the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Aug 2023
Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profile and total column in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes
Abstract. The behavior of ozone gas (O3) in the atmosphere varies according to the region of the globe. Its formation occurs mainly in the equatorial stratospheric layer, through the photodissociation of molecular oxygen with the aid of the incidence of ultraviolet solar radiation, but the highest concentrations of O3 content are found in regions of high latitudes (poles) through large-scale circulation (Brewer-Dobson circulation). This work presents a multi-instrumental analysis in subtropical (in Santa Maria (SM) – 29.4º S; 53.8º W) and equatorial (in Natal (NT) - 5.4º S; 35.4º W) latitudes of South America, to monitor ozone behavior using O3 vertical profile data (2002–2020) and total column ozone data (1979–2020). Comparisons between latitudes were also analyzed with data from ozonesondes, which have continuous measurements of the vertical ozone profile through the SHADOZ/NASA network, where there is a reference station in Natal. For this, 19 years of data were analyzed using SABER and SHADOZ data for NT, through the monthly average series of each instrument the monthly climatological behavior for the NT station was identified, analysis of percentage and relative differences that showed a good agreement between both instruments, mainly above 20 km altitude. It was possible to identify with the analysis in the lower stratosphere (below 20 km), the ozone content is not correctly represented by the TIMED/SABER satellite. The differences between the latitudes presented interesting analyzes regarding the O3 content in the SM and NT, through the monthly and climatological average of the SABER instrument. Dynamic and photochemical effects can interfere both with O3 formation and its distribution along higher latitudes, through the Brewer Dobson Circulation (BDC). The total column of ozone (TCO) was used, to analyze the main climatic variability that influence the two sites (SM and NT). The data analyzed here to monitor O3 in the atmosphere is available through satellite and ground-based instruments from 1979 to 2020. The instruments showed good agreement between each other (TOMS/OMI x Dobson for Natal, and TOMS/OMI x Brewer for Santa Maria) in the long-term series of O3 content measurements, in line with previous studies for these latitudes in the TCO analysis. For climate variability, wavelet analysis was used over 42 years. The investigation revealed a significant annual cycle in both data series for SM and NT. Other variability pointed out such as the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) with significant influences in NT and less significant in SM. In addition, the solar cycle proved to be important and well established (128 months) in both site (subtropical and equatorial). The two locations presented in this work have significant importance in the behavior of ozone due to their latitudinal differences. Furthermore, few studies show this comparison between latitudes in South America using satellite and terrestrial instruments in the analysis of the behavior of O3 gas. The main motivation of this work is to show how this important trace gas behaves in the atmosphere, at different altitudes, latitudes and with different sources of influence, both for O3 vertical profile analysis with satellite data, as well as for TCO.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3490 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3490 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1664', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Sep 2023
Review of “Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profile and total column in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes”
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt et al.
Summary and General Comments:
This paper examines long time series of vertical profile and total column data to describe the differences in behavior of ozone between a subtropical station (Santa Maria) and tropical station (Natal) in Brazil. The authors leverage the SABER instrument (vertical profile; both stations) and TOMS and OMI (total column; both stations), ozonesonde profiles (Natal), Dobson (Natal), and Brewer (Santa Maria) data. The authors validate the SABER profile data with Natal to justify its use to demonstrate the vertical profile differences between the two stations, compare TOMS and OMI to the ground-based total ozone instruments, and perform a wavelet analysis to show the effect of climate and solar oscillations on the total column and lower stratospheric ozone data.
The analyses and conclusions drawn from them are generally sound. However, the text needs a major reworking. The authors should carefully go through the paper and clean up the writing for better clarity. There are also several sections, particularly in the Introduction, that are highly repetitive. There are many times where very similar explanations of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation are invoked, for example.
A note on data availability: It is not made clear if all of the data are publicly available and where the data sets are located. I am particularly interested in locating the Santa Maria ground-based total column ozone data. Please indicate in a Data Availability section where all of the data used in this paper are located, and if they are not currently publicly available, they should be made so.
Recommendation:
While I do not find many problems with the analysis and technical details of the manuscript, the text requires substantial edits. A second version of this paper may become acceptable for publication.
Specific and Line-by-Line Comments:
Please add the SHADOZ v6 ozonesonde data doi where appropriate (e.g., Line 137) and in the reference list: https://doi.org/10.57721/SHADOZ-V06
Line 71: Natal actually has ozonesonde data dating back to 1979 on WOUDC (before SHADOZ).
Line 85: You are referring specifically to the total column ozone measurements here, correct? Please clarify.
Lines 121-125: These two sentences are not necessary and are another example of the repetitive nature of the text.
Line 139: Based on Figure 2, it looks like data only up through 2018, not 2020, have been used.
Line 139: What do you mean by “604 vertical levels?” Were the ozonesonde profiles averaged into altitude bins? If so, why 604?
Lines 142-143: “Atmosphere Survey using Broadband Emission Radiometry” for the SABER acronym is incorrect, but it was correctly defined earlier in the paper, so this can be deleted.
Line 163: Please use commas for “6,715” and “3,681” instead of “6.715” and “3.681”
Line 183: The Aura satellite, not ERS-2.
Section 2.2: I think this section can be removed. No need to spend time explaining these widely-used statistical measures. I recommend to keep Section 2.2.1, however. If the decision is made to keep this Section, the Equations 1, 2, and 3 should have “SATELLITE” not “SATELITE”
Figure 2: Similar to how Figures 3 and 4 were constructed, it would be very illuminating to see a third panel on Figure 2 showing the full time series of differences in ozone mixing ratio for coincident measurements from the two instruments (ozonesondes and SABER).
Lines 216 and 256: Better to use “coincident” than “concomitant.” As previously stated, the paper would benefit greatly from a thorough editing of the text.
Line 248: Data gaps should not really affect the comparisons of coincident satellite and ozonesonde data.
Figures 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9: What do the error bars represent? One standard deviation?
Line 319: 45N and 45-60S are mid-latitudes, not polar latitudes.
Figure 8: There are some typos in the titles of these figure panels.
Figure 8 c and d: The Natal TCO time series do not appear to be daily observations. Please check.
Table 1: What are the units of the 0.34, -0.07, -0.41, and -0.66 values? It looks like percent, but please make that clear.
Line 420: I’m not familiar with the “influence cone” for this wavelet analysis. Please provide a brief explanation as part of Section 2.2.1. I will say that Figures 10 and 11 are a nice demonstration of QBO and solar cycle oscillations on ozone amounts over the two stations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1664-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriela Bittencourt, 20 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1664', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2023
The following is a reviewer’s report for “Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profile and total column in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes”
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt et al.
- The introduction needs to be rewritten/restructured. The current form completely diluted the focus of this paper. The authors should rather consider a discussion of irregular distribution of global ozonesonde stations (Tarasick et al., 2019), how the Santa Maria ozonesonde can fill the observational gap in South America, and then emphasis that these data are an important addition to understand tropospheric ozone & air quality in a region where scientists are less studied before.
- 163, does it mean that SM has a nearly doubled sampling frequency than NT? The SHADOZ network typically has once per week or fewer sampling frequency, if SM has a greater data coverage, the authors should explicitly state that SM dataset is expected to have a greater statistical power for analysis (e.g. Jaffe & Ray, 2007).
- Figure 3: it is not very informative for ozone variability, I would like to see all individual profiles at SM plotted in thin gray from the background at each corresponding month (e.g. Fig 2 of Jaffe et al., 2018). Same for Fig 4 & 5.
- Unlike tropospheric ozone, TCO and stratospheric ozone tend to be steadier and latitude-dependent, does this study suggest that the current SHADOZ network is sufficient to monitor tropical stratosphere, or additional stations, such as SM, are also desirable?
- Data availability section is a requirement for AMT.
- I found it is unpleasant to read and grammar edits/checks are required throughout the paper. There are too many to identify in the minor comments below.
l.205 “root”
l.207 delete ‘also called residuals’, e.g. MAE is also a type of residuals
l.221 ‘Variabilities the ozone’ is not English
L.389 ‘interannual’
Jaffe, D. A., Cooper, O. R., Fiore, A. M., Henderson, B. H., Tonnesen, G. S., Russell, A. G., ... & Moore, T. (2018). Scientific assessment of background ozone over the US: Implications for air quality management. Elem Sci Anth, 6, 56.
Jaffe, D., & Ray, J. (2007). Increase in surface ozone at rural sites in the western US. Atmospheric Environment, 41(26), 5452-5463.
Tarasick, D., Galbally, I. E., Cooper, O. R., Schultz, M. G., Ancellet, G., Leblanc, T., ... & Neu, J. L. (2019). Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties. Elem Sci Anth, 7, 39.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1664-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gabriela Bittencourt, 20 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1664', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Sep 2023
Review of “Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profile and total column in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes”
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt et al.
Summary and General Comments:
This paper examines long time series of vertical profile and total column data to describe the differences in behavior of ozone between a subtropical station (Santa Maria) and tropical station (Natal) in Brazil. The authors leverage the SABER instrument (vertical profile; both stations) and TOMS and OMI (total column; both stations), ozonesonde profiles (Natal), Dobson (Natal), and Brewer (Santa Maria) data. The authors validate the SABER profile data with Natal to justify its use to demonstrate the vertical profile differences between the two stations, compare TOMS and OMI to the ground-based total ozone instruments, and perform a wavelet analysis to show the effect of climate and solar oscillations on the total column and lower stratospheric ozone data.
The analyses and conclusions drawn from them are generally sound. However, the text needs a major reworking. The authors should carefully go through the paper and clean up the writing for better clarity. There are also several sections, particularly in the Introduction, that are highly repetitive. There are many times where very similar explanations of the Brewer-Dobson Circulation are invoked, for example.
A note on data availability: It is not made clear if all of the data are publicly available and where the data sets are located. I am particularly interested in locating the Santa Maria ground-based total column ozone data. Please indicate in a Data Availability section where all of the data used in this paper are located, and if they are not currently publicly available, they should be made so.
Recommendation:
While I do not find many problems with the analysis and technical details of the manuscript, the text requires substantial edits. A second version of this paper may become acceptable for publication.
Specific and Line-by-Line Comments:
Please add the SHADOZ v6 ozonesonde data doi where appropriate (e.g., Line 137) and in the reference list: https://doi.org/10.57721/SHADOZ-V06
Line 71: Natal actually has ozonesonde data dating back to 1979 on WOUDC (before SHADOZ).
Line 85: You are referring specifically to the total column ozone measurements here, correct? Please clarify.
Lines 121-125: These two sentences are not necessary and are another example of the repetitive nature of the text.
Line 139: Based on Figure 2, it looks like data only up through 2018, not 2020, have been used.
Line 139: What do you mean by “604 vertical levels?” Were the ozonesonde profiles averaged into altitude bins? If so, why 604?
Lines 142-143: “Atmosphere Survey using Broadband Emission Radiometry” for the SABER acronym is incorrect, but it was correctly defined earlier in the paper, so this can be deleted.
Line 163: Please use commas for “6,715” and “3,681” instead of “6.715” and “3.681”
Line 183: The Aura satellite, not ERS-2.
Section 2.2: I think this section can be removed. No need to spend time explaining these widely-used statistical measures. I recommend to keep Section 2.2.1, however. If the decision is made to keep this Section, the Equations 1, 2, and 3 should have “SATELLITE” not “SATELITE”
Figure 2: Similar to how Figures 3 and 4 were constructed, it would be very illuminating to see a third panel on Figure 2 showing the full time series of differences in ozone mixing ratio for coincident measurements from the two instruments (ozonesondes and SABER).
Lines 216 and 256: Better to use “coincident” than “concomitant.” As previously stated, the paper would benefit greatly from a thorough editing of the text.
Line 248: Data gaps should not really affect the comparisons of coincident satellite and ozonesonde data.
Figures 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9: What do the error bars represent? One standard deviation?
Line 319: 45N and 45-60S are mid-latitudes, not polar latitudes.
Figure 8: There are some typos in the titles of these figure panels.
Figure 8 c and d: The Natal TCO time series do not appear to be daily observations. Please check.
Table 1: What are the units of the 0.34, -0.07, -0.41, and -0.66 values? It looks like percent, but please make that clear.
Line 420: I’m not familiar with the “influence cone” for this wavelet analysis. Please provide a brief explanation as part of Section 2.2.1. I will say that Figures 10 and 11 are a nice demonstration of QBO and solar cycle oscillations on ozone amounts over the two stations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1664-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriela Bittencourt, 20 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1664', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Dec 2023
The following is a reviewer’s report for “Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profile and total column in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes”
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt et al.
- The introduction needs to be rewritten/restructured. The current form completely diluted the focus of this paper. The authors should rather consider a discussion of irregular distribution of global ozonesonde stations (Tarasick et al., 2019), how the Santa Maria ozonesonde can fill the observational gap in South America, and then emphasis that these data are an important addition to understand tropospheric ozone & air quality in a region where scientists are less studied before.
- 163, does it mean that SM has a nearly doubled sampling frequency than NT? The SHADOZ network typically has once per week or fewer sampling frequency, if SM has a greater data coverage, the authors should explicitly state that SM dataset is expected to have a greater statistical power for analysis (e.g. Jaffe & Ray, 2007).
- Figure 3: it is not very informative for ozone variability, I would like to see all individual profiles at SM plotted in thin gray from the background at each corresponding month (e.g. Fig 2 of Jaffe et al., 2018). Same for Fig 4 & 5.
- Unlike tropospheric ozone, TCO and stratospheric ozone tend to be steadier and latitude-dependent, does this study suggest that the current SHADOZ network is sufficient to monitor tropical stratosphere, or additional stations, such as SM, are also desirable?
- Data availability section is a requirement for AMT.
- I found it is unpleasant to read and grammar edits/checks are required throughout the paper. There are too many to identify in the minor comments below.
l.205 “root”
l.207 delete ‘also called residuals’, e.g. MAE is also a type of residuals
l.221 ‘Variabilities the ozone’ is not English
L.389 ‘interannual’
Jaffe, D. A., Cooper, O. R., Fiore, A. M., Henderson, B. H., Tonnesen, G. S., Russell, A. G., ... & Moore, T. (2018). Scientific assessment of background ozone over the US: Implications for air quality management. Elem Sci Anth, 6, 56.
Jaffe, D., & Ray, J. (2007). Increase in surface ozone at rural sites in the western US. Atmospheric Environment, 41(26), 5452-5463.
Tarasick, D., Galbally, I. E., Cooper, O. R., Schultz, M. G., Ancellet, G., Leblanc, T., ... & Neu, J. L. (2019). Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties. Elem Sci Anth, 7, 39.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1664-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gabriela Bittencourt, 20 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 422 | 121 | 32 | 575 | 27 | 23 |
- HTML: 422
- PDF: 121
- XML: 32
- Total: 575
- BibTeX: 27
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt
Damaris Kirsch Pinheiro
Hassan Bencherif
Nelson Begue
Lucas Vaz Peres
José Valentin Bageston
Francisco Reimundo da Silva
Douglas Lima de Bem
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3490 KB) - Metadata XML