Analysis of the discrepancy between ground-based and satellite total ozone content measurements at Kyiv-Goloseyev station

1Grytsai, AV, 2Milinevsky, GP
1Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
2Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Kosm. nauka tehnol. 2014, 20 ;(1):03-13
https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2014.01.003
Section: Space and Atmospheric Physics
Publication Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: 

We compared satellite and ground-based total ozone measurements at the Kyiv-Goloseyev station. Some data of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument and Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Chartography satellite instruments were used. The ground-based observations were carried out with the Dobson spectrophotometer N 040. The period from the measurement beginning (13 May 2010) at the Kyiv-Goloseyev station to the end of 2012 was considered. An estimation for ground-based observations of different types was performed through their comparison with satellite data. The "Direct Sun" ground-based measurements were shown to be the most reliable ones. Moreover, it is essential to note a high quality of Zenith Blue ground-based observations. Their quality was at least comparable with one for the "Direct Sun" measurements. The Dobson total ozone content (TOC) values were revealed to be lower than the satellite values while solar zenith angle is greater than 60°. The main cause of this discrepancy is probably a TOC underestimate by the Dobson spectrophotometer due to radiation scattered within the instrument. The differences between satellite and ground-based data display seasonal changes with the maximum in winter and minimum in summer. This points to some limits of the TOC calculation algorithm.

Keywords: satellite data, the Dobson spectrophotometer, total ozone content
References: 

1. Adams C., Strong K., Batchelor R.L., et al. Validation of ACE and OSIRIS ozone and NO2 measurements using ground-based instruments at 80°N. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 5(5), 927— 953 (2012).
 https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-927-2012

2. Basher R.E. Review of the Dobson spectrophotometer and its accuracy.— Geneva: World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Rep. N13, 94 p. (1982)
3. Bernhard G., Evans R.D., Labow G.J., Oltmans S.J. Bias in Dobson total ozone measurements at high latitudes due to approximations in calculations of ozone absorption coefficients and air mass. J. Geophys. Res. 110(D10), D10305 (2005). 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005559

4. Bhartia P.K. OMI algorithm theoretical basis document. Vol. II. OMI ozone products, 91 p. (NASA, 2002) Retrieved from  http://www.knmi.nl/omi/documents/data/OMI_ ATBD_\volume_2_V2.pdf

5. Bramstedt K., Gleason J., Loyola D., et al. Comparison of total ozone from the satellite instruments GOME and TOMS with measurements from the Dobson network 1996 — 2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 3(12), P.1409— 1419 (2003). 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-3-1409-2003

6. Dobson G.M.B., Normand C.W.B  Determination of the constants etc. used in the calculation of the amount of ozone from spectrophotometer measurements and of the accuracy of the results.  Ann. Int. Geophys. Year. XVI, Part II, P.161— 191 (1962).

7. Eskes H. Stratospheric ozone: satellite observations, data assimilation and forecasts // Proc. Seminar on Recent Developments in Data Assimilation for Atmosphere and Ocean, 8 —12 September 2003, P.341— 360 (Reading, UK: ECM-WF, 2004).

8. Eskes H.J., van der A R.J., Brinksma E.J., et al. Retrieval and validation of ozone columns derived from measurements of SCIAMACHY on Envisat.  Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discus. 5(4), 4429 —4475 (2005). 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-5-4429-2005

9. Evans R., McConville G., Oltmans S., et al. Measurement of internal stray light within Dobson ozone spectrophotometers. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30(15-16), P.4247— 4258 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160902825057

10. Evtushevsky O., Milinevsky G., Grytsai A., et al. Comparison of ground-based Dobson and satellite EP-TOMS total ozone measurements over Vernadsky station, Antarctica, 1996 —2005. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29(9), 2675— 2683 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701767591

11. Fioletov V.E., Labow G., Evans R., et al. Performance of the ground-based total ozone network assessed using satellite data.  J. Geophys. Res. 113(D14), D14313 (2008). 
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009809

12. Gottwald M. (Ed.) SCIAMACHY, Monitoring the Changing Earth’s Atmosphere. 167 p. (DLR, Institut fur Methodik der Fernerkundung, 2006)

13. Grytsai A., Milinevsky G. SCIAMACHY/ Envisat, OMI/ Aura, and ground-based total ozone measurements over Kyiv-Goloseyev station.  Int. J. Remote Sens. 34(15), 5611— 5622 (2013). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.794988

14. Komhyr W.D., Evans R.D. Operations handbook — ozone observations with a Dobson spectrophotometer. 91 p. (World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, NOAA/ ESRL Global Monitoring Division, Geneva, 2006).

15. Kravchenko V., Evtushevsky A., Grytsai A., et al. Total ozone dependence of the difference between the empirically corrected EP-TOMS and high-latitude station datasets.  Int. J. Remote Sens. 30(15/16), 4283— 4294 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160902825008

16. McPeters R.D., Labow G.J. An assessment of the accuracy of 14.5 years of Nimbus 7 TOMS version 7 ozone data by comparison with the Dobson network.  Geophys. Res. Lett.  23, 3695— 3698 (1996). 
https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL03539

17. Redondas A., Evans R., Stuebi R., et al. Evaluation of the use of five laboratory determined ozone absorption cross sections in brewer and dobson retrieval algorithms.  Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 13(9), 22979— 23021 (2013). 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-13-22979-2013

18. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006, Rep. N 50 (World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 2007).

19. Staehelin J., Kerr J., Evans R., Vanicek K. Comparison of total ozone measurements of Dobson and Brewer spectrophotometers and recommended transfer functions. Rep. N 149.— 35 p. (World Meteorological Organization Global Atmosphere Watch, 2003)

20. van der A R.J., Allaart M.A.F., Eskes H. Multi sensor reanalysis of total ozone. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10(22).— P.11277— 11294 (2010).

21. Veefkind J.P., de Haan J.F., Brinksma E.J., et al. Total ozone from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) using the DOAS technique. IEEE Transact. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44(5).— P.1239 —1244 (2006).

22. Weber M., Lamsal L.N., Coldewey-Egbers M., et al. Poleto-pole validation of GOME WFDOAS total ozone with groundbased data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 5(5), 1341 —1355 (2005). 
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1341-2005