地基与星载仪器观测大气臭氧总量分析

Total Ozone Column Derived from the Ground-Based and Space-Borne Instruments

本文选取多个臭氧总量观测站点,采用"三重制约法"分别对下列3组仪器观测臭氧总量数据进行统计分析,解算出不同观测资料的误差标准差,进而对比研究各种仪器的精度特征:1)1996~2003年期间地基WOUDC(World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre)观测网络仪器(包括Brewer、Dobson和Filter臭氧测量仪)与星载TOMS(Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer)和GOME(The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment)仪器;2)2004~2013年期间WOUDC与星载OMI(ozone monitoring instrument)和SCIAMACHY(scanning imaging absorption spectrometer for atmospheric chartography)仪器;3)2004~2013年期间地基SAOZ(Système D’Analyse par Observations Zénithales)与星载OMI和SCIAMACHY仪器。结果表明,1996~2003年期间TOMS V8和GOME观测精度相当,分别为7.6±2.8 DU/46(其中,7.6±2.8 DU为所分析站点观测资料的平均精度及其标准差,46为站点数目)和7.6±1.5 DU/46。TOMS V8观测精度优于TOMS V7(8.5±3.0 DU/46),验证了前者对后者有所改进。2004~2013年期间OMI和SCIAMACHY在WOUDC地基站点观测精度接近,分别为6.6±1.4 DU/21和6.0±1.6 DU/21。SAOZ地基仪器精度为8.4±3.6 DU/8。对于3类WOUDC地基仪器,Brewer站点观测资料的平均精度最优(7.9±3.3 DU/12),Dobson次之(8.7±2.3 DU/19),Filter最差(14.7±4.0 DU/15)。相比于卫星,3种地面仪器观测平均精度较差(10.5±4.3 DU/46),这主要是由于Filter精度较差引起。中国境内的瓦里关(Brewer)、香河(Dobson)和昆明(Dobson)3个地基站点仪器观测精度均较优,分别为7.8 DU、6.7 DU和6.6 DU。尽管不同站点之间存在一定差异,但整体来说,地基与卫星仪器在中国境内3个站点观测臭氧总量吻合较好。

The collocated total ozone columns derived from three groups of instruments were analyzed at multiple surface stations in this study. The three groups of instruments are： 1） Ground-based WOUDC（World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre） network instruments（including Brewer, Dobson, and Filter）, space-borne TOMS（Total Ozone Mapping Spectrophotometer） and GOME（The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment） between 1996 and 2003; 2） WOUDC instrument, space-borne OMI（ozone monitoring instrument） and SCIAMACHY（scanning imaging absorption spectrometer for atmospheric chartography） from 2004 to 2013; 3） ground-based SAOZ（Système D＇Analyse par Observations Zénithales）, space-borne OMI and SCIAMACHY during 2004-2013. The triple control method was adopted to calculate standard deviations of errors of different kinds of datasets and a comparison of their precisions was conducted. Results show that the precisions of TOMS V8 and GOME, which were 7.6±2.8 DU/46（7.6±2.8 DU denoted the mean precision and its standard deviation of the ground sites analyzed; 46 represented the number of the sites） and 7.6±1.5 DU/46, respectively, agreed well during 1996-2003. The precision of TOMS V8 was better than that of TOMS V7（8.5±3.0 DU/46） and the improvement was confirmed in this study. The precisions of OMI and SCIAMACHY, which were 6.6±1.4 DU/21 and 6.0±1.6 DU/21, respectively over WOUDC sites during 2004-2013, were close to each other. The precision of SAOZ was 8.4±3.6 DU/8. In terms of the WOUDC ground-based instruments, the average precision of Brewer was the best（7.9±3.3 DU/12）, followed by that of Dobson（8.7±2.3 DU/19）, and the worst was that of Filter（14.7±4.0 DU/15）. The mean precision of the above three kinds of ground-based measurements（10.5±4.3 DU/46） was worse than that from the space-born instruments due to the application of the Filter-type instrument. With regard to only the ground-based instruments in China, their precisions were excellent at Waliguan（Brewer）, Xianghe（Dobson）, and Kunming（Dobson） sites, which were 7.8 DU, 6.7 DU, and 6.6 DU, respectively. Although there existed certain differences at Waliguan, Xianghe, and Kunming sites, the total ozone column obtained by the ground-based and space-borne instruments generally agreed well over these three sites.