the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effect of sampling error on ozone partial pressure trends within a unified ozonesounding dataset
Abstract. This work discusses the impact of the sampling frequency on ozone partial pressure trends, estimating its impact at various latitudes and vertical layers in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UT/LS) region. The trends are estimated in the periods 1978–1999 and 2000–2022, using a new unified dataset combining the ozonesounding profiles provided by SHADOZ (Southern Hemisphere ADditional OZonesondes – https://tropo.gsfc.nasa.gov/shadoz/), NDACC (Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change – https://ndacc.larc.nasa.gov/) and WOUDC (World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre – https://woudc.org/). These datasets are combined to offer adequate coverage at various latitudes and to enhance the estimation of anomalies and trends in ozone concentration on a global scale. The available measurements are classified into three groups based on the temporal coverage of historical time series. Some regression approaches are utilised to estimate trends and the related difference to quantify structural uncertainty. Significant trends for the period 1978–1999 are estimated for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude (NH), which shows a negative trend of 5 % per decade in the layer 50-1 hPa and a negative trend of 10 % per decade at 100-50 hPa, and for the Tropics (TR), which shows a positive trend of about 5 % per decade at 50-1 hPa and 7 % per decade at 100-50 hPa, respectively. Furthermore, the sampling error between the clusters was investigated, revealing a small effect of less than 2 % at 100-50 hPa and 1.5 % at 50-1 hPa for NH and about 3 % at 100-50 hPa and 3.5 % at 50-1 hPa for TR, as well as the structural uncertainty between the regressors used, 1.05 % at 100-50 hPa and 1.15 % at 50-1 hPa for NH and about 2 % at both 100-50 hPa and 50-1 hPa for TR.
- Preprint
(2780 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2882', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Jan 2025
reply
Review of “Effect of sampling error on ozone partial pressure trends within a unified ozonesounding dataset” Fabrizio Marra, et al.
Summary and General Comments:
This paper describes the construction of a “unified” ozonesonde dataset gathered from WOUDC, SHADOZ, and NDACC archives and the calculation of ozone profile trends in segments from the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere for several latitudinal bands and two time periods. Various methods are used to derive the trend estimates to understand their uncertainties and how data sampling affects them. The authors find that ozone trends calculated over the periods 1978-1999 and 2000-2022 from their unified dataset agree fairly well with independent studies that include satellite datasets with greater spatiotemporal sampling.
This paper is well motivated and written. Analyzing a fully global set of ozonesonde data that appears in various archives is a challenge, so this study results in two key accomplishments: 1) constructing a quality-checked global ozonesonde dataset that avoids duplication and captures data that would be missed by using only one archive, and 2) demonstrating the utility of the unified dataset for trends calculations and comparison to existing studies.
Uncertainties of the trends (95% confidence interval at least, and perhaps also p-value) presented in Tables 9-12 should be reported so we can understand the significance (or insignificance) of the differences in trends computed using various methods. This would also allow you to also report a trend that is not statistically significant, rather than listing “NT”.
The fact that trends computed using the unified ozonesonde dataset generally agree, except for 1978-1999 tropical stratospheric trends, with independent studies that include satellite data is an important message. This should be communicated in the abstract and will lead to the paper having greater impact.
Recommendation:
The general and specific comments that I have should result in mostly minor corrections and additions. After they are addressed, I recommend that this paper be published.
Line-by-Line and Technical Comments:
Abstract Line 15: Please list the three groups here.
Line 34: Suggest also citing Thompson et al., (2021; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021JD034691) and Stauffer et al., (2024; https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/5221/2024/). Additionally, two HEGIFTOM papers (Van Malderen et al., 2025a, b) will be posted as preprints to the TOAR-II special issue not long after this review is submitted. Those will also be excellent and contemporary references.
Line 36: Change “utilized” to “applied”
Line 36: Change “alongside” to “to”
Line 46: To my knowledge there are only three stations that launch ~3 times per week: Uccle, Payerne, and Hohenpeissenberg. Weekly launches are much more typical.
Line 95: In the case of a dataset existing in more than one archive, what is done to ensure that the homogenized ozonesonde data are being used? Are there cases where duplicate profiles were found in different archives with slightly different (e.g., non-homogenized vs. homogenized) ozone values?
Figures 4, 5, and 8: Please flip the axes so pressure is the y-axis
Line 200: How did you determine not to include SP and SH even though the trends are significant? What criteria were used to exclude them? Here is where the reporting of uncertainties might help.
Line 219: What is meant by “5 ascents per month”? Is this for latitudinally-aggregated stations, or do you require an individual site to have at least 5 profiles in a given month over all years of the timeseries?
Line 230: I am assuming the large majority of profiles that did not pass this check were from before 1990 or so, correct?
Table 4: Are these null values what you have removed based on previous quality checks? Please explain more what this means.
Line 269: One might argue that some closely located ozonesonde stations could be somewhat redundant for total column and stratospheric ozone. However, with differing launch schedules at the stations this density of stations remains important, and they are certainly not redundant for tropospheric measurements. Please make this clear in the paper.
Section 3.2: Can you explain in more detail how the anomaly timeseries are constructed? Are the ozone values in a latitudinal band first averaged to construct a climatology, and then the anomalies are computed? Have you explored calculating anomalies for individual stations from their individual climatology, and then averaging the individual site anomalies within the latitudinal bands? This could help avoid some step changes resulting from differing station records – having stations come online, dropping out, etc.
Line 374: Change “As” to “For”
Table 9: The large ozone increases in the tropical stratosphere for 1978-1999 are really surprising, even with limited sampling, and based on Figure 12 they appear to be driven by the years ~1982-1988. Do you know what is happening here? Again, uncertainty reporting will help here.
Line 400: Change “Chapter” to “Section”
Line 414-415: Better to say “significant” rather than “valid”
Line 421: Change “an enhanced” to “more”
Line 427: Change “vanishing” to “inhibiting”
Line 440: I wouldn’t use “richer data content” to describe the difficulty in detecting trends in the upper troposphere vs. the stratosphere. The high variability of ozone near the tropopause is mostly what makes it difficult to detect trends in that region.
Line 512: Change how the ozonesonde TCO dropoff is described. Rather than stating “apparent anomalous losses of ozone in the lower and middle stratosphere”, note that it is an instrumental artefact or artefacts that cause low-biased ozone measurements in the stratosphere at some stations.
Line 568: It is just HEGIFTOM, not HEGIFTOM-II
Appendix A: I note that for the Costa Rica station that the three closely located sites where that station has moved around to have been separated. Were these data taken from the SHADOZ archive? It is generally considered a single station, especially for measurements in the upper troposphere and stratosphere as used here.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2882-RC1 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2882', Roeland Van Malderen, 17 Jan 2025
reply
Dear authors,
another reviewer report should be in the pipeline. But given my expertise in ozonesondes and the importance of your paper for the ozonesonde data availability and trends assessment, I take my freedom as the manuscript editor to also provide you my review report. This is also encouraged by the fact that I had the possibility to comment on an earlier version of the manuscript as a Chapter in the PhD thesis of the first author.
With kind regards,
Roeland Van Malderen
Data sets
Unified database of ozonesounding profiles Fabrizio Marra, Emanuele Tramutola, and Fabio Madonna https://zenodo.org/records/12544883
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
127 | 38 | 10 | 175 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 127
- PDF: 38
- XML: 10
- Total: 175
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1