Earth-prints repository, logo   DSpace

About DSpace Software
|earth-prints home page | roma library | bologna library | catania library | milano library | napoli library | palermo library
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/900

Authors: DeLuisi, J.*
Theisen, D.*
Augustine, J.*
Disterhoft, P.*
Lantz, K.*
Weatherhead, E.*
Hodges, G.*
Cornwall, C.*
Petropavlovskikh, I.*
Stevermer, A.*
Wellman, D.*
Barnett, J.*
Title: On the correspondence between surface UV observations and TOMS determinations of surface UV: a potential method for quality evaluating world surface UV observations
Issue Date: 2003
Series/Report no.: 46 (2)
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/900
Keywords: UV
ultraviolet
erythermal
surface
satellite
TOMS
Abstract: A comparison of erythemally weighted surface UV irradiance observations with similar NASA TOMS surface UV determinations is described. Comparisons are made for two observation periods: the Robertson-Berger (R-B) meter period from 1974 to the late 1980s and the current period from 1996 to the present when more sophisticated UVB-1 instruments were used. The more primitive R-B meter observations that comprised the fi rst U.S. UV network are seen to drift downward with respect to those of the TOMS. While the UVB-1 observations did not appear to drift, a substantial bias is noted to exist between the TOMS and the UVB-1 stations collecting observations; the TOMS estimations tend to be higher. A portion of the bias may be attributed to errors in calibration, total ozone, and cosine response of the surface instrumentation. Unaccounted aerosol effects, although not considered to be large in the TOMS estimations, present another source of error. Comparisons are fi rst done for all sky conditions and then for clear sky conditions. The biases typically agree for all sky conditions within the uncertainties of the surface instruments' calibrations, liberally defi ned as ± 5%, implying that the TOMS cloud correction scheme performs reasonably well. Snow cover severely impacts the TOMS observations, giving considerably higher estimations. The biases for clear sky conditions ranged from 15% to 19% with no obvious drifts between the satellite and surface observations. The variation in the biases among stations is within the calibration uncertainties of the instruments, but the absolute bias is unexpectedly large. The standard deviations of the clear sky comparisons among all stations are steady at 4.8% ± 0.7%. A plot of the TOMS/UVB-1 ratio versus TOMS cloud refl ectivity observations is noisy, but qualitatively suggestive of a possible slight increase (~ 5% or greater) over the range of clear to overcast skies. The results from these comparisons is believed to be relevant to a WMO goal of uniformly assuring the quality of UV observations made by networks in many countries. The results for clear sky comparisons suggest that a satellite observing system such as TOMS, which provides global coverage daily, might partially serve as a fi rst-order check to quality assure UV observations being made by networks worldwide. Future research should concentrate on determining the causes of the large differences seen between the UVB-1 and TOMS and the range of uncertainties, using a larger array of stations.
Appears in Collections:01.01.08. Instruments and techniques
Annals of Geophysics

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormatVisibility
295_308DeLuisi.pdf884.77 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.


Share this record
Del.icio.us

Citeulike

Connotea

Facebook

Stumble it!

reddit


 

Valid XHTML 1.0! ICT Support, development & maintenance are provided by CINECA. Powered on DSpace Software. CINECA