ERA5 and EAC4 re-analysis data show slight negative bias (0.1–0.2%) with SDDs of 3.7–3.9%. The differences between simulated and Dobson data vary significantly. The largest SDDs are observed for satellite measurements (3.3–3.7%), the smallest-for ground-based data (2.3–2.8%). 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.
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. Petersburg measured by different methods are in good agreement (with correlation coefficients of 0.95–0.99). We demonstrate that TOC variations near St. 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. Therefore, TOC data derived by different means should be validated regularly. 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.
This fact enforced the regular ozone monitoring globally. The observed ozone layer depletion is influenced by continuous anthropogenic activity.
0 kommentar(er)
