the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Consistency evaluation of tropospheric ozone from ozonesonde and IAGOS aircraft observations: vertical distribution, ozonesonde types and station-airport distance
Abstract. The vertical distribution of tropospheric O3 from ozonesondes is compared with that from In-service Aircraft for a Global Observing System (IAGOS) measurements at 23 pairs of sites between about 30° S and 55° N, from 1995 to 2021. Profiles of tropospheric O3 from IAGOS aircraft are in generally good agreement with ozonesonde observations, for ECC, Brewer-Mast, and Carbon-Iodine sensors, with average biases of 7.03 ppb, 6.28 ppb, and -4.48 ppb, and correlation coefficients (R) of 0.72, 0.86, and 0.82, respectively. Agreement between the aircraft and Indian-sonde observations is poor, with an average bias of 24.07 ppb and R of 0.41. The O3 concentration observed by ECC sondes is on average higher by 5–10 % than that observed by IAGOS aircraft, and the relative bias increases modestly with altitude. For other sonde types, there are some seasonal and altitude variations in the relative bias with respect to IAGOS measurements, but these appear to be caused by local differences.
The distance between station and airport within 4° has little effect on the comparison results. For the ECC ozonesonde, the overall bias with respect to IAGOS measurements varies from 5.7 to 9.8 ppb, when the station pairs are grouped by station-airport distances of <1° (latitude and longitude), 1–2°, and 2–4°. Correlations for these groups are R = 0.8, 0.9 and 0.7. These comparison results provide important information for merging ozonesonde and IAGOS measurement datasets. They can also be used to evaluate the relative biases of the different sonde types in the troposphere, using the aircraft as a transfer standard.
- Preprint
(1561 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(971 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Jun 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1015', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 May 2024
reply
The paper gives a comprehensive update on the comparison of long-term ozone data from balloon-borne ozone sondes and IAGOS measurements on commercial aircraft. As in previous studies, the authors find that ECC ozone sondes give 5 to 10% higher ozone values in the free troposphere (3 to 8 km). Brewer-Mast and Carbon-Iodine sondes give slightly lower ozone, 0 to 5% less, in the free troposphere. Monthly means from all three sonde types show high correlations, more than 0.7, with IAGOS monthly means. Indian ozone sondes usually give 25 to 35% higher ozone than IAGOS, with generally poor correlation, around 0.4. The authors find little to no dependence on season or distance between sonde station and IAGOS airport. Overall this is a well written paper which is relevant and should be published in ACP.
I do have a number of generally minor suggestions:
For several parts of the paper, I would prefer a clearer separation between three altitude regions and would like to see more specific results for these altitude regions. In many places, e.g. Fig. 3, there is much better agreement for the 3 to 8 km region, less agreement for altitudes below 3 km and above 8 km. The region below 3 km has a lot of local ozone sources and sinks (cities, airports, rural environment, ...), while the region above 8 km is influenced quite significantly be stratosphere-tropopsphere exchange, jet-streams, tropopause folds, .. Separating results for these regions would provide a clearer picture of ozone-sonde and IAGOS differences, as well as the limitations of the current comparison.
Table 1: station - airport distance is missing in most cases. Should be given, preferably also in kilometers. Also: minus sign before longitudes in the western hemisphere ended up in a different line. Pleae fix.
Figure 3: please state in the caption that this is based on monthly means for both sondes and IAGOS. Also: It would be better to see the relative frequency of the data points, e.g. using a false color representation. As it is now, the plot tends to emphasize the more outlying data points, and one cannot see where most of the datapoints lie. I assume close to the fitted red lines. Also: I find it confusing that the fitted lines are in red, while the text describing the fits is in blue and in the same color as the 1:1 line. Please make these colors consistent. Finally: In Fig. 2d, the Indian sonde data are clearly higher than the IAGOS data. In contrast, in Fig. 3d, the fitted line is below the 1:1 line, which would indicate that the sondes give lower ozone, in contradiction to Fig. 2d. I think it would be better to not force the fitted lines through zero, but fit slope and offset. An offset could indicate potential causes for systematic differences, e.g., high background current in the sonde data.
line 166: I would not call a ~45ppb RMSE "small". Tropospheric ozone mixing ratios are around 50 ppb, so 45 ppb RMSE corresponds to around 100% uncertainty. That is hardly "small". Please correct.
Figure 4: Please add zero line for easier reference. Also, Fig 3 and Fig 4 bring up the question how R, slope, offset and RMSE behave for different altitudes. I think this should be considered, and additional plots should be shown and discussed. I have a feeling that agreement would be best near 5 km, and would deteriorate significantly below 3 km and above 9 km.
Along the same lines, a table similar to Table 2, but giving results not for the four season but for three (or more) altitude regions would be very helpful.
Table 4: Please clarify what is shown: Ratio of three other sonde types to ECC sondes, using IAGOS as transfer standard. Instead of showing X/ECC, it might be better to show X/ECC-1 and difference values as percent. Also: are the given uncertainties / standard errors correct. For Brewer-Mast/ECC at 0~1km, the given ratio is 0.83+-0.96. That means the ratio could be anywhere between -0.13 and 1.79. Really that wide uncertainty range? Please check.
Discussion at the end, around lines 310 to 320: Could the high ozone observed by sondes have something to do with insufficient background subtraction? Certainly might be a problem for the Indian sondes who are also flying in a region with low tropospheric ozone. What would be the implication of the new improved background estimation methods outlined by Vömel et al. 2020 and Smit et al. 2023? Please discuss.
Also: Is there no new information since Thouret et al. 1998 checking for the correctness of the MOZAIC / IAGOS inlet system? Is it possible that enhanced NOx from aircraft exhaust gases results in local reductions (titration) of ozone in aircraft flight corridors? Local differences in the photo-chemical ozone regime (NOx limited or VOC limited) could very well play a role for differences between sonde stations and airports in the lowest 1 to 3 kilometers of the atmosphere.
References:
Smit et al., 2023. New Insights From The Jülich Ozone-Sonde Intercomparison Experiments: Calibration Functions Traceable To One Ozone Reference Instrument, ACP, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1466
Vömel et al. 2020. A new method to correct the ECC ozone sonde time response and its implications for “background current” and pump efficiency, AMT, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5667-2020
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1015-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1015', Valérie Thouret, 13 May 2024
reply
Comments from the IAGOS PIs in charge of the IAGOS Ozone data set, its measurement on board passenger aircraft and its long-term quality.
It is not our intention to substitute ourselves to the work of the nominated reviewers regarding the overall scientific quality of the study. However, one major flaw is the comparison of the ozonesondes within 4 degrees of the IAGOS airports. It is difficult to make any conclusions from this due to the ozonesondes and IAGOS aircraft sampling completely different air masses. Because the authors did not respect the IAGOS data policy (https://iagos.aeris-data.fr/data-policy/), we did not have the opportunity to discuss this manuscript before submission. It was mandatory to inform the IAGOS Ozone PIs (from CNRS).
Therefore, the main purpose of this comment is to warn co-authors, reviewers, as well as the editors, and potential readers that this manuscript does not address potential defaults of the IAGOS ozone data sets. (i) none of the co-authors are committed to delivering the high quality of the IAGOS ozone data sets, and (ii) lines 314-315 are wrong. An intercomparison campaign in Julich in June 2023 demonstrated that there is no influence of the pumps on the Ozone IAGOS measurements between 1000 and 200 hPa. This is mentioned in Line 326, as a future activity. However, this activity was completed last year and the co-authors know this. The results, under preparation for publication, show that the IAGOS-CORE ozone measurements (Package 1 with pressurization pumps) and IAGOS-CARIBIC ozone measurements differ by less than 2% and the WCCOS reference UV photometer measurements are usually higher by maximum 5% compared to both IAGOS instruments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1015-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
190 | 49 | 9 | 248 | 26 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 190
- PDF: 49
- XML: 9
- Total: 248
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1