% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Tarasick:868243,
      author       = {Tarasick, David and Galbally, Ian E. and Cooper, Owen R.
                      and Schultz, Martin and Ancellet, Gerard and Leblanc,
                      Thierry and Wallington, Timothy J. and Ziemke, Jerry and
                      Liu, Xiong and Steinbacher, Martin and Staehelin, Johannes
                      and Vigouroux, Corinne and Hannigan, James W. and García,
                      Omaira and Foret, Gilles and Zanis, Prodromos and
                      Weatherhead, Elizabeth and Petropavlovskikh, Irina and
                      Worden, Helen and Osman, Mohammed and Liu, Jane and Chang,
                      Kai-Lan and Gaudel, Audrey and Lin, Meiyun and
                      Granados-Muñoz, Maria and Thompson, Anne M. and Oltmans,
                      Samuel J. and Cuesta, Juan and Dufour, Gaelle and Thouret,
                      Valerie and Hassler, Birgit and Trickl, Thomas and Neu,
                      Jessica L.},
      title        = {{T}ropospheric {O}zone {A}ssessment {R}eport:
                      {T}ropospheric ozone from 1877 to 2016, observed levels,
                      trends and uncertainties},
      journal      = {Elementa},
      volume       = {7},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2325-1026},
      address      = {Washington, DC},
      publisher    = {BioOne},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-06802},
      pages        = {39 -},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {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.},
      cin          = {JSC},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
      pnm          = {512 - Data-Intensive Science and Federated Computing
                      (POF3-512) / Earth System Data Exploration (ESDE)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-512 / G:(DE-Juel-1)ESDE},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000489757700001},
      doi          = {10.1525/elementa.376},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/868243},
}