuous anthropogenic activity. This fact enforced the regular ozone monitoring globally. Information on spatial-temporal variations in total ozone columns (TOCs) derived by various observational methods and models can differ significantly due to measurement and modelling errors, differences in ozone retrieval algorithms, etc. Therefore, TOC data derived by different means should be validated regularly. In the current study, we compare TOC variations observed by ground-based (Bruker IFS 125 HR, Dobson, and M-124) and satellite (OMI, TROPOMI, and IKFS-2) instruments and simulated by models (ERA5 and EAC4 re-analysis, EMAC and INM RAS—RSHU models) near St. Petersburg (Russia) between 2009 and 2020. We demonstrate that TOC variations near St. Petersburg measured by different methods are in good agreement (with correlation coefficients of 0.95–0.99). Mean differences (MDs) and standard deviations of differences (SDDs) with respect to Dobson measurements constitute 0.0–3.9% and 2.3–3.7%, respectively, which is close to the actual requirements of the quality of TOC measurements. The largest bias is observed for Bruker 125 HR (3.9%) and IKFS-2 (−2.4%) measurements, whereas M-124 filter ozonometer shows no bias. The largest SDDs are observed for satellite measurements (3.3–3.7%), the smallest—for ground-based data (2.3–2.8%). The differences between simulated and Dobson data vary significantly. ERA5 and EAC4 re-analysis data show slight negative bias (0.1–0.2%) with SDDs of 3.7–3.9%. EMAC model overestimates Dobson TOCs by 4.5% with 4.5% SDDs, whereas INM RAS-RSHU model underestimates Dobson by 1.4% with 8.6% SDDs. All datasets demonstrate the pronounced TOC seasonal cycle with the maximum in spring and minimum in autumn. Finally, for 2004–2021 period, we derived a significant positive TOC trend near St. Petersburg (~0.4 ± 0.1 DU per year) from all datasets considered.

show abstract