Evaluating the Performance of Ozone Products Derived from CrIS/NOAA20, AIRS/Aqua and ERA5 Reanalysis in the Polar Regions in 2020 Using Ground-Based Observations
Quantifying spatiotemporal polar ozone changes can promote our understanding of global stratospheric ozone depletion, polar ozone-related chemical processes, and atmospheric dynamics. By means of ground-level measurements, satellite observations, and re-analyzed meteorology, the global spatial and t...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2fe9f24b952947f4a4312f10d4a4c9a1 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Quantifying spatiotemporal polar ozone changes can promote our understanding of global stratospheric ozone depletion, polar ozone-related chemical processes, and atmospheric dynamics. By means of ground-level measurements, satellite observations, and re-analyzed meteorology, the global spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of the total column ozone (TCO) and ozone profile can be quantitatively described. In this study, we evaluated the ozone datasets from CrIS/NOAA20, AIRS/Aqua, and ERA5/ECWMF for their performance in polar regions in 2020, along with the in situ observations of the Dobson, Brewer, and ozonesonde instruments, which are regarded as benchmarks. The results showed that the ERA5 reanalysis ozone field had good consistency with the ground observations (R > 0.95) and indicated whether the TCO or ozone profile was less affected by the site location. In contrast, both CrIS and AIRS could capture the ozone loss process resulting from the Antarctic/Arctic ozone hole at a monthly scale, but their ability to characterize the Arctic ozone hole was weaker than in the Antarctic. Specifically, the TCO values derived from AIRS were apparently higher in March 2020 than those of ERA5, which made it difficult to assess the area and depth of the ozone hole during this period. Moreover, the pattern of CrIS TCO was abnormal and tended to deviate from the pattern that characterized ERA5 and AIRS at the Alert site during the Arctic ozone loss process in 2020, which demonstrates that CrIS ozone products have limited applicability at this ground site. Furthermore, the validation of the ozone profile shows that AIRS and CrIS do not have good vertical representation in the polar regions and are not able to characterize the location and depth of ozone depletion. Overall, the results reveal the shortcomings of the ozone profiles derived from AIRS and CrIS observations and the reliability of the ERA5 reanalysis ozone field in polar applications. A more suitable prior method and detection sensitivity improvement on CrIS and AIRS ozone products would improve their reliability and applicability in polar regions. |
|---|