Empirical assessment of errors in total ozone measurements with different instruments and methods

Empirical assessment of errors in total ozone measurements with different instruments and methods Knowledge of measurement errors is one of the most important issues for assessing the quality of experimental data. In this paper, we compared various methods and instruments for measuring the total ozone content (TOC) near St. Petersburg in the period from 2009 to 2015. We considered the TOC datasets of ground-based measurements at Voyeykovo (Dobson spectrophotometer and M-124 ozonometer) and Peterhof (Bruker 125HR spectrometer), as well as OMI and IASI satellite measurements. To assess the errors intrinsic to each of these instruments three ensembles of the TOC measurements were formed containing different numbers of comparisons and based on different selection criteria. At the first stage, we determined the means and standard deviations between the ensembles of the TOC measurements. Then, assuming a horizontally homogeneous and stationary ozone field, the random and systematic errors of individual methods were evaluated. The average random errors of the TOC measurements for all tree ensembles were 2.9 ± 0.5%, 2.8 ± 0.7%, 1.2 ± 0.2%, and 1.4 ± 0.1% for IASI, M-124, OMI, and Bruker 125HR, respectively. The systematic error of the standard Dobson measurements is–1.7% and–2.1% for OMI and IASI, respectively, and amounts to + 0.5% and + 2.1% for M-124 and Bruker 125HR, respectively. The OMI and Bruker 125HR TOC measurement errors are most resistant to atmospheric conditions, whereas errors in IASI and M-124 TOC measurements depend to a large extent on the state of the atmosphere. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics Springer Journals

Empirical assessment of errors in total ozone measurements with different instruments and methods

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/empirical-assessment-of-errors-in-total-ozone-measurements-with-lnLmALWbNy
Publisher
Pleiades Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.
Subject
Physics; Optics, Lasers, Photonics, Optical Devices
ISSN
1024-8560
eISSN
2070-0393
D.O.I.
10.1134/S1024856017040133
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Knowledge of measurement errors is one of the most important issues for assessing the quality of experimental data. In this paper, we compared various methods and instruments for measuring the total ozone content (TOC) near St. Petersburg in the period from 2009 to 2015. We considered the TOC datasets of ground-based measurements at Voyeykovo (Dobson spectrophotometer and M-124 ozonometer) and Peterhof (Bruker 125HR spectrometer), as well as OMI and IASI satellite measurements. To assess the errors intrinsic to each of these instruments three ensembles of the TOC measurements were formed containing different numbers of comparisons and based on different selection criteria. At the first stage, we determined the means and standard deviations between the ensembles of the TOC measurements. Then, assuming a horizontally homogeneous and stationary ozone field, the random and systematic errors of individual methods were evaluated. The average random errors of the TOC measurements for all tree ensembles were 2.9 ± 0.5%, 2.8 ± 0.7%, 1.2 ± 0.2%, and 1.4 ± 0.1% for IASI, M-124, OMI, and Bruker 125HR, respectively. The systematic error of the standard Dobson measurements is–1.7% and–2.1% for OMI and IASI, respectively, and amounts to + 0.5% and + 2.1% for M-124 and Bruker 125HR, respectively. The OMI and Bruker 125HR TOC measurement errors are most resistant to atmospheric conditions, whereas errors in IASI and M-124 TOC measurements depend to a large extent on the state of the atmosphere.

Journal

Atmospheric and Oceanic OpticsSpringer Journals

Published: Aug 24, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off