1994
DOI: 10.1029/ar062p0017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The United States National Science Foundation's Polar Network for monitoring ultraviolet radiation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
70
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ozone calculated from a spectrum that was deliberately shifted by 0.1 nm deviated by 1.3% from the result calculated from the unshifted spectrum. The wavelength accuracy of published UV spectra is tested with an algorithm that compares the Fraunhofer structure in measured spectra with the same structure in a reference spectrum [Slaper et al, 1995;Booth et al, 2001]. The wavelength calibration uncertainty was found to be ±0.04 nm (±1s), which translates into a 0.54% standard uncertainty in ozone.…”
Section: Instrument-related Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Ozone calculated from a spectrum that was deliberately shifted by 0.1 nm deviated by 1.3% from the result calculated from the unshifted spectrum. The wavelength accuracy of published UV spectra is tested with an algorithm that compares the Fraunhofer structure in measured spectra with the same structure in a reference spectrum [Slaper et al, 1995;Booth et al, 2001]. The wavelength calibration uncertainty was found to be ±0.04 nm (±1s), which translates into a 0.54% standard uncertainty in ozone.…”
Section: Instrument-related Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the analysis of the instrument's calibration record (see NSF Network Operations Reports [e.g., Booth et al, 2001]), we estimated that the maximum relative calibration error between the 300-315 nm and 325-335 nm wavelength bands is ±1.5%. We calculated further that a 5% error in ozone would require a 12.8% relative calibration error.…”
Section: Instrument-related Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Consequently, long-term monitoring of UV irradiances at the ground are essential for assessing the biological effects of UV and therefore a number of monitoring sites have been established, although coverage is by no means representative for the globe. Increases of UV radiation in response to reductions in total ozone at various sites and for various periods have been reported during the 1990s (Booth et al, 1994;Kerr and McElroy, 1993;Seckmeyer et al, 1994;Zerefos et al, 1997Zerefos et al, , 2001Bartlett and Webb, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%