The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Tropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels, trends and uncertainties
Open accessAbstract
From the earliest observations of ozone in the lower atmosphere in the 19th century, both measurement methods and the portion of the globe observed have evolved and changed. These methods have different uncertainties and biases, and the data records differ with respect to coverage (space and time), information content, and representativeness. In this study, various ozone measurement methods and ozone datasets are reviewed and selected for inclusion in the historical record of background ozone levels, based on relationship of the measurement technique to the modern UV absorption standard, absence of interfering pollutants, representativeness of the well-mixed boundary layer and expert judgement of their credibility. There are significant uncertainties with the 19th and early 20th-century measurements related to interference of other gases. Spectroscopic methods applied before 1960 have likely underestimated ozone by as much as 11% at the surface and by about 24% in the free troposphere, due to the use of differing ozone absorption coefficients. There is no unambiguous evidence in the measurement record back to 1896 that typical mid-latitude background surface ozone values were below about 20 nmol mol–1, but there is robust evidence for increases in the temperate and polar regions of the northern hemisphere of 30–70%, with large uncertainty, between the period of historic observations, 1896–1975, and the modern period (1990–2014). Independent historical observations from balloons and aircraft indicate similar changes in the free troposphere. Changes in the southern hemisphere are much less. Regional representativeness of the available observations remains a potential source of large errors, which are difficult to quantify. The great majority of validation and intercomparison studies of free tropospheric ozone measurement methods use ECC ozonesondes as reference. Compared to UV-absorption measurements they show a modest (~1–5% ±5%) high bias in the troposphere, but no evidence of a change with time. Umkehr, lidar, and FTIR methods all show modest low biases relative to ECCs, and so, using ECC sondes as a transfer standard, all appear to agree to within one standard deviation with the modern UV-absorption standard. Other sonde types show an increase of 5–20% in sensitivity to tropospheric ozone from 1970–1995. Biases and standard deviations of satellite retrieval comparisons are often 2–3 times larger than those of other free tropospheric measurements. The lack of information on temporal changes of bias for satellite measurements of tropospheric ozone is an area of concern for long-term trend studies.
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
Lefohn, A. S., Malley, C. S., Smith, L., Wells, B., Hazucha, M., Simon, H., Naik, V., Mills, G., Schultz, M. G., Paoletti, E., et al. (2018) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.279 · Cited by 457
Self-citationDesigning the climate observing system of the future.
Weatherhead, E. C., Wielicki, B. A., Ramaswamy, V., Abbott, M., Ackerman, T. P., Atlas, R., Brasseur, G., Bruhwiler, L., Busalacchi, A. J., Butler, J. H., et al. (2018) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1002/2017ef000627 · Cited by 44
Self-citation
Cited by
Agathokleous, E., Feng, Z., Oksanen, E., Sicard, P., Wang, Q., Saitanis, C. J., Araminiene, V., Blande, J. D., Hayes, F., Calatayud, V., et al. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc1176 · Cited by 382
Tropospheric ozone in CMIP6 simulations
Griffiths, P. T., Murray, L. T., Zeng, G., Shin, Y. M., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Deushi, M., Emmons, L. K., Galbally, I. E., Hassler, B., et al. (2021) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-21-4187-2021 · Cited by 289
Self-citationTropospheric Ozone Assessment Report
Archibald, A. T., Neu, J. L., Elshorbany, Y. F., Cooper, O. R., Young, P. J., Akiyoshi, H., Cox, R. A., Coyle, M., Derwent, R. G., Deushi, M., et al. (2020) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.034 · Cited by 239
Self-citationHuijnen, V., Miyazaki, K., Flemming, J., Inness, A., Sekiya, T., & Schultz, M. G. (2020) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-13-1513-2020 · Cited by 72
Self-citationBadia, A., Iglesias‐Suarez, F., Fernandez, R. P., Cuevas, C. A., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J., Griffiths, P. T., Tarasick, D. W., Liu, J., & Saiz‐Lopez, A. (2021) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2021jd034859 · Cited by 35
Self-citationArctic tropospheric ozone: assessment of current knowledge and model performance
Whaley, C. H., Law, K. S., Hjorth, J. L., Skov, H., Arnold, S. R., Langner, J., Pernov, J. B., Bergeron, G., Bourgeois, I., Christensen, J. H., et al. (2023) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-23-637-2023 · Cited by 28
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tarasick, D., Galbally, I. E., Cooper, O. R., Schultz, M. G., Ancellet, G., Leblanc, T., Wallington, T. J., Ziemke, J., Liu, X., Steinbacher, M., Staehelin, J., Vigouroux, C., Hannigan, J. W., García, O., Foret, G., Zanis, P., Weatherhead, E., Petropavlovskikh, I., Worden, H., Osman, M., Liu, J., Chang, K.-L., Gaudel, A., Lin, M., Granados-Muñoz, M., Thompson, A. M., Oltmans, S. J., Cuesta, J., Dufour, G., Thouret, V., Hassler, B., Trickl, T., & Neu, J. L.
- Venue
- Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
- Publisher
- University of California Press
- Published
- 2019-01-01
- Volume
- 7
- ISSN
- 2325-1026 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2979392625
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.