The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating uncertainty of the WMO mole fraction scale for carbon dioxide in air
Open accessAbstract
The current WMO CO 2 Mole Fraction Scale consists of a set of 15 CO 2‐in‐air primary standard calibration gases ranging in CO 2 mole fraction from 250 to 520 μmol mol−1. Since the WMO CO 2 Expert Group transferred responsibility for maintaining the WMO Scale from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) to the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) in 1995, the 15 WMO primary standards have been calibrated, first at SIO and then at regular intervals, between 1 and 2 years, by the CMDL manometric system. The uncertainty of the 15 primary standards was estimated to be 0.069 μmol mol−1(one‐sigma) in the absolute sense. Manometric calibrations results indicate that there is no evidence of overall drift of the Primaries from 1996 to 2004. In order to lengthen the useful life of the Primary standards, CMDL has always transferred the scale via NDIR analyzers to the secondary standards. The uncertainties arising from the analyzer random error and the propagation error due to the uncertainty of the reference gas mole fraction are discussed. Precision of NDIR transfer calibrations was about 0.014 μmol mol−1 from 1979 to present. Propagation of the uncertainty was calculated theoretically. In the case of interpolation the propagation error was estimated to be between 0.06 and 0.07 μmol mol−1 when the Primaries were used as the reference gases via NDIR transfer calibrations. The CMDL secondary standard calibrations are transferred via NDIR analyzers to the working standards, which are used routinely for measuring atmospheric CO 2 mole fraction in the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch monitoring program. The uncertainty of the working standards was estimated to be 0.071 μmol mol−1 in the one‐sigma absolute scale. Consistency among the working standards is determined by the random errors of downward transfer calibrations at each level and is about 0.02 μmol mol−1. For comparison with an independent absolute scale, the five gravimetric standards from the National Institute for the Environmental Studies (NIES) in Tsukuba, Japan, ranging in CO 2 mole fraction from 350 to 390 μmol mol−1 have been calibrated relative to the CMDL secondary standards. The average and standard deviation of the differences between the NIES gravimetric and CMDL analyzed CO 2 mole fraction are 0.004 ± 0.03 μmol mol−1.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results
Taylor, B. N. (1994) · National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Technical Note 1297 · doi:10.6028/nist.tn.1297 · Cited by 2,833
Cited by
High accuracy measurements of dry mole fractions of carbon dioxide and methane in humid air
Rella, C. W., Chen, H., Andrews, A. E., Filges, A., Gerbig, C., Hatakka, J., Karion, A., Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Steinbacher, M., et al. (2013) · Atmospheric Measurement Techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-6-837-2013 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, C. L., & Tans, P. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2006-03-29
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- D8
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985211247
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimating uncertainty of the WMO mole fraction scale for carbon dioxide in air. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2005jd006003
- The paper
- Zhao, C. L., & Tans, P. P. (2006). Estimating uncertainty of the WMO mole fraction scale for carbon dioxide in air. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005jd006003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.