<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-17-1945-2017</article-id><title-group><article-title>The CAMS interim Reanalysis of Carbon Monoxide,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Ozone and Aerosol for
2003–2015</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{The CAMS interim Reanalysis of Carbon Monoxide}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{J.~Flemming et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Flemming</surname><given-names>Johannes</given-names></name>
          <email>johannes.flemming@ecmwf.int</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4880-5329</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Benedetti</surname><given-names>Angela</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9971-9976</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Inness</surname><given-names>Antje</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Engelen</surname><given-names>Richard J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1577-5143</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>Luke</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Huijnen</surname><given-names>Vincent</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2814-8475</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Remy</surname><given-names>Samuel</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Parrington</surname><given-names>Mark</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4313-6218</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Suttie</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bozzo</surname><given-names>Alessio</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8069-3809</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Peuch</surname><given-names>Vincent-Henri</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1396-0505</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Akritidis</surname><given-names>Dimitris</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3104-5271</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Katragkou</surname><given-names>Eleni</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Laboratoire de météorologie dynamique, UPMC/CNRS, Paris, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Meteorology and Climatology, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, School of Geology,<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Thessaloniki, Greece</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Johannes Flemming (johannes.flemming@ecmwf.int)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>9</day><month>February</month><year>2017</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1945</fpage><lpage>1983</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>19</day><month>December</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>7</day><month>January</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>A new global reanalysis data set of atmospheric composition (AC) for the
period 2003–2015 has been produced by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service (CAMS). Satellite observations of total column (TC) carbon monoxide
(CO) and aerosol optical depth (AOD), as well as several TC and profile
observations of ozone, have been assimilated with the Integrated
Forecasting
System for Composition (C-IFS) of the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasting. Compared to the previous Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate (MACC) reanalysis (MACCRA), the
new CAMS interim reanalysis (CAMSiRA) is of a coarser horizontal resolution
of about 110 km, compared to 80 km, but covers a longer period with the intent
to be continued to present day. This paper compares CAMSiRA with MACCRA
and a control run experiment (CR) without assimilation of AC retrievals. CAMSiRA
has smaller biases than the CR with respect to independent observations of CO,
AOD and stratospheric ozone. However, ozone at the surface could not be
improved by the assimilation because of the strong impact of surface
processes such as dry deposition and titration with nitrogen monoxide (NO),
which were both unchanged by the assimilation. The assimilation of AOD led
to a global reduction of sea salt and desert dust as well as an exaggerated
increase in sulfate. Compared to MACCRA, CAMSiRA had smaller biases for
AOD, surface CO and TC ozone as well as for upper stratospheric and
tropospheric ozone. Finally, the temporal consistency of CAMSiRA was better
than the one of MACCRA. This was achieved by using a revised emission data
set as well as by applying careful selection and bias correction to the
assimilated retrievals. CAMSiRA is therefore better suited than MACCRA for
the study of interannual variability, as demonstrated for trends
in surface CO.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Exploiting the multitude of satellite observations of atmospheric
composition (AC) is a key objective of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service (CAMS). For its global component CAMS uses the four-dimensional
variational (4D-VAR) data assimilation technique to combine satellite
observations with chemistry-aerosol modelling to obtain a gridded continuous
representation (analysis) of the mass mixing ratios of atmospheric trace
gases and aerosols.</p>
      <p>The global CAMS system is built on the heritage of the EU-funded GEMS project (Hollingsworth et al., 2008) and a series of Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate (MACC) projects at the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). During these projects the
Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) of ECMWF was extended by modules for
atmospheric chemistry, aerosols and greenhouse gases in such a way that the
4D-VAR data assimilation system, which had been developed for the analysis
of the meteorological fields, could be used for the assimilation of AC
retrievals.</p>
      <p>Assimilating satellite AC retrievals into an AC model has advantages over the
sole use of the AC retrievals because of their specific limitations. First,
only a small subset of the trace gases or only total aerosol is directly
observable with an accuracy sufficient to have an impact during the
assimilation. Second, AC satellite retrievals have incomplete horizontal
coverage because of the orbital cycle, viewing geometry, the presence of
clouds and other factors such as surface albedo. Third, the vertical
distribution of the trace species can often not or only coarsely be
retrieved from the satellite observations, while the measurement sensitivity
towards the surface is generally low.</p>
      <p>The AC analyses are used (i) to initialise AC model forecasts and (ii) for
the retrospective analysis (reanalysis) of AC for air quality and climate
studies. The reanalysis of the meteorological fields has been an important
activity at ECMWF (ERA-40, Uppala et al., 2005; ERA interim, Dee et al.,
2011) and other meteorological centres such as National Centers for Environmental Protection (NCEP) (CFSR; Saha et al., 2010,
JMA (JRA-55, JRA-25; Onogi et al., 2007)) and NASA-DAO (MERRA; Rienecker, et
al., 2011). An important application of these reanalysis data sets is the
estimation of the interannual variability and the trends of climate
variables over the last decades up to the present day. The complete spatial
and temporal coverage makes the trend analysis of reanalyses more robust and
universal than the trend analysis of individual observing systems. However,
constructing a data set, which is suited for this purpose, is a complex task
because of the developing and changing observing system, which can introduce
spurious trends and sudden shifts in the reanalysis data record. Careful
quality control of the assimilated observations and techniques (e.g. Dee et
al., 2004) to address inter-instrument biases are applied to mitigate this
problem.</p>
      <p>Most meteorological reanalyses contain stratospheric ozone, but other trace
gases, apart from water vapour, are not included. In the last decade chemical
and aerosol data assimilation has matured (Bocquet et al., 2015) and
dedicated reanalysis data sets for AC have emerged. The
multi-sensor reanalysis of total ozone (van der A et al., 2015) for
1970–2012 used ground-based Brewer observations to inter-calibrate satellite
retrievals. The MERRAero reanalysis (2002–present,
<uri>http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/reanalysis/merra/MERRAero/</uri>) assimilated aerosol optical depth (AOD)
retrievals from the two Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)
instruments in the GOCART aerosol module of the GEOS-5 model system using the
meteorological variables of the MERRA meteorological analysis. Its next
version, the MERRA2 reanalysis, is a joint meteorological and aerosol
reanalysis covering the period from 1979 to present. Miyazaki et al. (2015)
put together a tropospheric chemistry reanalysis using a Kalman filter
approach for the years 2005–2012. They use the CHASER chemical transport
model (CTM) to assimilate retrievals of tropospheric ozone and CO profiles,
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> tropospheric columns, and HNO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> stratospheric columns. Their
approach tackles two specific challenges of AC data assimilation. First, they
not only correct atmospheric concentrations but also alter the surface
emissions that control the tracer distributions to a large extent. Second,
the Kalman filter develops covariances of the errors between observed and
unobserved species, which are used to correct unobserved species based on
the observation increments.</p>
      <p>The MACC reanalysis (MACCRA) of reactive gases (Inness et al., 2013) and
aerosols for the period 2003–2012 is an AC reanalysis that covers
tropospheric and stratospheric reactive gases and aerosols as well as the
meteorological fields in one consistent data set. MACCRA has proved to be a
realistic data set as shown in several evaluation studies for reactive gases
(Elguindi et al., 2010; Inness et al., 2013; Katragkou et al., 2015; Gaudel
et al., 2015) and aerosols (Cesnulyte et al., 2014; Cuevas et al., 2015).
MACCRA is widely used, for example, as a boundary condition for regional models
(Schere et al., 2012; Im et al., 2015; Giordano et al., 2015), to construct
trace gas climatologies for the IFS radiation schemes (Bechtold et al.,
2009), to estimate aerosol radiative forcing (Bellouin et al., 2013), as
input for solar radiation schemes for solar energy applications, and to report
the current state of aerosol and CO as part of the climate system (Benedetti
et al., 2014; Flemming and Inness, 2014).</p>
      <p>CAMS is committed to producing a comprehensive high-resolution AC reanalysis
in the next years. The CAMS interim Reanalysis (CAMSiRA) presented here has
an interim status between MACCRA and this planned analysis data set. It was
produced at a lower horizontal resolution (110 km) than the resolution of
MACCRA (80 km), and the number of archived AC fields was limited to the
aerosol variables and selected chemical species such as ozone, HNO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
N<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, PAN and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The reasons for producing CAMSiRA before the more comprehensive reanalysis
are as follows: the MACCRA for reactive gases was produced using a coupled
system consisting of the IFS and the MOZART-3 (Kinnison et al., 2007)
CTM as described in Flemming et al. (2009). This
coupled system was replaced by the much more computationally efficient
online coupled model C-IFS (Flemming et al., 2015), which uses the chemical
mechanism CB05 of the TM5 CTM (Huijnen et al., 2010). With the
discontinuation of the coupled system it was not possible to extend the MACC
reanalysis to the present day. For the AC monitoring service of CAMS, it is
however important to be able to compare the present conditions with previous
years in a consistent way. Another motivation for producing CAMSiRA was that
the aerosol module used for the MACCRA had undergone upgrades (Morcrette et
al., 2011) in recent years. Finally, MACCRA suffered from small but
noticeable shifts because of changes in the assimilated observations, the
emission data and the bias correction approach. These spurious shifts
undermine the usefulness of the MACCRA for the reliable estimation of trends.
The lessons learnt from the evaluation of CAMSiRA will feed into the set-up of
the planned CAMS reanalysis.</p>
      <p>Reanalyses of AC are generally less well-constrained by observations than
meteorological reanalyses because of the aforementioned limitations of the
AC observations and because of the strong impact of the emissions, which are
in many cases not constrained by observations. It is therefore good
scientific practice to investigate the impact of the AC assimilation by
comparing the AC reanalysis to a control experiment that did not assimilate
AC observations. The control run (CR) for CAMSiRA was carried out using the
same emission data as well as the meteorological fields produced by CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>The purpose of this paper is firstly to document the model system, the
emissions, and the assimilated observations used to produce CAMSiRA and secondly to
highlight its differences to the set-up of the MACCRA. Since the emissions are
important drivers for variability of AC, a presentation of the totals and
the interannual variability of the emission data used in CAMSiRA and the CR is
given in a Supplement to the paper.</p>
      <p>In the remainder of the paper, CO, aerosol as well as tropospheric and
stratospheric ozone of CAMSiRA, the CR and MACCRA are inter-compared and
evaluated with independent observations in a separate section for each
species. The comparison of CAMSiRA with MACCRA has the purpose of reporting
progress of and issues with CAMSiRA for potential users of the data sets. The
comparison of CAMSiRA with the CR shows the impact of the data assimilation and
is helpful to better understand deficiencies of the C-IFS model and its
input data.</p>
      <p>Each section starts with a discussion of the spatial differences of CAMSiRA,
the CR and MACCRA for the considered species. Next, the temporal variability is
investigated using time series of monthly mean values averaged over selected
regions. We present global burdens and discuss changes in the speciation of
the aerosol fields introduced by the assimilation. Finally, the three data
sets are compared with independent observations, which were not used in
the assimilation. A summary and recommendations for future AC reanalysis
will be given in the last section.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Description of CAMSiRA setup</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Overview</title>
      <p>CAMSiRA is a data set of 6-hourly reanalyses of AC for the period 2003–2015.
A 3-hourly data set consistent with the AC analysis is available from
forecasts linking the analyses. The horizontal resolution is about 110 km on
a reduced Gaussian grid (T159) and the vertical discretization uses 60 levels
from the surface to a model top of 0.1 hPa. Total columns of carbon monoxide (TC CO)
form
the Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument, MODIS
AOD, and several ozone TC and stratospheric profile retrievals (see Table 2)
were assimilated together with meteorological in situ and satellite
observations.</p>
      <p>The description of MACCRA for reactive gases can be found in Inness et
al. (2013). Important commonalities and differences between the two AC
reanalyses are given in Table 1.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Important commonalities and differences between MACCRA and CAMSiRA.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="113.811024pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="142.26378pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="142.26378pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MACCRA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CAMSiRA</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Period</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">01/2003–12/2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">01/2003–12/2015</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Horizontal resolution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">80 km (T255)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">110 km (T159)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Vertical resolution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60 layers from surface to 0.1 hPa</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Anthropogenic emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MACCity (trend: ACCMIP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> RCP<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>8.5), AEROCOM</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic> &amp; CO emission upgrade<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Stein et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Chemistry module</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MOZART-3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">C-IFS CB05/Cariolle ozone</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Assimilated CO observations</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MOPITT (V4) &amp; IASI<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(from 2008 onwards)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MOPITT (V5) &amp; updated error<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>statistics Inness et al. (2015)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Assimilated ozone observations</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SBUV-2, OMI, MLS, GOME-2,<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>SCIAMACHY, GOME, MIPAS<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(01/2003–06/2004)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic> &amp; MIPAS (2003–2012)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ozone MLS bias correction</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">On</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Off</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Assimilated AOD observations</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MODIS (Aqua and Terra) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> VarBC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fire emissions</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">GFED (2003–2008) and<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>GFAS v0 (2009–2012 )</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">GFAS v 1.2 (2003–2015)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">IFS model version</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CY36R2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CY40R2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Assimilation method and model</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ECMWF 4D-VAR</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Meteorological observations<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>assimilated</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ECMWF RD setup (satellites,<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sondes, surface )</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic>as MACCRA</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Assimilated satellite observations in CAMSiRA.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="56.905512pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="85.358268pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="56.905512pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="56.905512pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="56.905512pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Instrument</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">References</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Version</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Period</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Type</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Data usage</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MOPITT <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Terra</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Deeter et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V5 TIR <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2012/12/18 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2012/12/19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">CO TC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOME <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>ERS-2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Munro et al. (1998)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2003/05/31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> profile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>SOE &gt; 15, QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOME-2 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Metop A</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hao et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NRT GDP4.4 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT GDP4.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2012/09/01–2013/07/14 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2013/07/15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> TC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 10 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GOME-2 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Metop B</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hao et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NRT GDP4.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">From 2014/01/01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> TC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 10 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MIPAS <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Envisat</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">von Clarmann<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>et al. (2003, 2009)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">NRT <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>CCI</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2004/03/26 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>2005/01/27–2012/03/31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> profile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MLS <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Aura</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Froidevaux et al. (2008)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V2 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT V3.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2004/08/08–2012/12/31 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2013/01/07</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> profile</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OMI <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Aura</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Liu et al. (2010)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V003 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2004/10/01–2012/12/31 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2013/01/01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> TC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 10 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SBUV/2 NOAA-16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bhartia et al. (1996)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2004/01/01–2008/10/20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> PC <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>6 layers</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SBUV/2 NOAA-17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bhartia et al. (1996)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2012/11/30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> PC <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>6 layers</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SBUV/2 NOAA-18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bhartia et al. (1996)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2005/06/04–2012/12/17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> PC <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>6 layers</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SBUV/2 NOAA-19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Bhartia et al. (1996)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">V8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">From 2009/02/10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> PC <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>6 layers</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SCIAMACHY <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Envisat</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Eskes et al. (2012)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CCI</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2012/04/08</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> TC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">SOE &gt; 6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MODIS/Terra</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Remer et al. (2005)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Col.5 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT Col.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2008/07/31 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2008/08/01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AOD 550 nm</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MODIS/Aqua</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Remer et al. (2005)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Col.5 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>NRT Col.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003/01/01–2008/07/31 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>From 2008/08/01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AOD 550 nm</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>The control run is a forward simulation of C-IFS in monthly segments. The
meteorological simulation is relaxed using the approach by Jung et al. (2008)
to the meteorological reanalysis produced by the CAMSiRA. The emission input
fields are the same as those used for CAMSiRA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>C-IFS model</title>
      <p>The model C-IFS is documented and evaluated in Flemming et al. (2015). C-IFS
applies the chemical mechanism CB05, which describes tropospheric chemistry
with 55 species and 126 reactions. Stratospheric ozone chemistry in C-IFS is
parameterized by the “Cariolle-scheme” (Cariolle and Dèquè, 1986;
Cariolle and Teyssèdre, 2007). Chemical tendencies for stratospheric and
tropospheric ozone are merged at an empirical interface of the diagnosed
tropopause height in C- IFS. C-IFS benefits from the detailed cloud and
precipitation physics of the IFS for the calculation of wet deposition and
lightning NO emission. Wet deposition modelling for the chemical species is
based on Jacob (2000) and accounts for the subgrid scale distribution of
clouds and precipitation. Dry deposition is modelled using precalculated
monthly mean dry deposition velocities following Wesely (1989) with a
superimposed diurnal cycle. Surface emissions and dry deposition fluxes are
applied as surface boundary conditions of the diffusion scheme. Lightning
emissions of NO were calculated based on convective precipitation (Meijer et
al., 2001).</p>
      <p>The aerosol module (Morcrette et al., 2009) is a bulk–bin scheme simulating
desert dust, sea salt at 80 % relative humidity (RH), hydrophilic and
hydrophobic organic carbon and black carbon as well as sulfate aerosol based
on the the LMDZ model of Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique aerosol model (Reddy et al., 2005). Sea salt and desert dust are
represented in three size bins. The radius ranges of the dust bins are
0.030–0.55, 0.55–0.9 and 0.9–20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m (DD1, DD2, and DD3), and for
the sea salt at 80 % RH bins are 0.03–0.5, 0.5–5 and 5–20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>m
(SS1, SS2, and SS3). There is no consideration of the aerosol growth, which
would transfer aerosol mass from one size bin to another. Hygroscopic growth
of hydrophilic species is taken into account in the computation of the
aerosol optical properties only. Following the emission release, the aerosol
species are subject to wet and dry deposition and the largest size bins of
sea salt and dust are also subject to sedimentation. The chemical source of sulfate is
modelled by climatological conversion rates using a SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> tracer, which is
independent of the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> simulated in CB05. The SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> tracer is driven
by prescribed SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and dimethyl sulfide (DMS) emissions. Its loss is simulated by wet and
dry deposition as well as the climatological chemical conversion to SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The aerosol and chemistry modules used to simulate source and sink terms are
not coupled. Wet and dry deposition are also modelled with different
parameterisations but with the same meteorological input as
precipitation fields. Aerosol and chemistry have in common that they are
advected and vertically distributed by diffusion and convection in the same
way. A proportional mass fixer as described in Diamantakis and
Flemming (2014) is applied for all tracers in C-IFS.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Emission data sets</title>
      <p>This section only references the origin of the emission data. The emitted
totals and the linear trends of the anthropogenic, biomass burning, and
natural emissions as well as the modelled desert dust and sea salt emissions
used in CAMSiRA and the CR are presented in a Supplement.</p>
      <p>The anthropogenic surface emissions for the chemical species were taken from
the MACCity inventory (Granier et al., 2011), which covers the period
1960–2010. MACCity emissions are based on the ACCMIP (Lamarque et al., 2013)
inventory but have improved seasonal variability. The changes from 2000 to 2005
and for 2010 are obtained in the MACCity data using the representative
concentration pathway (RCP) scenario version 8.5. For the production of
CAMSiRA, the MACCity data set was extended to 2015 by also applying the RCP
8.5 scenario. The anthropogenic CO emissions were increased following Stein
et al. (2014). Time series of the anthropogenic CO emissions for Europe,
North America, East Asia (see Table 3) and the globe are shown in Fig. S2 of
the Supplement.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3"><caption><p>Coordinates of regions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Area</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Coordinates</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">North America</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">165–55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, 25–75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Europe</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10–45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 38–70<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">East Asia</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90–150<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 10-55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">South America</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">82–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, 40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropical Africa</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Northern Africa</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 20–35<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Maritime South East Asia</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90–150<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropics</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Arctic</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60–90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Antarctica</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">NH mid-latitudes</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SH mid-latitudes</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Timeline of assimilated AC satellite retrievals from different
instruments assimilated in CAMSiRA (see Table 2).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The anthropogenic emissions of organic matter, black carbon and aerosol
precursor SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are retrieved from the AEROCOM database, which is compiled
using EDGAR and SPEW data (Dentener et al., 2006). In contrast to the
anthropogenic gas emissions, the aerosol anthropogenic emissions did not
account for trends but only for the seasonal cycle.</p>
      <p>The biogenic emissions for the chemical species were simulated offline by
the MEGAN2.1 model (Guenther et al., 2006) for the 2000–2010 period
(MEGAN-MACC, Sindelarova et al., 2014). For the remaining years 2011–2015 a
climatology data set of the MEGAN-MACC data was put together. Natural emissions from
soils and oceans for NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, DMS and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> were taken from the POET (Precursors
of ozone and their Effects in the Troposphere) database for 2000
(Granier et al., 2005; Olivier et al., 2003).</p>
      <p>Daily biomass burning emissions for reactive gases and aerosols were produced
by the Global Fire Assimilation System (GFAS) version 1.2, which is based on
satellite retrievals of fire radiative power (Kaiser et al., 2012). This is
an important difference with respect to the MACCRA, which used early
versions of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED 3.1) data from 2003 until the end of 2008 and daily GFAS v1.0
data from 2009 to 2012. The GFED 3.1 is on average 20 % lower than GFAS
v1.2 (Inness et al., 2013). Time series of the biomass burning CO emissions
for tropical Africa, South America, Maritime South East Asia (see Table 3)
and the globe are shown in Fig. S3.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>C-IFS data assimilation</title>
      <p>C-IFS uses an incremental 4D-VAR algorithm (Courtier et al., 1994), which
minimizes a cost function for selected control variables to combine the model
and the observations in order to obtain the best possible representations of
the atmospheric fields. The mass mixing ratios of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO and total
aerosol are incorporated into the ECMWF variational analysis as additional
control variables and are minimised together with the meteorological control
variables. The assimilation of satellite retrieval of the chemical species
and total AOD is documented in Inness et al. (2015) and
Benedetti et al. (2009). The assimilation of aerosol differs from the
assimilation of CO and ozone because only the total aerosol mass can be
constrained by the observations, and information about the speciation must be
obtained from the model.</p>
      <p>The assimilation of AOD retrievals uses an observation operator that
translates the aerosol mass mixing ratios and humidity fields of C-IFS to
the respective AOD (550 nm) values using precomputed optical properties.
Total aerosol mass mixing ratio is included in the 4D-VAR cost function and
the analysis increments are repartitioned into the individual aerosol
components according to their fractional contribution to the total aerosol
mass. This is an approximation that is assumed to be only valid over the 12 h of the assimilation window. In reality, the relative fraction of the
aerosol components is not conserved during the whole assimilation procedure
because of differences in the efficiency of the removal processes. Aerosol
components with a longer atmospheric lifetime will retain
the change imposed by the increments relatively longer and may thereby change the relative
contributions.</p>
      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>In the ECMWF data assimilation system the background error covariance matrix
is given in a wavelet formulation (Fisher, 2004, 2006). This allows both
spatial and spectral variations in the horizontal and vertical background
error covariances. The background errors for AC are constant in time.</p>
      <p>The background errors for ozone are the same as the ones used for MACCRA
(Inness et al., 2013). Only the vertical correlations of the ozone background
errors were modified and restricted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 levels around a model
level to avoid correlations between the lower troposphere and upper
tropospheric and stratospheric levels that would affect near-surface ozone
adversely. The background errors of total aerosol for both MACCRA and CAMSiRA
were calculated using the method described in Benedetti and Fisher (2008).
The aerosol background errors for CAMSiRA were updated using a more recent
C-IFS model version. The background errors for CO are newly calculated for
the CAMSiRA from an ensemble of C-IFS forecast runs (Inness et al., 2015).
However, the ensemble did not account for the uncertainty of the emissions,
which leads to an underestimation of the background error. This may limit the
correcting impact of the observations in the assimilation process.</p>
      <p>The background error statistics for the chemical species and for total
aerosol are univariate in order to minimise the feedback effects of the
chemical fields on the meteorological variables. Correlations between the
background errors of different chemical species are also not accounted for
(Inness et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>A further potential interaction between the assimilated species could be
introduced by the adjoint and tangent linear representations of the chemical
mechanism and the aerosol module as part of the 4D-VAR approach. The applied
tangent linear and adjoint formulation of C-IFS only accounts for transport
processes and not the sources and sinks of atmospheric composition in this
study. Because of this limitation and the lack of
aerosol or chemistry and meteorology feedbacks in C-IFS, interaction among species
and with the meteorology as part of the assimilation procedure are not
represented in CAMSiRA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Assimilated observations</title>
      <p>Table 2 shows the AC composition data sets for CO, ozone and AOD that were
assimilated in CAMSiRA. The timeline of the assimilation for the different
retrievals is shown in Fig. 1. CO is assimilated from MOPITT V5 TIR only,
whereas the MACCRA assimilated the V4 TIR product and Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) TC CO
retrievals after April 2008. The biases between the retrievals (George et
al., 2015) of the two instruments in middle and higher latitudes could not be
reconciled with the variational bias correction and led to a discontinuity in
the time series of CO in MACCRA, which consequently could not be used for
trend analyses (see Fig. 4 below). It was therefore decided to only use the
MOPITT V5 CO data set in CAMSiRA because they cover the whole period from
2003 to 2015. The MOPITT V5 product has better long-term stability and a
smaller SH bias than V4 (Deeter et al., 2013). V4 suffered from a positive
temporal bias drift and a positive bias in the Southern Hemisphere (SH).</p>
      <p>Additional ozone data sets in CAMSiRA were the Michelson Interferometer for
Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) ozone profiles, which were assimilated
from 2005 until the end of the ENVISAT mission in April 2012. After the end
of 2012 the version of the assimilated Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) data set
changed from V2 to V3.4. Information about the differences between the two
versions can be found in
<uri>https://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/data/v3_data_quality_document.pdf</uri></p>
      <p>Averaging kernels (AKs) were used for the calculation of the model's first-guess
fields in the observation operators for the MOPITT data. For the ozone
retrieval, AKs were not used because they were not provided or
did not improve the analysis. For example, the high vertical resolution of
the MLS ozone retrievals in the stratosphere made the use of AKs unnecessary.</p>
      <p>The AC satellite retrievals were thinned to a horizontal resolution of
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> by randomly selecting an observation in the
grid box to avoid oversampling and correlated observation errors. Variational
quality control (Andersson and Järvinen, 1999) and background quality
checks were applied. Only “good” data were used in the analysis and data
flagged as “bad” by the data providers were discarded.</p>
      <p>Variational bias correction (Dee, 2004; McNally et al., 2006; Auligné et
al., 2007; Dee and Uppala, 2009) was applied to the MODIS AOD data, as well
as to ozone column data from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), the
SCIAMACHY (SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY) and the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment 2 (GOME-2). The
partial column of the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer-2 (SBUV/2),
MLS and MIPAS were used to anchor the bias correction. Experience from the
MACC reanalysis had shown that it was important to have an anchor for the
bias correction to avoid drifts in the fields (Inness et al., 2013).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Carbon monoxide</title>
      <p>Global CTMs tend to underestimate the observed CO values in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) (Shindell et al.,
2006), but data assimilation (Inness et al., 2013, 2015; Miyazaki et al.,
2015; Gaubert et al., 2016) of satellite retrieval is able to successfully
reduce the biases of the simulated CO fields. The correct representation of
vertical CO profiles by the assimilation remains a challenge (Gaudel et al.,
2015). An important next step will be the correct representation of the
global CO trends by means of CO reanalyses such as CAMSiRA.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Spatial patterns of total column CO</title>
      <p>Figure 2 shows the seasonal mean of TC CO over the period 2003–2015 of
CAMSiRA and the differences between the CR and MACCRA (2003–2012). Overall, the
assimilation of TC CO into CAMSiRA led to an increase in TC CO in the NH and a decrease in TC CO in the SH and most of
the tropics. CAMSiRA was about 2–5 % higher than the CR in the NH and as
much as 20 % lower in the SH. The reduction was especially large in the tropical
and subtropical outflow regions of the biomass burning regions in South
America, central Africa and Maritime South East Asia. The largest reduction
in these regions occurred in December–February (DJF). The largest negative bias of the CR with
respect to CAMSiRA occurred over NH in DJF and
March–May (MAM). Overall the zonal patterns of the biases throughout all
seasons were rather uniform, indicating an underestimation of the hemispheric
CO gradient in the CR. This could point to deficiencies in the simulation of the
global chemical loss and production of CO as well as problems with the large-scale transport. Biases in the amount of the emissions seem to play a smaller
role for the problem with the hemispheric gradient.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Average TC CO (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>18</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> mol cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of CAMSiRA (2003–2015,
left) and difference compared to the CR (2003–2015, middle) and MACCRA (2003–2012,
right) for the seasons DJF (row 1), MAM (row 2), JJA (row 3) and SON (row 4).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>However, more CO-emission-related differences occurred in September–November
(SON) and to a smaller extent in June–August (JJA), when the CR had (i) higher
values in the biomass burning regions and the respective outflow regions in
Central Africa, Maritime South East Asia, and South America and (ii) lower
values in the outflow regions of the emissions in North America and East Asia
in the eastern and western North Pacific. This suggests that GFAS biomass
burning emissions were too high, whereas the anthropogenic emissions in North
America and East Asia were too low. Conversely, the CR had higher values
than CAMSiRA in South Asia, which indicates that the anthropogenic emissions
are too high in India.</p>
      <p>Compared to MACCRA, CAMSiRA was up to 10 % higher in the northern high
latitudes and up to 20 % higher above the tropical biomass burning
regions and above parts of East Asia. The differences over the biomass
burning regions can be attributed to the different biomass burning emission
data sets (see Sect. 2.3). Over the oceans in the NH and the tropics, apart from
biomass burning outflow regions, CAMSiRA CO is slightly lower (3 %) than
MACCRA. The differences in the NH high latitudes are mainly caused by the
reduction in MACCRA CO in this region introduced by the assimilation of IASI
CO retrieval after 2008 (see also Fig. 4 below).</p>
      <p>Figure 3 shows the average zonal mean cross section of the CO mass
mixing ratio of CAMSiRA and the relative difference to the CR and MACCRA. The
overestimation of the CR in the tropics and SH extratropics was found throughout
the troposphere. It was most pronounced in relative terms at about 500 hPa.
Stratospheric CO in CAMSiRA was much lower than in MACCRA. This might be an
improvement since Gaudel et al. (2015) report an overestimation in the MACCRA
over this region. In the upper troposphere CAMSiRA had higher CO than MACCRA,
most notably in the tropics and SH where values are up to 40 % higher. CO
was lower in the middle and lower troposphere in the SH and higher in the NH. These
differences in the vertical distribution might be caused by (i) a more
consistent modelling approach of the stratosphere–troposphere exchange with
the online coupled C-IFS, (ii) the fact that C-IFS CB05 has a very different
chemistry treatment compared to MOZART and (iii) updated background error
statistics for CO (see Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Zonally averaged CO cross section of CAMSiRA (ppb) (2003–2015,
left) and relative difference (%) compared to the CR (2003–2015, middle) and
MACCRA (2003–2012, right).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of monthly mean CO burden (Tg) over different regions
(see Table 3) for the period 2003–2015 from
CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green, 2003–2012).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Interannual variability of CO burden</title>
      <p>Figure 4 shows time series of the monthly mean CO burden from CAMSiRA, MACCRA
and the CR for selected areas (see Table 3). The modelled global CO burden (CR)
was reduced by the assimilation by about 3 % at the start and by about
7 % at the end of the period. CAMSiRA showed a stepwise decrease in the
global CO burden from 2008 and 2009, which corresponds to a significant
(95 % confidence level) negative linear trend of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.86 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
over the whole period. The linear trend is as expressed as percentage with
respect to the mean of the burden over the whole period. This figure is in
good agreement with the results of Worden et al. (2013), who estimated trends
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 % per year for both the globe and NH over the last decade by
studying different satellite-based instruments. The CR also showed the largest
decrease in the period from 2007 to 2009, but the CO burden increased slightly
after that period. The resulting linear trend of the CR was still negative
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.36 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) but less strong than the trend of CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>The higher global CO burdens of the CR with respect to CAMSiRA originated mainly
from the tropics and the SH mid-latitudes, which are strongly influenced by
biomass burning emissions in tropical Africa and South America. CO was
reduced by the assimilation in CAMSiRA, especially after the start of the
biomass burning season. The reduction in the biomass burning emissions of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.4 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Supplement Table S1) over South America led to a
significant negative trend of the CO burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.23 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in
CAMSiRA and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.83 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the CR over that region. The
overestimation of the CR with respect to CAMSiRA increased slightly during this
period.</p>
      <p>2015 was an exceptional year because the global CO burden reached the highest
values in the whole period for both CAMSiRA and the CR despite the overall
decadal negative trend. The increase was caused by exceptionally high biomass
burning emissions in Indonesia because of El Niño-related dry conditions.
The El Niño-controlled interannual variability of CO over Maritime South
East Asia was reproduced in a very similar way in CAMSiRA and the CR, but the
assimilation reduced the burden by about 1 Tg (10 %).</p>
      <p>In the regions of high anthropogenic emissions the temporal variability on a
monthly scale was very similar between the CR and CAMSiRA. Both in North America
and Europe, the CR underestimated the CO maximum of CAMSiRA in early spring by
less than 5 % up to the year 2010, but the biases almost disappeared in
later years. This means that the negative total CO trend in these regions was
larger in CAMSiRA, which contains the MOPITT observations, than in the CR. It
could indicate that the anthropogenic emissions were biased low at the
beginning of the period but less so towards the end. Over East Asia the
difference between the CR and CAMSiRA was generally very small, indicating a high
degree of realism of the emissions in the area. A further explanation for
this agreement is the fact that this area covers both the underestimation of
CAMSiRA by the CR in NH mid-latitudes and the overestimation in the tropics. Both
CAMSiRA and the CR had a negative but not significant trend over East Asia.</p>
      <p>Stroden et al. (2016) also find good agreement between MOPITT-based and
modelled negative trends for the 2000–2010 period of TC CO over
Europe and North America but disagreement in the sign of the trend over
eastern China, where their model, using MACCity emissions, simulates a
positive trend but MOPITT has a negative trend. Over eastern China the CR
(2003–2015) also had a small positive linear trend, whereas CAMSiRA had a
negative trend; neither trend was statistically significant. The
positive trend over eastern China in the CR was mainly driven by directly emitted
CO at the surface. Because of the hemispheric influence, i.e. the hemispheric
reduction in CO, the CO trend in the CR over eastern China became negative in the
middle troposphere.</p>
      <p>In the Arctic, which is influenced by the long-range transport from North
America, Europe and Asia (Emmons et al., 2015), no MOPITT observations were
assimilated (see Table 2) because of the higher
biases of the MOPITT data in this region. The
variability of the CR and CAMSiRA CO burden also matched well in this region, but the bias was
much reduced after 2012.</p>
      <p>The time series of the global CO burden of CAMSiRA and MACCRA agree better
than CAMSiRA and the CR. The global burden of MACCRA is slightly lower than in
CAMSiRA (1 %) until 2010 but starts to exceed CAMSiRA in 2011 and 2012.
Hence, larger differences occur at the beginning and end of the MACCRA
period.</p>
      <p>The CO burden of MACCRA above the biomass burning regions of South America
and tropical Africa was lower than CAMSiRA for the period 2003–2010. This is
most likely because of the use of the GFED biomass burning emissions until
2008, which are on average 20 % lower than GFAS, which was used for
CAMSiRA . In the years 2011–2012 MACCRA had higher values, which even led to
a reversal in the sign of the trend over the two regions in MACCRA in
comparison to CAMSiRA. MACCRA and CAMSiRA agreed well above the anthropogenic
source regions. Only from 2008 onwards was MACCRA slightly lower, which led to
enhanced negative trends.</p>
      <p>Over the Arctic, CAMSiRA is higher from 2008 onwards, whereas MACCRA was higher at
the start. This is consistent with the respective trends over Europe and
North America. All data sets showed a step-like reduction in the CO burden in
mid-2008 but it was most pronounced in MACCRA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Evaluation with MOZAIC–IAGOS aircraft CO observations</title>
      <p>MOZAIC (Measurements of OZone, water vapour, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by
in-service AIrbus aircraft) and IAGOS (In-service Aircraft for a Global
Observing System) are subsequent programmes of AC observations mounted
on commercial aircraft. The MOZAIC CO data have an accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 ppbv,
a precision of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % and a detection limit of 10 ppbv
(Nédélec et al., 2003). De Laat et al. (2014) compare MOZAIC–IAGOS
profiles with the MOPITT v5 NIR retrievals, which were assimilated in CAMSiRA.
They find good agreement and no drift of the biases of the two data sets in
their study period 2002–2010.</p>
      <p>We use the CO profiles obtained during take-off and landing to evaluate the
CO fields averaged over airports in different regions from 2003 to 2012. The
number of MOZAIC–IAGOS CO profiles fluctuated considerably over the years.
They decreased from 2003 to 2014 by about 50 % and certain airports
had many more observations than others. Since the aircraft used in MOZAIC
were based in Frankfurt, the majority of the CO profiles were observed at
this airport. Therefore the observations from Frankfurt dominate the European
mean values. Observations from Tokyo and other Japanese cities were the
largest contributions to the mean over East Asia. Atlanta, Toronto and
Vancouver had the largest number of observations in the North American domain.
Windhoek had by far the largest number of observations in tropical Africa and
Caracas had the most in South America. The mean over Maritime South East Asia is
mainly calculated from observations over Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur in 2005,
2006 and 2012, with an unbalanced coverage of the difference months.</p>
      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Profiles of the mean relative bias of CAMSiRA, MACCRA and the CR against
MOZAIC–IAGOS CO observations for different regions (see Table 3) averaged
over the period 2003–2012 are shown in Fig. 5. We discuss here only the
annual biases since the seasonal relative biases did not differ to a large
extent from the annual relative biases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Average relative bias (%) in CO of CAMSiRA, MACCRA and the CR
compared with
MOZAIC–IGAOS flight profiles averaged over different regions (see Table 3)
for the period 2003–2012.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>All three data sets underestimated the observed CO values throughout the
troposphere in Europe, North America and East Asia. At the surface and the
lower planetary boundary layer up to 900 hPa, i.e. where the highest CO concentrations are
observed, CAMSiRA and the CR had relative biases of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % in Europe
and North America and up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 % in East Asia, whereas MACCRA had
larger relative biases of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 % at this level. The largest
biases occurred in DJF. Conversely, MACCRA had smaller biases than
CAMSiRA and the CR in the middle and upper troposphere. The smaller biases of
MACCRA may be caused by the more realistic simulation of the chemical CO
production by the MOZART chemical mechanism as well as by the change in the
CO background error statistic. The assimilation of MOPITT in CAMSiRA reduced
the biases relative to the CR in the troposphere over Europe and North America
but had only little effect at the surface. Over East Asia the assimilation
did not lead to changes in the CR and CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>Whereas the CR had the largest underestimation in the NH, it was generally higher than
CAMSiRA and MACCRA in the tropics. This led to better agreement with the
MOZAIC observations in South America and tropical Africa but also to an
overestimation of 20–30 % in Maritime South East Asia. The limited
number of observations in that region makes this result less robust. MACCRA
and CAMSiRA showed little difference over South America and tropical Africa.
The 10 % negative bias of MACCRA and CAMSiRA in tropical Africa is
consistent with the 10 % underestimation of MOPITT v5 against
MOZAIC–IAGOS over Windhoek reported by de Laat et al. (2014, their Fig. 3).
Over Maritime South East Asia below 700 hPa, CAMSiRA and MACCRA overestimated CO, whereas MACCRA
underestimated the observations. This could be the consequence of the
different fire emissions and the different chemistry schemes, but the limited
number of available profiles makes this result less representative.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation with NOAA GMD surface observations</title>
      <p>NOAA Global Monitoring Division (GMD) network of flask CO surface
observations (Novelli and Masarie, 2010) has good global coverage, which
also includes the high latitudes of the SH and NH, to observe the background
concentrations. The tropical stations represent the maritime background
because they are mainly located on islands in the tropical oceans. The
station density is higher in North America and Europe. The uncertainty of the
NOAA-GMD CO observations is estimated to be 1–3 ppm (Novelli et al., 2003).</p>
      <p>We calculated the mean and, for reasons of simplicity, only the linear trend
at each station for the period 2003–2014 or 2003–2012 (MACCRA). The overall
bias averaged over all stations of CAMSiRA and the CR was 3.0 ppb for the whole
period but CAMSiRA had a slightly lower RMSE (13 ppb) than the CR (15 ppb). For
the 2003–2012 period MACCRA had a bias of 6 ppb, whereas CAMSiRA and the CR had
a bias of 3.1 and 3.9 ppb respectively.</p>
      <p>Figure 6 shows the zonal means of the observed averages and the corresponding
model values at each station location as well as the median of the estimated
linear trend from the observations and the model results. The graphs were
constructed by calculating the mean concentrations and median trends of all
stations in 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> wide latitude bins. The errors bars indicate the
range of the observed values in the latitude bin.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Zonal average of mean surface CO in ppb observed at NOAA-GMD
stations (2003–2014), values from CAMSiRA, the CR, and MACCRA (2003–2012)
(left) and zonal median of linear trend in ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (right). The error
bars indicate the range of the observed values.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In the SH high and mid-latitudes, the typical observed annual mean surface
concentration was 50 ppbv. The background levels started to rise in the
southern extratropics and reached a maximum of 145 ppbv in the NH mid-latitudes.
The values then decreased to about 130 ppb in the Arctic. The general
structure of the zonal variation was well represented by all data sets. The CR
overestimated the SH middle and high values by 15 ppb, whereas CAMSiRA and
MACCRA had a bias of 7 ppb. In the tropics CAMSiRA had slightly lower (3
ppb) values than the observations, whereas MACCRA and the CR overestimated by
about 5 ppb. CAMSiRA had the highest values of all three data sets in the
NH
mid-latitudes but still underestimated the mean of the observations by
7 ppb. However, the observed means at the station locations in this latitude
band varied in a range of about 100 ppb. The CR had a slightly larger
underestimation than CAMSiRA. MACCRA underestimated the observations by more
than 20 ppb in the middle and high latitudes. The reduction in the NH high
latitudes in the CR and CAMSiRA was similar to the observations.</p>
      <p>The observations in the SH showed essentially no linear trend in the
2003–2014 period. Starting in the tropics, a negative linear trend gradually
occurred, which reached values of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.2 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the NH
middle
and high latitudes. CAMSiRA and the CR had a small but still significant negative
trend in the SH of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.3 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively. The negative
trends of CAMSiRA and the CR started to become more pronounced from
20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S onwards. The trend in CAMSiRA was generally stronger than the
trend in the CR. This meant a better fit with the observed trends in the tropics
for the CR and a better fit in the NH middle and high latitudes for CAMSiRA. In
this region the median of the trends was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.1 for CAMSiRA and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.0 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the CR. While the trends of CAMSiRA and the CR agreed
reasonably well with the observations, MACCRA suffered from unrealistically
strong negative trends in the middle and high latitudes of both hemispheres.
This negative trend in MACCRA was caused by the reduction in the values
related to assimilation of IASI data from 2008 onwards (Inness et al., 2013).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Aerosols</title>
      <p>In contrast to the assimilation of individual chemical gases, the
assimilation of AOD observations is “underdetermined” because different
combinations of the aerosol components can lead to the same extinction, i.e.
AOD value. A further complicating factor is that each aerosol component has
different optical properties, which depend on RH for the
hydrophilic components such as sea salt, sulfate and organic matter. The
correction of the speciation of the assimilated aerosol mass mixing ratio
fields is therefore a big challenge despite good success in reproducing
independent AOD observations with the aerosol analysis (Eskes et al., 2015).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Global aerosol burden, speciation and AOD</title>
      <p>In this section the global averages of burdens and AOD are presented. Spatial
patterns of AOD will be discussed in Sect. 4.2. Global area-weighted averages
of AOD at 550nm and the total global burden in teragrams for the different aerosol
components are shown in Fig. 7. The figure also shows the median of the
global AOD average and burdens simulated by the models of the AeroCom intercomparison study (Kinne et al., 2006; Textor et al., 2006). The CR had the
highest total global average aerosol burden of 46 Tg compared to MACCRA and
CAMSiRA, which both had 33 Tg. This number was very similar to the AeroCom
median of 29 Tg.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Global average of total AOD (550 nm) and species AOD (left),
global total and species, and burden in teragrams (right) of sea salt (SS), desert
dust (DD), organic matter (OM), black carbon (BC), and sulfate aerosol
(SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue), and MACCRA (green) and the median of
the AeroCom model intercomparison (yellow, Kinne et al., 2006; Textor et
al., 2006).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The global sea salt burden was about twice as high in the CR (15.1 Tg) than in
CAMSiRA (8.3 Tg), and it was 16.1 Tg for MACCRA. In comparison, the median
of the sea salt burden from the AeroCom models is 6.3 Tg. Another study of
different emission schemes by Spada et al. (2013) found sea salt burdens in
the range from 5.0 to 7.2 Tg. In light of these studies as well as the
applied correction by the assimilation in CAMSiRA, the simulated sea salt
burden of the CR appears to be too high. The simulated sea salt emissions of
C-IFS were within the reported range in the literature (see Supplement). This
suggests that the loss processes of sea salt were underestimated in C-IFS in
comparison to other models. Conversely, the high sea salt burden of
MACCRA was likely caused by an exaggeration of the sea salt emission by an
earlier version of the emissions module.</p>
      <p>The desert dust burden in the CR was 27 Tg, which was higher than the AeroCom
median of 20 Tg. It was largely reduced to
18 Tg by the assimilation in CAMSiRA. MACCRA had an even lower desert dust burden of 12 Tg because of the
underestimation of the desert dust emissions scheme used in MACCRA. As in the
case of the sea salt, the underestimation of the desert dust loss by
deposition and sedimentation may play an important role in the overestimation
of dust burden in the CR.</p>
      <p>The strongest relative change in the global burden by the assimilation
occurred for sulfate, which was 1.2 Tg in the CR but was 4.7 Tg in CAMSiRA and
3.3 Tg in MACCRA. The respective AeroCom median value is 2 Tg. Because of
the larger extinction per unit mass of sulfate, this increase in sulfate
had a large impact on total AOD, which will be discussed further below.</p>
      <p>The organic matter and black carbon burden of the CR (0.2 and 2.0 Tg) was
increased by the assimilation to 0.36 and 2.4 Tg respectively. The values
agreed reasonably well with the AeroCom median of 0.21 and 1.76 Tg.</p>
      <p>In contrast to the global burden, the CR had the lowest global AOD average of
0.13. CAMSiRA and MACCRA had values of 0.16 and 0.18. The values for the CR were
close to the median of the AeroCom models (0.12), but the two reanalyses had
a higher value than the highest global average AOD value of the AeroCom
models of 0.15.</p>
      <p>The largest fraction of the CAMSiRA AOD came from sulfate, which was
strongly increased by the assimilation. The contribution of sulfate AOD to
total AOD was 13 % in the CR and 43 % in CAMSiRA. Sulphate was also the
largest AOD contribution in MACCRA. The global average of sulfate AOD of the CR
(0.018) was about half of the AeroCom median (0.034), which could suggest an
underestimation of the global sulfate burden and AOD in the CR. Conversely, global sulfate AOD of CAMSiRA was 0.06, which was higher than the
highest value of the AeroCom model ensemble (0.051).</p>
      <p>As already discussed for the respective burdens, global desert dust AOD and
sea salt AOD were strongly reduced in CAMSiRA compared to the CR. In the CR, sea salt
and desert dust AOD contributed about 30 % each to the total AOD, whereas
in CAMSiRA the contribution was reduced to 15 and 19 % respectively. The reduction of
sea salt by the assimilation was reasonable since the sea salt burden was above
the reported range by Textor (2006) and Spada et al. (2012). However, the
reduction in sea salt was compensated for by the increase in sulfate, which
became the most important contribution to total AOD over many parts of the
ocean.</p>
      <p>The global sea salt burden of MACCRA was higher than in CAMSiRA but similar
to the CR. However, a different distribution of the mass within the size classes
meant that the resulting sea salt AOD of MACCRA was 20 % higher than the CR.
MACCRA had the lowest desert dust burden but differences in the size
distribution towards smaller particles meant that the resulting AOD was
slightly higher than the CR and 20 % higher than CAMSiRA. Black carbon and
organic matter AOD and burden were similar among CAMSiRA, the CR and MACCRA.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Spatial patterns of AOD</title>
      <p>Figure 8 shows the annual mean of total AOD and AOD for desert dust, sea
salt, sulfate, black carbon and organic matter for the period 2003–2015 from
CAMSiRA and the differences compared to the CR and MACCRA (2003–2012). The global
maxima of the total AOD (&gt; 0.5) in CAMSiRA were found over areas
of desert dust emissions such as the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula and the
deserts of central Asia. High emissions of black carbon and organic matter
from biomass burning sources in tropical Africa and anthropogenic sources in
eastern China and northern India also contributed to AOD maxima on the global
scale.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Total average AOD (row 1, scale max 1.0), AOD of desert dust (row 2, 1.0), sea salt (row 3, 0.5),
sulfate (row 4, 0.5), organic matter (row 5, 0.5), and black carbon (row 6, 0.11) of CAMSiRA (average 2003–2015, left)
and differences compared with the CR (average 2003–2015, middle) and MACCRA (average
2003–2012, right).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Zonally averaged total aerosol mass mixing ratio
(10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of CAMSiRA (2003–2015, left) and relative
difference (%) compared with the CR (2003–2015, middle) and MACCRA (2003–2012,
right).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The increase in the global average AOD in CAMSiRA with respect to the CR by the
assimilation (see Sect. 4.1) occurred in most parts of the globe, in
particular over the areas of industrial activity in North America, Europe and
East Asia (20–30 %) as well as in the polar regions
(&gt; 50 %), where AOD is generally low. The differences between
the CR and CAMSiRA, although varying in magnitude, exhibit similar spatial
patterns in all seasons, with the largest differences occurring throughout the NH
in MAM. As discussed in Sect. 4.1, the increase is mostly caused by a
widespread increase in sulfate AOD. Sulphate AOD increased more strongly in relative
terms over the oceans and higher latitudes. In areas of higher
modelled sulfate AOD, such as North America, Europe, northern Asia and
the Arctic, the contribution to total AOD changed from 40 to 90 %, which
made sulfate by far the most abundant aerosol species in these areas as
well as over the Antarctic, which seems unrealistic given that the global
SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission was only less than 2 % of the total aerosol emissions
(see Supplement).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of monthly mean AOD over the whole globe (land or sea
points) and for different regions (see Table 3) for
the period 2003–2015 from CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green,
2003–2012).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The identified reduction of global desert dust in CAMSiRA with respect to the CR
was mainly confined to the main desert dust region, where AOD was reduced by
by 0.2. Since total AOD was dominated by desert dust, total AOD was strongly
reduced in these regions, whereas total AOD of CAMSiRA was always higher
than the CR in other parts of the globe. The largest relative reduction of
desert dust AOD occurred in the remote outflow regions from Australia,
tropical Africa and Eurasia. The reduction of desert dust occurred
throughout all seasons, with the largest reduction in JJA.</p>
      <p>The strongest reduction in sea salt occurred in CAMSiRA compared to the CR
and occurred over the oceans proportional to the sea salt AOD. Because of the
increase in sulfate, the sea salt reduction led only to a small reduction of
total AOD over the area of the highest sea salt emissions in the North
Atlantic in DJF and over the Southern Ocean in JJA and MAM. The contribution
of sea salt AOD to total AOD over most of the ocean was changed from more
than 80 % in the CR to 50 % in CAMSiRA in middle and high latitudes of the SH
and to 30 % over the rest of the maritime area by the assimilation.</p>
      <p>Black carbon and organic matter AOD were reduced in CAMSiRA over tropical
Africa where biomass burning is the largest source on the global scale, and
the CO biomass burning emissions were also too high. The black carbon and
organic matter AOD values were higher in CAMSiRA away from the sources where
values are generally low. The differences in black carbon and organic matter
AOD between CAMSiRA and the CR showed a strong reduction directly over the areas
of intense fire emission in tropical Africa and the boreal forest of the NH and an
increase in the adjacent outflow regions. This could indicate that the GFAS
emissions, as in the case of CO (see Sect. 3.1), were too high but the
atmospheric residence times of the aerosol species were too short.</p>
      <p>Compared to CAMSiRA, MACCRA AOD values were up to 50 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.2 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.3)
lower in the desert-dust-dominated areas over the Sahara and central Asia.
The largest differences over northern Africa occurred in JJA and MAM and are an
indication that MODIS AOD retrievals are not available over these regions
because of their bright surface (Hsu et al., 2013). The AOD values of
CAMSiRA that are higher than MACCRA in the desert dust regions might be an improvement
since
Cuevas et al. (2015) reported a general underestimation with respect to the AErosol RObotic
NETwork (AERONET) observations in the dust-dominated regions of MACCRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of monthly mean bias of AERONET AOD observations
averaged over the whole globe (top left), Europe (top right), North America
(middle left), Africa (middle right), South East Asia (bottom left), and
South America (bottom right) for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue), and MACCRA
(green).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Conversely, sea salt AOD over all oceans was much higher in MACCRA
than CAMSiRA and it even exceeded the high sea salt AOD of the CR. Despite the
higher sea salt AOD, the total AOD of MACCRA over the oceans was lower than
in CAMSiRA because of the overall smaller sulfate AOD in maritime regions.</p>
      <p>In the regions of boreal fire emissions, MACCRA AOD was lower during the JJA fire
season as well as in the South American fire season in SON. For the rest of
the globe, CAMSiRA was about 0.05 lower than MACCRA, which meant a
large relative reduction (&gt; 50 %), in particular over the
oceans.</p>
      <p>The differences between MACCRA and CAMSiRA can mainly be explained with the
changes in the underlying modelling approach and the emissions since the
same MODIS AOD retrievals were assimilated in both reanalyses. Differences
in the background error statistics may have contributed to the differences between MACCRA and CAMSiRA,
particularly in the high latitudes.</p>
      <p>Figure 9 shows a zonally averaged cross section of the total aerosol mixing
ratio of CAMSiRA and its relative differences compared to the CR and MACCRA. The highest
zonal average occurred over the Southern Ocean because of the continuous sea
salt production and over the latitudes of the regions with large desert dust
and anthropogenic emissions. Despite the mostly higher AOD values, CAMSiRA
had lower mass mixing ratios than the CR throughout the troposphere with the
largest relative differences occurring over the SH mid-latitudes and in the
region of intense convection in the tropics. This is related to a change in
the speciation, which was discussed in Sect. 4.1. CAMSiRA had up to 90 %
higher values in the stratosphere and Antarctica. The higher aerosol mixing
ratios of CAMSiRA in the upper troposphere were dominated by sulfate
aerosol. In relative terms, MACCRA mixing ratios were considerably higher than
CAMSiRA throughout the troposphere with the exception of the NH extratropical
mid-troposphere, which was caused by the lower dust emissions in MACCRA, and the SH and
tropical stratosphere, which was caused by high sulfate concentrations in CAMSiRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of
monthly mean AOD from AERONET observations (light blue dots), MODIS
retrievals (brown dots) and from CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green)
at Nauru (left) and Lake Argyle (right).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Interannual variability of AOD</title>
      <p>Figure 10 shows time series of average AOD from CAMSiRA, the CR and MACCRA for
different regions. To better distinguish the impact of sea salt, the regional
AOD is averaged over land points only. The global average AOD time series are
shown separately for land and sea points.</p>
      <p>The CR and CAMSiRA did not have any significant (95 % confidence level)
trends in AOD over the whole globe or any of the considered regions. There
was a good agreement between CAMSiRA and the CR in their interannual variability
with respect to specific years with higher maxima over South and North
America as well as over Maritime South East Asia and northern Africa. This
demonstrates that despite biases the model was able to reproduce the
variability related to fire emissions and wind-driven desert dust suspension.
A large relative difference between the CR and CAMSiRA occurred in the Arctic.
The CAMSiRA and MACCRA AOD values were almost twice as high as the CR and had a
much more pronounced seasonality.</p>
      <p>In contrast to the lack of significant trends in the CR and CAMSiRA, MACCRA had
a significant positive trend over all sea points, leading to an increase over
10 years that was as large as the seasonal variation over all sea points.
Averaged over all land points, the seasonal variation is much larger than
over sea. The agreement in AOD in the monthly means time series was generally
high, but MACCRA also showed a significant increasing trend, which was not
present in the other two data sets. Most of this trend in MACCRA was caused
by dust AOD, which increased by 3.7 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and sea salt AOD,
which increased by 1.7 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over sea points. We consider this
trend in MACCRA as spurious. It is likely caused by an accumulation of
aerosol mass, which could not be corrected for by the assimilation. A reason for
the mass accumulation could be the fact that the MACCRA model did not apply a
global mass fixer.</p>
      <p>Even if the CR and CAMSiRA did not show significant trends in total AOD, sulfate
AOD of CAMSiRA increased significantly by 0.55 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and both the CR
and CAMSiRA had a positive trend in sea salt AOD of 0.3 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
This suggests an artificial accumulation of sulfate by the assimilation
because the emissions for the aerosol sulfate precursor (SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were
constant. The increase in sulfate was likely caused by underestimated loss
processes for sulfate and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the free and upper troposphere away
from the emissions sources. The relative increase in sulfate with respect to
the other aerosol species could not be corrected for by the assimilation of AOD.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation with AERONET AOD observations</title>
      <p>The AOD at 550 nm was evaluated with observations of the AERONET network. The AERONET is a network of about 400 stations
measuring spectral AOD aerosol with ground-based sun photometers (Holben et
al., 1998). The stations are mostly located over land, with a high number of
stations situated in North America and Europe. The global number of stations
contributing observations for the evaluation increased from about 60 in 2003
to about 250 in 2014 before it was largely reduced to only a couple of stations
at the end of 2015.</p>
      <p>Figure 11 shows time series of the monthly biases of CAMSiRA, MACCRA and the CR
for the globe and different regions. Over North America, an area with a high
density of AERONET stations, the CR underestimated AOD by 0.05 on
average. Conversely, the two analyses overestimated AOD by about 0.02,
but CAMSiRA has marginally smaller biases than MACCRA. In South America a
similar pattern was found. However, the average underestimation of the CR and
overestimation of CAMSiRA and MACCRA were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05 and 0.05 respectively. The
overestimation of CAMSiRA and MACCRA and the underestimation of the CR over
North America leads to the conclusion that the assimilated MODIS retrievals were
biased higher compared with the AERONET observations in this region, as also pointed
out in Levy et al. (2010). The underlying model does not seem to be the cause
of the overestimation in CAMSiRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Seasonally averaged TC ozone (DU) from CAMSiRA (left), difference
between CAMSIRA and the CR (middle), and difference between CAMSiRA and MACCRA (right, 2003–2012,
different scale) for the seasons DJF (row 1), MAM (row 2), JJA (row 3), and SON
(row 4).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Over Europe, CAMSiRA had the smallest biases and MACCRA slightly
overestimated,
whereas the CR underestimated the observations. The bias of the CR was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.07 at the
beginning of the period and almost zero at the end. More research is needed
to understand this trend in the bias, which is also apparent in CAMSiRA and
MACCRA, but it might be caused by the reduced number of available stations.</p>
      <p>MACCRA had the lowest biases over South East Asia because of small biases in
northern India and Indochina. In this area, as almost everywhere, MACCRA was higher than CAMSiRA and the CR. CAMSiRA underestimated the observations in this region by
about 0.05. The underestimation by the CR was bigger and showed a pronounced
seasonal cycle. The largest negative biases occurred at the time of the
seasonal minimum in DJF.</p>
      <p>The performance for desert dust and sea salt was more difficult to evaluate
in a robust way with AERONET stations because only few stations are available
in these regions. The average bias over Africa showed a strong reduction by the
assimilation of
the CR peak values, which occurred because of desert dust outbreaks. A good example of the successful reduction of dust by the
assimilations was Lake Argyle (16.11<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 128.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) in
Australia (Fig. 12, left).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Zonally averaged ozone partial pressure (mPa) of CAMSiRA
(2003–2015, left) and relative difference (%) compared with the CR (2003–2015,
middle) and MACCRA (2003–2012).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The AERONET AOD observations over the oceans generally show an overestimation
of all runs, in particular for MACCRA. The bias of the MODIS retrievals with
respect to AERONET (Shi et al., 2011) may be a reason for this
overestimation. The comparison with AOD observations at Mauna Loa Station
(19.54<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 155.58<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, not shown) in the eastern Pacific
suggests that the low AOD values of the CR reproduced the observations best,
although still overestimating them. At Nauru Station (0.52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
166.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; Fig. 12, right) in the western Pacific, CAMSiRA matches the
observations well, whereas the CR underestimated them and MACCRA overestimated them.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Stratospheric ozone</title>
      <p>The experience from the assimilation of TC and stratospheric profile
retrievals (Inness et al., 2013; van der A et al., 2015; Levefer et al.,
2015) shows that these observations are sufficient to constrain stratospheric
ozone in the reanalysis. Because almost the same ozone retrievals were
assimilated in CAMSiRA as in MACCRA (see Table 2), most of the differences in
the ozone analyses can be attributed to differences in the ozone simulation
of the assimilating model. For CAMSiRA, the Cariolle parameterization
(Cariolle and Teyssèdre, 2007) of stratospheric ozone chemistry and the
chemical mechanism CB05 for the troposphere were used. The tropospheric and
stratospheric chemical scheme of the MOZART CTM (Kinnison et al., 2007) was
used for MACCRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Monthly ozone TC (DU) area averaged over different regions (see
Table 3) from CAMSiRA (black), the CR (blue) and MACCRA
(green) for 2003–2015.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f15.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Spatial patterns of TC ozone</title>
      <p>Figure 13 shows the seasonal average TC ozone from CAMSiRA and the difference
between this data set and the CR and MACCRA. The differences between CAMSiRA and
the CR had a meridional pattern. The assimilation in CAMSiRA increased the total
ozone columns in the tropics and subtropics by up to 25 DU (8 %) and it
decreased them by 50–70 DU in the NH middle and high latitudes. The largest
reduction occurred in DJF and MAM. Over Antarctica the assimilation also led
to lower values in austral winter (JJA), when TC ozone was reduced by up to
30 DU.</p>
      <p>CAMSiRA was about 3–5 DU (1 %) lower than MACCRA across the globe.
Larger differences of up to 10 DU (2 %) were located mainly over
tropical land areas. Their shape suggest that they were partially caused by
differences in tropospheric ozone (see Sect. 6.1). On the seasonal scale,
CAMSiRA was about 10 DU lower over Antarctica and the Arctic in the
spring seasons MAM and SON respectively.</p>
      <p>Figure 14 shows the average ozone partial pressure cross section of CAMSiRA
and the relative differences with the CR and MACCRA. The tropospheric part of the
figure will be discussed in Sect. 6.1. The overestimation of the CR in the high
latitudes of the NH and SH was located predominately in the middle and upper
stratosphere at around 20 hPa. The underestimation in the tropics had the
largest values at around 50 hPa.</p>
      <p>In the lower and middle stratosphere, i.e. from 70 to 20 hPa, CAMSiRA and
MACCRA differed by less than 5 %. Larger differences occurred above
10 hPa where MACCRA was up to 30 % higher than CAMSiRA, which will be discussed in more detail in Sect. 5.5.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Interannual variability of TC ozone</title>
      <p>Figure 15 shows area-weighted averages of the monthly TCs for the whole
globe, the tropics, southern and NH mid-latitudes, Antarctica and the Arctic.</p>
      <p>In the tropics, CAMSiRA had a significant (95 % confidence level) trend
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.15 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Although the period of 13 years is too short to
estimate total ozone trends with respect to ozone recovery, it is worth
noticing that the number is in good agreement with the estimate of the ozone
trend for the period 1995–2013 by Coldewey-Egbers et al. (2014, see their
Fig. 1), which varies in the tropics between 0.5 to 1.5 % per decade. No
trends could be found in the CR, probably because the climatological approach
applied in the Cariolle scheme is not able to simulate long-term trends. The
tropical trend in MACCRA was 0.25 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which seems too high, and
there was also a significant trend in the SH mid-latitudes of
0.65 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of monthly mean bias in DU against WOUDC Dobson sun
photometers for the globe (top left), the tropics (top right), NH
mid-latitudes (middle left), SH mid-latitudes (middle right), the Arctic
(bottom left) and Antarctica (bottom right) for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and
MACCRA (green).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The seasonal range, i.e. the difference between annual maximum and minimum,
of TC ozone in CAMSiRA increased from 10 DU in the tropics to up 150 DU in
the Arctic and 100 DU in Antarctica. As already mentioned in Sect. 5.1, the CR
was 20 % higher than CAMSiRA in NH mid-latitudes and Antarctica. However,
the interannual variability agreed reasonably well between CAMSiRA and the CR in
the southern and middle hemispheric high and mid-latitudes. For example, the reduced Arctic ozone
spring in 2011 (Manney et al., 2011) and the year-to-year differences in
mid-latitudes found in CAMSiRA were well reproduced by the CR.</p>
      <p>The ozone hole in austral spring is the most important feature of seasonal
variability over Antarctica. Despite its simplicity, the Cariolle scheme in
the CR reproduced the ozone loss during the ozone hole periods with respect to
minimum value and interannual variability of TC ozone very well without
assimilating any observations. The years with the deepest ozone holes (2015, 2003 and 2006) and with the shallowest ozone holes (2011,2013 and 2004) were the same in CAMSiRA and the CR. Conversely, the CR overestimated the average TC
ozone during the Antarctic winter by about 30 DU.</p>
      <p>There was generally good agreement between CAMSiRA and MACCRA over all parts
of the globe, but MACCRA was on average about 5–10 DU (2 %) higher than
CAMSiRA. The strong positive trend of MACCRA in the tropics together with a
significant positive trend in the SH mid-latitudes led to increasing
differences in the global average at the end of the MACC period. A larger
difference between MACCRA and CAMSiRA occurred in winter (JJA) over
Antarctica, when MACCRA was up to 25 DU lower than CAMSIRA. The depth of the
ozone hole was slightly deeper in CAMSiRA than in MACCRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F17" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Mean relative bias of CAMSiRA (red), MACCRA (green) and the CR (blue)
compared with ozone sondes in the Arctic (top left), NH mid-latitudes (top
middle), tropics (top right), SH mid-latitudes (bottom left) and Antarctica
(bottom middle) for the period 2003–2012.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f17.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Evaluation with total ozone retrievals from Dobson sun photometers</title>
      <p>Ozone TCs are observed from the ground with Dobson, Brewer, point filter and
Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. The Dobson instruments provide the longest and best
spatial coverage and we use this data set to evaluate the TC of CAMSiRA,
MACCRA and the CR. The Dobson instruments of the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre (WOUDC) network are well
calibrated and their precision is 1 % (Basher, 1982). Factors that
influence the accuracy of the Dobson spectrometer are the temperature
dependency of the ozone absorption coefficient and the presence of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>Figure 16 shows time series of the monthly bias against the Dobson photometer
observations for different regions. Observations of about 50–60 stations
were available until 2013, but the number of stations dropped steadily to
about 10 stations at the end of 2015. CAMSiRA overestimated the observations
in the tropics and the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres by 2 DU
on average, whereas the mean bias of MACCRA was about 5 DU larger. In Antarctica and the
Arctic the biases showed a more pronounced seasonal cycle, mostly between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 and 20 DU.</p>
      <p>The biases of MACCRA increased in the tropics and the SH mid-latitudes from
2003 to 2008, whereas CAMSiRA and CR did not show an obvious change in the
biases until 2012. The variability of the bias of CAMSiRA was amplified at the
start of 2013 in the NH. Since this change in the bias is not seen at individual
stations until the end of 2015, we conclude that the change is
caused by the reduction in the number of stations available after 2013. It
is not caused by the change of the assimilated MLS data set version (from V2
to V3.4) because this already took place at the beginning of 2013 (see Table 2).</p>
      <p>The biases of the CR were much larger than the ones of CAMSiRA, and they had a
strong seasonal cycle. In the tropics the CR underestimated the TC by 10 DU in
DJF and 0 DU in MAM. The NH biases were positive and varied between
20 and 50 DU and in the Arctic between 20 and 70 DU. Over Antarctica the CR
overestimated the observation by 40–60 DU in JJA, but the bias was close to
zero or even slightly negative during the time of the ozone hole.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F18" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Monthly mean ozone profiles (mPa) at Neumayer Station from ozone
sondes of CAMSiRA (red), MACCRA (green) and the CR (blue) for August to
November (2003–20012).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f18.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation with ozone sondes in the stratosphere</title>
      <p>The global network of ozone sondes is the most comprehensive independent data
set for the evaluation of the three-dimensional ozone fields from the surface to about
10 hPa, which is the level with the highest stratospheric ozone volume
mixing ratios. The observation error of the sondes is about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>5 % in
the range between 200 and 10 hPa and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7–17 % below 200 hPa (Beekmann
et al., 1994; Komhyr et al., 1995; Steinbrecht et al., 1996). The number of
soundings varied for the different stations used here. Typically, the sondes
are launched once a week but in certain periods such as during ozone hole
conditions launches are more frequent. Sonde launches are carried out mostly
between 9 and 12 h local time. The global distribution of the launch sites
is even enough to allow meaningful averages over larger areas such as North
America, Europe, the tropics, the Arctic and Antarctica.</p>
      <p>Figure 17 shows the profiles of the relative biases of CAMSiRA, MACCRA and the CR
over the tropics, Antarctica, the Arctic and the NH and SH mid-latitudes for
the period 2003–2012. All available observations were included in the
average.</p>
      <p>In the tropics, CAMSiRA had a relative bias of mostly below 10 % in
most levels
of the stratosphere. MACCRA strongly underestimated the ozone sondes (up to
30 %) in the lower stratosphere, but the relative bias of MACCRA was
similar or slightly smaller than the bias of CAMSiRA in most parts of the
stratosphere, i.e. in the pressure range from 70 to 20 hPa. The CR
underestimated the ozone sondes by up to 20 % in the stratosphere up to
30 hPa. The largest underestimation of the CR occurred in the lower and mid-stratosphere, where the maximum in ozone partial pressure is located. In the
upper stratosphere above 20 hPa, where the maximum of ozone volume mixing
ratio is located, the relative biases of all data sets were smaller than in
the levels below. The CR had almost no bias, whereas MACCRA overestimated by up
to 10 %.</p>
      <p>Over the Arctic and NH mid-latitudes, CAMSiRA and MACCRA agreed well with the
sondes in the whole stratosphere, with relative biases below 5 %. The
absolute biases of CAMSiRA were slightly smaller than the biases of MACCR, in
particular in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. The CR overestimated
the ozone observations by up to 25 % in the stratosphere and upper
troposphere over the Arctic and up to 20 % in the NH mid-latitudes. The
relative biases of the CR tended to be slightly smaller in the mid-stratosphere
(50 hPa) than in the upper and lower stratosphere.</p>
      <p>Over SH mid-latitudes and Antarctica, the annual biases in the stratosphere
were slightly smaller in CAMSIRA than in MACCRA, but for both reanalyses they
were below 10 %. As over the Arctic, the absolute tropospheric biases,
with the exception of the surface values, were smaller in MACCRA since
CAMSiRA showed an underestimation of about 10 %. The CR had a stronger
underestimation in the lower and upper stratosphere.</p>
      <p>Since the process of the ozone-hole formation cannot easily be demonstrated with
annual means, Fig. 18 shows the monthly mean profile from August to November
over Neumayer Station (70.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 8.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W). The two reanalyses
agreed very well with the observations: vertical level and magnitude of the
ozone profile at the end of the austral winter in August, the ozone depletion
in September and October, and the closure of the ozone hole starting in the
upper stratosphere were well captured because of the assimilation of TC and
limb-sounder profiles.</p>
      <p>In contrast, the CR showed a strong overestimation in August in the middle and
lower stratosphere. Ozone in the upper stratosphere in September was
underestimated in the CR because of an exaggerated depletion, whereas ozone was
overestimated in the lower stratosphere. In the following months the CR ozone
remained too high in the lower stratosphere and too low in the upper
troposphere, but the resulting TCs matched the observations in a reasonable
way (see Fig. 16)</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F19" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Cross sections (50–0.3 hPa) of the relative biases of zonally
averaged ozone (%) of CAMSiRA (left), the CR (middle) and MACCRA (right)
compared with the GOZCARDS product (GOZ) for the period 2005–2012.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f19.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS5">
  <title>Evaluation with the GOZCARDS ozone product in the upper
stratosphere</title>
      <p>Ozone sondes do not provide accurate measurements above 10 hPa. The ozone
bias profiles shown in Fig. 17 indicate higher values of MACCRA in the upper
stratosphere and mesosphere, i.e. from above 10 hPa to the model top of
0.1 hPa. Although the ozone mass in this region is relatively small, the
high values of the mixing ratios have a large impact on the radiative
transfer and the associated heating rates. To investigate the biases in that
region we used the GOZCARDS (Global OZone Chemistry And Related trace gas Data records
for the Stratosphere) product (Froidevaux et al., 2015). It
consists of merged SAGE I, SAGE II, HALOE, UARS and Aura MLS, and ACE-FTS
data from late 1979 to 2012. SAGE II is used as the primary reference in the
merging procedure for the instruments. For most of the CAMSiRA period, i.e.
from 2004 onwards, Aura MLS and ACE-FTS are the dominating instruments in the
upper stratosphere. Tegtmeier et al. (2013) showed that ozone retrievals from
various instruments show a considerable spread in the upper stratosphere.
ACE-FTS is biased high (5–10 %) above 10 hPa and biased low
(5–10 %) below 10 hPa compared with the median of various retrievals.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F20" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Seasonally averaged ozone at 850 hPa (ppb) from CAMSiRA
(left)
difference between CAMSIRA and the CR (middle) and CAMSiRA and MACCRA (right,
2003–2012) for the seasons DJF (row 1), MAM (row 2), JJA (row 3) and SON (row 4).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f20.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 19 shows cross sections of the GOZCARDS product and relative bias of
CAMSiRA, MACCRA and the CR in the vertical range from 50 to 0.3 hPa. In the region
from 10 to 5 hPa, MACCRA had a positive bias of 10–15 % in the tropics and
mid-latitudes, which has already been reported in Inness et al. (2013). About
half of the 10 DU higher TCs in MACCRA compared to CAMSiRA were caused by
this overestimation in the levels above 10 hPa. The biases of CAMSiRA in
that region were smaller and vary between 2.5 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 %. CAMSiRA
underestimated the GOZCARDS data between 5 and 1 hPa by up to 7 %,
whereas MACCRA slightly overestimated. In the lower mesosphere MACCRA
underestimated the ozone concentrations by up to 30 %.</p>
      <p>The CR had very similar biases to CAMSiRA above 5 hPa in the tropics and
mid-latitudes. This means that the assimilation of observations already had
little influence in this region even if no increments were added during the
CAMSiRA assimilation above 1 hPa. Below 10 hPa the cross section of the bias
shows the already-discussed strong overestimation of the CR in the middle and
higher latitudes, which was largest in relative terms at around 20–15 hPa,
and the underestimation in the tropics, which was largest at around 50 hPa.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F21" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Monthly ozone volume mixing ratios at 850, 500 and 200 hPa over
different regions (see Table 3) from CAMSiRA (red),
the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green) for 2003–2015.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f21.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Tropospheric ozone</title>
      <p>Correcting tropospheric ozone by the assimilation of TC and stratospheric
ozone profiles remains a challenge because the observations are dominated by
the higher stratospheric mixing ratios (Wagner et al., 2015). The modelled
ozone fields as well as the specification of the vertical background error
correlation therefore have a large impact on the analysed tropospheric ozone
fields (Inness et al., 2015).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F22" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Time series of seasonal mean ozone bias in ppb in the pressure
ranges 950–700, 700–400 and 400–300 hPa compared with ozone sondes at
Ny-Ålesund, De Bilt, Huntsville, Hong Kong Observatory, Nairobi and
Neumayer Station for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f22.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Spatial patterns of ozone at 850\,hPa}?><title>Spatial patterns of ozone at 850 hPa</title>
      <p>We focus the discussion of the seasonal spatial patterns of monthly mean
tropospheric ozone mole fraction to the 850 hPa pressure level values, but we
also discuss tropospheric ozone at 500 and 200 hPa in Sect. 6.2 and
comparisons with ozone sondes for different tropospheric layers in Sect. 6.3.
Figure 20 shows the seasonal means of CAMSiRA and the differences compared with the CR and
MACCRA at 850 hPa. Extratropical NH ozone values of CAMSiRA were mostly in
the range from 35 to 55 ppb. The maximum was MAM, when values
were about 20 ppb higher than the seasonal minimum in DJF. Regional
maxima of over 60 ppb were situated over East Asia and the Arabian
Peninsula. JJA was the season when the highest values occurred over the areas
of the regional maxima. In this season additional regional maxima occurred
over tropical Africa. The SH values were generally below 35 ppb. The seasonal
maximum was in austral spring (SON) and the minimum was in austral summer and
late autumn (SON).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F23" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Average diurnal cycle of ozone at EMEP AirBase stations in Europe
(black) for the seasons MAM (top left), JJA (top right), SON (bottom left),
and DJF (bottom right) for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue), and MACCRA (green).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f23.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The CR was about 2–4 ppb higher than CAMSiRA in most parts of the globe. Only
in the higher latitudes of the SH as well as over the biomass burning regions in
Africa, South America and Maritime South East Asia, was CAMSiRA up to 4 ppb
lower than the CR. The biggest large-scale reduction by the assimilation in the NH
occurred in DJF and the biggest increase occurred in the SH in SON. The largest absolute
increases of CAMSiRA of up to 10 ppb occurred over the southern end of the
Arabian Peninsula at the time of the seasonal maximum in JJA. This was the
only local maximum in CAMSiRA that was increased by the assimilation.</p>
      <p>Tropospheric ozone was the only considered species for which the differences
between CAMSiRA and MACCRA were larger than the differences between CAMSiRA
and the CR. This indicates the importance of the chemistry model parameterization
and the limitations of the data assimilation in this respect. In the
extratropics of the NH and SH, CAMSiRA was 2–5 ppb lower than MACCRA, with an
increasing difference towards the poles. The largest difference occurred in
the NH summer in JJA. CAMSiRA was up to 10 ppb lower than MACCRA over the
continents in the tropics. Conversely, CAMSiRA had higher values than
MACCRA over the tropical oceans; this was true for the Sahara as well as at the location of the
strong maximum over the Arabian Peninsula, which was not present in MACCRA.
The strong land–sea contrast in the differences could be caused by (i) a
different efficiency of deposition over the oceans, (ii) the discussed
differences in biomass burning emissions or (iii) the differences in the
chemical treatment (e.g. the isoprene degradation scheme).</p>
      <p>The vertical distribution (see Fig. 14) of the mean ozone partial pressure in
the troposphere shows that CAMSiRA was lower than the CR in the whole
troposphere,
except for in the tropical upper troposphere, where it was up to 10 %
higher, as well as below 500 hPa in the SH troposphere. Compared to MACCRA,
CAMSiRA was up to 20 % higher in the middle and upper troposphere in the
tropics and subtropics but increasingly lower towards the surface.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <title>Interannual variability</title>
      <p>Estimating and understanding tropospheric ozone trends has been widely studied
in the literature, as reviewed in Cooper et al. (2014) and Monks et
al. (2015). Factors that influence the interannual variability and trends of
tropospheric ozone are changes in anthropogenic and biomass burning
emissions, the stratosphere–troposphere exchange and the variability of the
meteorological fields. The observed trends vary strongly because these
different factors are not uniform in space and time. Trends are often
confined to specific seasons or levels. Positive trends are more common than
negative trends and are found over Europe and North America during spring
(Cooper et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Figure 21 shows time series of average ozone volume mixing rations over
selected regions and pressure levels at 850, 500 and 200 hPa. It is beyond
the scope of this paper to investigate the robustness of the trends in CAMSiRA
in detail. However, it is worth noting that there were only positive trends in
the considered region at 850, 500 and 200 hPa in CAMSiRA. The trends varied
between 0 and 1.1 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with a global mean of 0.5 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Many of these trends were significant (95 % confidence level). The CR also
had mostly positive but much smaller trends, with a global mean of
0.17 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The only significant trend in the CR of
0.35 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was found over East Asia and the corresponding trend in
CAMSiRA had the same value. Focusing on eastern China, Verstraeten et
al. (2015) found a trend of about 1.2 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> between 2005 and 2010,
which is considerably larger than the trend in CAMSiRA and the CR.</p>
      <p>The time series in Fig. 21 show that the higher values in the NH of the CR with
respect to CAMSiRA occurred in the entire troposphere. In the lower and mid-troposphere, CAMSiRA was lower than the CR, especially during the seasonal minimum.
In the tropics, the CR and CAMSiRA agreed well at 850 hpa, the CR was slightly
higher at 500 hPa and about 5 ppb lower than CAMSiRA at 200 hPa. At this
level CAMSiRA had a significant trend of 0.95 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
tropics, which was not present in the CR. More detailed studies are needed to
confirm the realness of this upper tropospheric trend in CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>A more detailed inspection of the time series shows that from the start of
2013 the CR and CAMSiRA agree to a higher degree than before in the middle and
upper part of the troposphere in the NH. The agreement is most likely caused by
a reduced correction by the assimilation in the NH troposphere in this
period. In early 2013 the assimilated MLS ozone retrieval switched from
version V2 to the NRT V3.4 product (see Table 2),
which had different levels and observation errors. The discontinuation of MIPAS in spring 2012 does not seem to be the reason for this behaviour.</p>
      <p>The year-to-year variability of tropospheric ozone from MACCRA often did not
resemble that of CAMSiRA. In the NH at 850 hPa (most prominently seen in the
Arctic), MACCRA had increasing values until 2008, after which they dropped to
the values of CAMSiRA. This drift of MACCRA and the associated negative
trends are not realistic (as confirmed in Sect. 6.3). They were caused by
applying the variational bias correction scheme to MLS data in MACCRA (see
Inness at al., 2013 for more details). The agreement between CAMSiRA and
MACCRA increases with increasing height in the extratropics, but in the
tropics MACCRA showed a much stronger trend at 200 hPa than CAMSiRA.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F24" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Average seasonal cycle of surface ozone at EMEP AirBase stations
(left) and at European ozone sonde sites in the pressure range (950–700 hPa) for CAMSiRA (red), the CR (blue) and MACCRA (green).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/1945/2017/acp-17-1945-2017-f24.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS3">
  <title>Evaluation with ozone sondes in the troposphere</title>
      <p>Figure 22 shows time series of seasonal biases in pressure ranges representing
the lower, middle and upper troposphere from six different ozone sonde sites.
The selected stations had at least one observation for each month of the
2003–2015 period and are examples for Europe (De Bilt), North America
(Huntsville), the tropics (Nairobi), the Arctic (Ny-Ålesund) and
Antarctica (Neumayer Station). To represent South Asia we chose Hong Kong
Observatory, which had complete cover from 2003 to 2012. These individual time
series depend on the specific characteristics of the individual stations and
are therefore less representative than the averages over the gridded data
sets shown in Sect. 6.2.</p>
      <p>In the lower troposphere (950–700 hPa) over De Bilt, Huntsville and Nairobi,
the CR and CAMSiRA had seasonal biases mostly in the range of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7–7 ppb. In the polar regions at Neumayer Station and Ny-Ålesund,
both the CR and CAMSiRA underestimated the observations. At all locations
CAMSiRA
was lower in the lower troposphere than the CR, which meant that CAMSiRA mostly had
a larger absolute bias than the CR. At Hong Kong Observatory both CAMSiRA
and the CR overestimated the observations, with biases in the range between
0 and 10 ppb.</p>
      <p>In the middle troposphere the absolute biases of CAMSiRA and the CR were of the
same magnitude but of different signs. In the upper troposphere the CR
overestimated the observations by about 10 ppb, whereas the bias of CAMSiRA
remained below 5 ppb. The overestimation of the CR is likely caused by the
influence of the stratosphere where the CR was too high (see Sect. 5.4). Over
Nairobi the biases of the CR and CAMSiRA were very similar in all levels, but
CAMSiRA had overall lower biases in the lower troposphere. In the pressure
range 400–300 hPa in the tropics, the impact of stratospheric biases on the CR
is weaker because of the higher tropopause height in this region.</p>
      <p>The biases for all three data sets at Ny-Ålesund, Huntsville and Hong
Kong Observatory showed a pronounced seasonality in the middle and upper
troposphere. At Huntsville the spring maximum was especially overestimated,
i.e. it occurred 2–3 months too early. At Ny-Ålesund the overestimation
was caused by too-high values in summer and autumn. Over Hong Kong
Observatory the pronounced observed spring maximum was not well reproduced.</p>
      <p>As already discussed in Sect. 6.2, the characteristics of the bias of CAMSiRA
changed at the start of 2013 mainly in the upper parts of the NH troposphere
but also throughout the troposphere over higher latitudes. In this period the
CAMSiRA biases resemble the bias of the CR much more, which often means an
increase in the average values, which could cause a spurious enhancement of
positive trends.</p>
      <p>At Neumayer Station CAMSiRA increased in a step-wise manner already at the
start of 2012, which changed the bias from an underestimation to a slight
overestimation together with an increased seasonality. This behaviour could
have been caused by the discontinuation of MIPAS in spring 2012 (see Table 2).
Although the MIPAS retrievals were only stratospheric profiles, the assimilation combined
with total column retrievals could have triggered a correction in the
troposphere (Flemming et al., 2011).</p>
      <p>MACCRA had a less stable bias than CAMSiRA. In the lower and mid-troposphere,
biases from 2006 to 2008 were much higher than in the rest of the period, when
they resembled the biases of CAMSiRA and the CR more. This confirms that the
discussed interannual variability of MACCRA seems less realistic than that
of the CR and CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>It should be noted that both MACCRA and CAMSiRA suffered from larger-than-typical negative biases in the NH in the first half of 2003, which can
probably be explained by biases in the initial conditions and the short
spin-up period of only 1 month.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation with AirBase ozone surface observations</title>
      <p>The AirBase and European Monitoring an Evaluation Programme (EMEP) databases host operational air quality observations
from different national European networks. All EMEP stations are located in
rural areas, while AirBase stations are designed to monitor pollution at
different scales. Stations of the rural regime can capture the larger-scale
signal, in particular for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is spatially well correlated
(Flemming et al., 2005). Therefore, EMEP stations and only rural AirBase
stations were used in the evaluation to account for the model resolution of
C-IFS.</p>
      <p>Figure 23 shows the average diurnal cycle for each season of the observed
values and CAMSiRA, the CR and MACCRA. The CR and CAMSiRA were very similar and
matched the shape of the observed diurnal cycle well. However, there was a
constant bias of about 5 ppb in MAM and DJF. The CR had slightly smaller biases
than CAMSiRA in JJA in the afternoon. MACCRA had a larger diurnal range
because the daytime values were higher than the ones of CAMSiRA. This meant
smaller day-time biases in MAM and DJF and hence a smaller seasonal bias for
MACCRA. However, it also led to a considerable (10 ppb) daytime overestimation
in JJA and a smaller overestimation in SON, as well as a less-well fit with
the shape of the observed diurnal cycle in all seasons.</p>
      <p>The winter and spring underestimation of CAMSiRA and the CR has already been
reported in Flemming et al. (2015). To investigate the possible causes of
this seasonal bias, Fig. 24 shows the average seasonal cycle at the surface at
the EMEP AirBase stations and in the lower troposphere (950–750 hPa) over
ozone sonde stations. The differences between CAMSiRA, the CR and MACCRA were
more pronounced in the lower troposphere than at the surface. This indicates
again that the assimilation has little influence on the surface values. The CR
matched the observations in the lower troposphere well in all seasons apart
from SON, when it overestimated. MACCRA had biases similar to the CR but
overestimated in JJA and especially over southern Europe, as
shown in Katragkou et al. (2015). CAMSiRA underestimated throughout the year
with the exception of SON. Since the patterns of the seasonal biases were
different in the lower troposphere and at the surface, we conclude that the
winter and springtime bias at the surface is not predominately caused by
tropospheric biases. It is more likely that the simulation of surface
processes such as dry deposition and titration by freshly emitted NO are the
reasons for this bias at the surface.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p>CAMSiRA is a new reanalysis data set of aerosol, CO and ozone for the period
2003–2015. It was produced by assimilating satellite retrievals of
AOD and TC CO as well as TC and stratospheric ozone profile retrievals from
various sensors in C-IFS using the ECMWF 4D-VAR approach. A similar set of
observations was assimilated in MACCRA, a previous reanalysis data set for
the period 2003–2012. A control run with C-IFS (CR) without the
assimilation of AC observations was carried out to infer the impact of the
assimilated observations.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS1">
  <title>CAMSiRA compared to MACCRA</title>
      <p>Compared to its predecessor MACCRA, CAMSiRA had smaller biases of surface and
lower-tropospheric CO, as shown by the comparison with MOZAIC–IAGOS CO
profiles and NOAA-GMD CO flask observations. However, MACCRA had lower CO
biases in the NH middle and upper troposphere with respect to the MOZAIC–IAGOS CO
profiles. The biases of TC ozone compared with the WOUDC Dobson sun photometers
were reduced from 5–10 DU in MACCRA to 0–5 DU in CAMSiRA. The biases of
CAMSiRA compared with AERONET AOD observations were lower in most parts of the
globe, with the exception of South East Asia. A larger improvement was the
elimination of the positive bias of upper stratospheric ozone in MACCRA, as
shown by the comparison with the GOZCARDS ozone product. CAMSiRA also had a
better agreement with the shape of the mean observed diurnal cycle of AirBase
ground-level ozone observations in Europe in all seasons, but winter and
spring seasonal values were still underestimated by 5 ppb. We attribute
all the aforementioned differences between CAMSiRA and MACCRA, which were
mainly improvements, to the change in the assimilating model, which was the
coupled system IFS–MOZART for MACCRA and C-IFS with updated aerosol
parameterisations for CAMSiRA.</p>
      <p>Progress achieved by changes in the assimilated observations was a noteworthy
improvement of the temporal consistency of the tropospheric CO and ozone
fields in CAMSiRA. The assimilation of IASI CO in MACCRA from 2008 onwards
had led to a decrease in the TC CO values because of the biases against the
MOPITT data set, which was assimilated during the whole period. Consequently,
the MACCRA CO fields in the middle and high latitudes of both hemispheres
showed strong negative trends which were not in agreement with linear trends
estimated from CO flask surface observations. Conversely, the linear
trends of CAMSiRA agreed well with the observed trends, which were close to
zero in the SH and reached values of about 2 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the NH middle and
high latitudes. The mid- and upper-tropospheric ozone fields of MACCRA
suffered from an increase in the period 2004–2008, caused by applying
disproportionate application of the inter-instrument bias correction to the
MLS column retrievals, which was corrected for CAMSiRA (Inness et al., 2015).</p>
      <p>A discontinuity in the upper- and mid-tropospheric ozone field was noted
for CAMSiRA after January of 2013 and was due to a change in version of the
assimilated MLS ozone retrievals. Although this change in CAMSiRA did not
mean an increase in the bias, it has to be considered when trends of
tropospheric ozone fields are to be calculated from the CAMSiRA data set.</p>
      <p>The AOD in CAMSiRA was about 0.01 lower than MACCRA in most parts of the
globe, mainly because of a 50 % lower burden of sea salt in CAMSiRA.
CAMSiRA had higher AOD values over the desert-dust-emitting regions in
northern Africa, and the global desert dust burden was higher in CAMSiRA. CAMSiRA
had 25 % higher AOD contribution from sulfate than MACCRA, which is
currently under scrutiny.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS2">
  <title>CAMSiRA compared to the CR</title>
      <p>The comparison with the CR showed that the assimilation led to a clear
improvement for CO, AOD and TC ozone as well as stratospheric and upper-tropospheric ozone.</p>
      <p>The assimilation of MOPITT CO increased the values in the NH mid-latitudes
more in the beginning of the period, which could indicate a stronger
underestimation of the anthropogenic emissions in this period as well as an
overestimation of the trend in the emissions. The tropical and SH values
were reduced by the assimilation, which may indicate an overestimation of
the biomass burning emissions in this region. However, the rather zonally
homogeneous CO differences between the CR and CAMSiRA suggest that not only
biases in the fire emissions but also in the CO lifetime, chemical
production and CO transport need to be investigated further.</p>
      <p>The Cariolle scheme for stratospheric ozone, which was used in C-IFS,
suffered from a large overestimation of NH mid-and high latitude
stratospheric ozone (40–60 DU) and an underestimation in the tropics
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20 DU). These biases were corrected for by the assimilation and the
resulting biases of CAMSiRA were of 5 DU and lower. In the SH
high latitudes, the Cariolle scheme also overestimated the mean TCs, especially in
JJA, by up to 30 DU, but the depth and the year-to-year variability of the
ozone hole was well reproduced by the CR. Nevertheless, CAMSiRA had more
realistic TCs and profiles than the CR during the annual ozone hole events.</p>
      <p>The assimilation had little impact on the ozone values at the surface
and in the lower troposphere, where the biases of CAMSiRA were sometimes
slightly more negative than those of the CR. The small influence could be explained by the
fact, that dry deposition velocities and important ozone precursors such as
NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> were not constrained during the assimilation process. Also
contributing was the fact that no direct tropospheric ozone observations
were assimilated, nor were the vertical correlations in the model background
errors strong enough to cause a correction of the surface levels based
on the levels above. The assimilation was more beneficial in the upper
troposphere, where the stratospheric influence is more important.</p>
      <p>CAMSiRA had AOD values about 0.05 higher than the CR, apart from the desert dust
emission regions, where the assimilation strongly reduced the modelled
values. CAMSiRA tended to slightly overestimate the AERONET AOD observations
and the CR tended to underestimate them, but the overall biases of CAMSiRA were smaller.</p>
      <p>Despite moderate differences in AOD, the CR and CAMSiRA had considerable
differences in the aerosol speciation. The global annual sea salt burden by
C-IFS in the CR of 15 Tg was considerably higher than the result of other
modelling studies (Textor et al., 2006; Spada et al., 2012). Less efficient
loss processes may have played a large role in this overestimation. The
assimilation strongly reduced the sea salt burden in CAMSiRA to about half of
the value in the CR. The global desert dust burden was also reduced by 25 %
by the assimilation, leading to lower total AOD values over the desert dust
emission regions of the Sahara, Australia and middle Asia. Despite the fact that
CAMSiRA had a 30 % smaller global aerosol burden than the CR, its average global AOD
was about 10 % higher than that of the CR. This was caused by a
strong increase in sulfate in CAMSiRA. The optical properties and assumed
size distribution of sulfate make extinction more efficient for the same
amount of mass. Sulphate became the dominant contribution to AOD in the
regions away from the main aerosol emissions. The strong contribution of
sulfate may have partly compensated for the inadequate representation of
other secondary aerosols in C-IFS. However, its magnitude and spread over the
whole globe seems excessive. It might be caused by the lack of strong loss
processes in the free troposphere as well as biases in the assimilated
observations over the open oceans. As the CR underestimates the assimilated
AOD, the aerosol mass is increased during the assimilation, initially by the
same relative amount for all components. However, a longer lifetime of
sulfate causes a longer lasting change compared to the other aerosol
species, which made sulfate the dominating aerosol. This distortion of the
speciation can not be corrected for by the assimilated MODIS AOD retrievals,
which do not contain information about the speciation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS3">
  <title>Recommendations for future AC reanalysis</title>
      <p>CAMSiRA is a considerable improvement over MACCRA, especially with respect to
the temporal consistency. To further improve on this important aspect, one
should make sure that consistent input emission data sets and assimilated
observations are used. Changes in the assimilated observations, such as the
version change of the MLS data after 2012, should be avoided. The use of MEGAN-simulated biogenic emissions for the whole period is advisable even if no
related jumps were detected in this study. To ensure consistency between the
aerosols and chemistry components, the same SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions should be
used.</p>
      <p>Since improvements to lower-tropospheric ozone by assimilating current
satellite observations are difficult to achieve, emphasis needs to be put on
the improved simulation of chemistry and dry deposition. The assimilation of
tropospheric ozone column retrievals as well as of tropospheric NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> may
further help to improve the ground-level ozone in the reanalysis.</p>
      <p>One prospect is to enable the correction of emissions based on observations of
atmospheric composition with the C-IFS data assimilation system. This could
also improve the analysis of tropospheric ozone since ozone precursor emissions
would be corrected. An intermediate step in this direction is to better
account for the emission uncertainty in the model background error
statistics.</p>
      <p>The high sulfate burden introduced by the assimilation can be avoided by
(i) the introduction of more intensive loss processes in the free
troposphere, (ii) an increase in the organic matter to better represent
non-accounted SOA components and (iii) changes to the vertical structure of
the background errors to avoid the accumulation of aerosol mass away from the
surface. In general, any modelling improvements for a better speciation will
reflect in a more realistic aerosol analysis and a better exploitation of the
available observations. If possible the latest reprocessed MODIS AOD data set
should be used (collection 6).</p>
      <p>In CAMSiRA and MACCRA the aerosol and chemistry schemes were independent. A
better coupling between the two and the meteorological simulation is
desirable. For example, the use of aerosol to modulate photolysis rates and
heterogeneous uptake of aerosol as well as simulating the impact on
aerosols and ozone within the radiation transfer calculation of IFS will be
important next steps.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>The CAMSiRA, CR and MACCRA data are freely available. Please contact copernicus-support@ecmwf.int.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-1945-2017-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/acp-17-1945-2017-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>CAMS is funded by the European Union's Copernicus Programme. The GOZCARDS
data were obtained from the NASA Goddard Earth Science Data and Information
Services Center. We are grateful to the World Ozone and Ultraviolet
Radiation Data Centre (WOUDC) for providing ozone sonde and
Dobson photometer observations. We thank the Global Atmospheric Watch
programme for the provision of CO and ozone surface observations. We thank
the European Environmental Agency for providing access to European ozone
observations in the AirBase database. We also thank the MOZAIC
(Measurements of OZone, water vapour, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by
in-service AIrbus aircraft) and IAGOS (In-Service Aircraft for a Global
Observing System) programmes for providing CO profile observations.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: C. H. Song<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Auligne, T., McNally, A. P., and Dee, D. P.: Adaptive bias correction for
satellite data in a numerical weather prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 133, 631–642, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Basher, R. E.: Review of the Dobson spectrophotometer and its
accuracy, Global Ozone Res. Monit. Proj., Rep. 13, World Meteor. Organ.,
Geneva, Switzerland, December, available at: <uri>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/dobson/papers/report13/report13.html</uri> (last access: 3 February 2017), 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bechtold, P., Orr, A. Morcrette, J.-J., Engelen, R., Flemming, J., and
Janiskova, M.: Improvements in the stratosphere and mesosphere of the IFS,
ECMWF Newsletter No. 120, Summer, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Beekmann M., Ancellet G., Megie G., Smit H. G. J., and Kley D.:
Intercomparison campaign for vertical ozone profiles including
electrochemical sondes of ECC and Brewer-Mast type and aground based
UV-differential absorption radar, J. Atmos. Chem., 10, 259–288, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Morcrette, J.-J., and Boucher, O.: Estimates of
aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
2045–2062, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Benedetti, A., Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Dethof, A., Engelen, R. J.,
Fisher, M., Flentje, H., Huneeus, N., Jones, L.,Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S.,
Mangold, A., Razinger, M., Simmons, A. J., Suttie, M., and the GEMS-AER team:
Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 2. Data assimilation, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011115</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Benedetti, A. Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J.-J., and Rémy, S.:
Global climate, Aerosols, in: State of the Climate in 2013, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 95, 36–37, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Bhartia, P. K. and Wellemeyer, C.: TOMS-V8 total O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> algorithm, in: OMI Ozone
Product ATBD,  NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD,
USA, Volume II, 15–31, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bhartia, P. K., McPeters, R. D., Mateer, C. L., Flynn, L. E., and
Wellemeyer, C., Algorithm for the estimation of vertical ozone profiles from
the backscattered ultraviolet technique, J. Geophys. Res., 101,
18793–18806, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Bocquet, M., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Hirtl, M., Žabkar, R., Carmichael,
G. R., Flemming, J., Inness, A., Pagowski, M., Pérez Camaño, J. L.,
Saide, P. E., San Jose, R., Sofiev, M., Vira, J., Baklanov, A., Carnevale,
C., Grell, G., and Seigneur, C.: Data assimilation in atmospheric chemistry
models: current status and future prospects for coupled chemistry
meteorology models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5325–5358,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5325-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5325-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Boucher, O.: Atmospheric Aerosols, Properties and Climate Impacts, Springer
Netherlands, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9649-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-94-017-9649-1</ext-link>, 311 pp., 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cariolle, D. and Dèquè, M.:. Southern hemisphere medium-scale waves
and total ozone disturbances in a spectral general circulation model, J.
Geophys. Res., 91, 10825–10846, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Cariolle, D. and Teyssèdre, H.: A revised linear ozone photochemistry
parameterization for use in transport and general circulation models:
multi-annual simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2183–2196,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Cesnulyte, V., Lindfors, A. V., Pitkänen, M. R. A., Lehtinen, K. E. J.,
Morcrette, J.-J., and Arola, A.: Comparing ECMWF AOD with AERONET
observations at visible and UV wavelengths, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 593–608,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-593-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-593-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Coldewey-Egbers, M., Loyola R., D. G., Braesicke, P., Dameris, M., van
Roozendael, M., Lerot, C., and Zimmer, W.: A new health check of the ozone
layer at global and regional scales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4363–4372,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060212" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL060212</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Cooper, O. R., Parrish, D. D., Ziemke, J., Balashov, N. V., Cupeiro, M.,
Galbally, I. E., Gilge, S., Horowitz, L., Jensen, N. R., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Naik, V., Oltmans, S. J., Schwab, J., Shindell, D. T., Thompson, A. M.,
Thouret, V., Wang, Y., and Zbinden, R. M.: Global distribution and trends of
tropospheric ozone: An observation-based review, Elementa, 2, 1–28, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000029" ext-link-type="DOI">10.12952/journal.elementa.000029</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Courtier, P., Thépaut, J.-N., and Hollingsworth, A.: A strategy for
operational implementation of 4D-Var, using an incremental approach, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 120, 1367–1388, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Cuevas, E., Camino, C., Benedetti, A., Basart, S., Terradellas, E.,
Baldasano, J. M., Morcrette, J. J., Marticorena, B., Goloub, P., Mortier,
A., Berjón, A., Hernández, Y., Gil-Ojeda, M., and Schulz, M.: The
MACC-II 2007–2008 reanalysis: atmospheric dust evaluation and
characterization over northern Africa and the Middle East, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 3991–4024, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3991-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-3991-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P.: Variational bias correction of radiance data in the ECMWF
system, in: Proceedings of the ECMWF workshop on assimilation of high
spectral resolution sounders in NWP, Reading, UK, 28 June–1 July 2004,
97–112, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P. and Uppala, S.: Variational bias correction of satellite radiance
data in the ERA-Interim reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135,
1830–1841, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach,
H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart,
F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.828</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Deeter, M. N.: MOPITT Version 5 Product User's Guide, Technical Report, NCAR,
Boulder, USA, <uri>http://www.acom.ucar.edu/mopitt/v5_users_guide_beta.pdf</uri> (last access 24 July 2016),
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Deeter, M. N., Martínez-Alonso, S., Edwards, D. P., Emmons, L. K.,
Gille, J. C., Worden, H. M., Pittman, J. V., Daube, B. C., and Wofsy, S. C.: Validation
of MOPITT Version 5 thermal-infrared, near-infrared, and multispectral
carbon monoxide profile retrievals for 2000–2011, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 6710–6725, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50272" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50272</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>de Laat, A. T. J., Aben, I., Deeter, M., Nédélec, P., Eskes, H.,
Attié, J.-L., Ricaud, P., Abida, R., El Amraoui, L., and Landgraf, J.:
Validation of nine years of MOPITT V5 NIR using MOZAIC/IAGOS measurements:
biases and long-term stability, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3783–3799,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3783-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-3783-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Dentener, F., Kinne, S., Bond, T., Boucher, O., Cofala, J., Generoso, S.,
Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Hoelzemann, J. J., Ito, A., Marelli, L., Penner, J.
E., Putaud, J.-P., Textor, C., Schulz, M., van der Werf, G. R., and Wilson,
J.: Emissions of primary aerosol and precursor gases in the years 2000 and
1750 prescribed data-sets for AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4321–4344,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Diamantakis, M. and Flemming, J.: Global mass fixer algorithms for
conservative tracer transport in the ECMWF model, Geosci. Model Dev., 7,
965–979, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Elguindi, N., Clark, H., Ordóñez, C., Thouret, V., Flemming, J.,
Stein, O., Huijnen, V., Moinat, P., Inness, A., Peuch, V.-H., Stohl, A.,
Turquety, S., Athier, G., Cammas, J.-P., and Schultz, M.: Current status of
the ability of the GEMS/MACC models to reproduce the tropospheric CO
vertical distribution as measured by MOZAIC, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 501–518,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-501-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-501-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Emmons, L. K., Arnold, S. R., Monks, S. A., Huijnen, V., Tilmes, S., Law, K.
S., Thomas, J. L., Raut, J.-C., Bouarar, I., Turquety, S., Long, Y., Duncan,
B., Steenrod, S., Strode, S., Flemming, J., Mao, J., Langner, J., Thompson,
A. M., Tarasick, D., Apel, E. C., Blake, D. R., Cohen, R. C., Dibb, J.,
Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Hall, S. R., Huey, L. G., Weinheimer, A. J.,
Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Nowak, J., Peischl, J., Roberts, J. M.,
Ryerson, T., Warneke, C., and Helmig, D.: The POLARCAT Model Intercomparison
Project (POLMIP): overview and evaluation with observations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 6721–6744, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Eskes, H., Huijnen, V., Arola, A., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M.,
Botek, E., Boucher, O., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Cuevas, E., Engelen,
R., Flentje, H., Gaudel, A., Griesfeller, J., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J.,
Katragkou, E., Kinne, S., Langerock, B., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz,
M., Schulz, M., Sudarchikova, N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A.,
and Zerefos, C.: Validation of reactive gases and aerosols in the MACC
global analysis and forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3523–3543,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3523-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-3523-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Field, R. D., van der Werf, G. R., and Shen, S. S. P.: Human amplification of
drought-induced biomass burning in Indonesia since 1960, Nat. Geosci.,
2, 185–188, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo443" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo443</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J. and Inness, A.: Global climate, Carbon Monxide, in: State of the
Climate in 2013, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, S43, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Flemming, J., Stern, R., and Yamartino, R. J.: A new air quality regime
classification scheme for O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> observations sites, Atmos.
Environ., 39, 6121–6129, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Flemming, J., Inness, A., Flentje, H., Huijnen, V., Moinat, P., Schultz, M.
G., and Stein, O.: Coupling global chemistry transport models to ECMWF's
integrated forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 2, 253–265,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2-253-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-2-253-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Flemming, J., Inness, A., Jones, L., Eskes, H. J., Huijnen, V., Schultz, M.
G., Stein, O., Cariolle, D., Kinnison, D., and Brasseur, G.: Forecasts and
assimilation experiments of the Antarctic ozone hole 2008, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 1961–1977, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1961-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1961-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Arteta, J., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A.,
Blechschmidt, A.-M., Diamantakis, M., Engelen, R. J., Gaudel, A., Inness,
A., Jones, L., Josse, B., Katragkou, E., Marecal, V., Peuch, V.-H., Richter,
A., Schultz, M. G., Stein, O., and Tsikerdekis, A.: Tropospheric chemistry
in the Integrated Forecasting System of ECMWF, Geosci. Model Dev., 8,
975–1003, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Froidevaux, L., Anderson, J., Wang, H.-J., Fuller, R. A., Schwartz, M. J.,
Santee, M. L., Livesey, N. J., Pumphrey, H. C., Bernath, P. F., Russell III,
J. M., and McCormick, M. P.: Global OZone Chemistry And Related trace gas
Data records for the Stratosphere (GOZCARDS): methodology and sample results
with a focus on HCl, H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>O, and O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
10471–10507, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10471-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-10471-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Froidevaux, L., Jiang, Y. B., Lambert, A., Livesey, N. J., Read, W. G.,
Waters, J. W., Browell, E. V., Hair, J. W., Avery, M. A., McGee, T. J.,
Twigg, L.W., Sumnicht, G. K., Jucks, K.W., Margitan, J. J., Sen, B.,
Stachnik, R. A., Toon, G. C., Bernath, P. F., Boone, C. D., Walker, K. A.,
Filipiak, M. J., Harwood, R. S., Fuller, R. A., Manney, G. L., Schwartz, M.
J., Daffer, W. H., Drouin, B. J., Cofield, R. E., Cuddy, D. T., Jarnot, R.
F., Knosp, B.W., Perun, V. S., Snyder, W. V., Stek, P. C., Thurstans, R. P.,
and Wagner, P. A.: Validation of Aura Microwave LimbSounder stratospheric
ozone measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D15S20, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008771" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD008771</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Gaubert, B., Arellano Jr. A. F., Barré, J., Worden, H. M., Emmons, L.
K., Tilmes, S., Buchholz, R. R., Vitt, F., Raeder, K., Collins, N.,
Anderson, J. L., Wiedinmyer, C., Martinez Alonso, S., Edwards, D. P.,
Andreae, M. O., Hannigan, J. W., Petri, C., Strong, K., and Jones, N.: Toward
a chemical reanalysis in a coupled chemistry-climate model: An evaluation of
MOPITT CO assimilation and its impact on tropospheric composition, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 7310–7343, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024863" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD024863</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Gaudel, A., Clark, H., Thouret, V., Jones, L., Inness, A., Flemming, J.,
Stein, O., Huijnen, V., Eskes, H., Nédélec, P., and Boulangerand, D.:
On the use of MOZAIC-IAGOS data to assess the ability of the MACC reanalysis
to reproduce the distribution of O<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CO in the UTLS over Europe, Tellus
B, 67, 27955, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v67.27955" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v67.27955</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>George, M., Clerbaux, C., Bouarar, I., Coheur, P.-F., Deeter, M. N.,
Edwards, D. P., Francis, G., Gille, J. C., Hadji-Lazaro, J., Hurtmans, D.,
Inness, A., Mao, D., and Worden, H. M.: An examination of the long-term CO
records from MOPITT and IASI: comparison of retrieval methodology, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 8, 4313–4328, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4313-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-4313-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Giordano, L., Brunner, D., Flemming, J., Hogrefe, C., Im, U., Bianconi, R.,
Badia, A., Balzarini, A., Baró, R., Chemel, C., Curci, G., Forkel, R.,
Jiménez-Guerrero, P., Hirtl, M., Hodzic, A., Honzak, L., Jorba, O.,
Knote, C., Kuenen, J. J. P., Makar, P. A., Manders-Groot, A., Neal, L.,
Pérez, J. L., Pirovano, G., Pouliot, G., San José, R., Savage, N.,
Schröder,W., Sokhi, R. S., Syrakov, D., Torian,A., Tuccella, P.,
Werhahn, J., Wolke, R., Yahya, K., Žabkar, R., Zhang, Y., and Galmarini,
S.: Assessment of the MACC reanalysis and its influence as chemical boundary
conditions for regional air quality modelling in AQMEII-2, Atmos. Environ.,
115, 371–388, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Granier, C., Lamarque, J. F., Mieville, A., Muller, J. F., Olivier, J.,
Orlando, J., Peters, J., Petron, G., Tyndall, G., and Wallens, S.: POET, a database of
surface emissions of ozone precursors, available  at:
<uri>http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/projet/ACCENT/POET.php</uri> (last access: 3 February 2017), 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Granier, C., Bessagnet, B., Bond, T., D'Angiola, A., v. d. Gon, H. D., Frost, G. J.,
Heil, A., Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S., Klimont, Z., Kloster, S., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Liousse, C., Masui, T., Meleux, F., Mieville, A., Ohara, T., Raut, J.-C., Riahi, K.,
Schultz, M. G., Smith, S. J., Thomson, A.,  v. Aardenne, J., v. d. Werf, G. R., and
v. Vuuren, D. P.: Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of
air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period,
Climatic Change, 109, 163–190, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0154-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-011-0154-1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Grythe, H., Ström, J., Krejci, R., Quinn, P., and Stohl, A.: A review of
sea-spray aerosol source functions using a large global set of sea salt
aerosol concentration measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1277–1297,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Guenther, A. B., Karl, T., Harley, P., Wiedinmyer, C., Palmer, P. I., and
Geron, C.: Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN
(Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature), Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
6, 3181–3210, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3181-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-3181-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Hao, N., Koukouli, M. E., Inness, A., Valks, P., Loyola, D. G., Zimmer, W.,
Balis, D. S., Zyrichidou, I., Van Roozendael, M., Lerot, C., and Spurr, R.
J. D.: GOME-2 total ozone columns from MetOp-A/MetOp-B and assimilation in
the MACC system, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2937–2951,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2937-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-2937-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanré, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer, A.,
Vermote, E., Reagan, J. A., Kaufman, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F.,
Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET – A federated instrument network and
data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Hollingsworth, A., Engelen, R. J., Textor, C., Benedetti, A., Boucher, O.,
Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Granier,
C., Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J.-J., Rayner, P., Peuch, V. H., Rouil, L., and
Schultz, M. G.: Simmons, A. J. and The GEMS Consortium: Toward a Monitoring
and Forecasting System For Atmospheric Composition: The GEMS Project, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 1147–1164, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Hsu N. C., Jeong M.-J., Bettenhausen, C., Sayer, A. M., Hansell, R., Seftor, C. S.,
Huang, J., and Tsay, S.-C.: Enhanced Deep Blue aerosol retrieval algorithm: The
second generation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 9296–9315, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50712" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50712</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Huijnen, V., Williams, J., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Krol, M., Dentener,
F., Segers, A., Houweling, S., Peters, W., de Laat, J., Boersma, F.,
Bergamaschi, P., van Velthoven, P., Le Sager, P., Eskes, H., Alkemade, F.,
Scheele, R., Nédélec, P., and Pätz, H.-W.: The global chemistry
transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric
chemistry version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445–473,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Huijnen V., Wooster, M. J., Kaiser, J. W., Gaveau, D.L. A., Flemming, J.,
Parrington, M., Inness, A., Murdiyarso, D., Main, B., and van Weele, M.: Fire
carbon emissions over maritime southeast Asia in 2015 largest since 1997,
Sci. Rep., 6, 26886, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep26886" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep26886</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Huneeus, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Griesfeller, J., Prospero, J.,
Kinne, S., Bauer, S., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Easter, R., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Grini, A., Horowitz, L.,
Koch, D., Krol, M. C., Landing, W., Liu, X., Mahowald, N., Miller, R.,
Morcrette, J.-J., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Perlwitz, J., Stier, P., Takemura,
T., and Zender, C. S.: Global dust model intercomparison in AeroCom phase I,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7781–7816, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Im, U., Bianconi, R., Solazzo, E., Kioutsioukis, I., Badia, A., Balzarini,
A., Baró, R., Bellasio, R., Brunner, D., Chemel, C., Curci, G.,
Flemming, J., Forkel, R., Giordano, L., Jiménez- Guerrero, P., Hirtl,
M., Hodzic, A., Honzak, L., Jorba, O., Knote, C., Kuenen, J. J. P., Makar,
P. A., Manders-Groot, A., Neal, L., Pérez, J. L., Pirovano, G., Pouliot,
G., San Jose, R., Savage, N., Schroder, W., Sokhi, R.S., Syrakov, D.,
Torian, A., Tuccella, P., Werhahn, J., Wolke, R., Yahya, K., Zabkar, R.,
Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Hogrefe, C., and Galmarini, S.: Evaluation of operational
on-line-coupled regional air quality models over Europe and North America in
the context of AQMEII phase 2, Part I: Ozone, Atmos. Environ., 115, 404–420, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.042" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.042</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Inness, A., Baier, F., Benedetti, A., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Clark,
H., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P., Engelen, R. J., Errera, Q., Flemming, J.,
George, M., Granier, C., Hadji-Lazaro, J., Huijnen, V., Hurtmans, D., Jones,
L., Kaiser, J. W., Kapsomenakis, J., Lefever, K., Leitão, J., Razinger,
M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Simmons, A. J., Suttie, M., Stein, O.,
Thépaut, J.-N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Zerefos, C., and the MACC
team: The MACC reanalysis: an 8 yr data set of atmospheric composition,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4073–4109, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4073-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-4073-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Inness, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Crepulja, M.,
Engelen, R. J., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Gaudel, A., Hendrick, F., Huijnen,
V., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Keppens, A., Langerock, B.,
de Mazière, M., Melas, D., Parrington, M., Peuch, V. H., Razinger, M.,
Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M.,
Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Data assimilation of satellite retrieved ozone,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide with ECMWF's Composition-IFS, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 15, 5275–5303, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Jacob, D. J. H., Liu, C., Mari, and Yantosca, R. M.: Harvard wet deposition scheme
for GMI, Harvard University Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group, in review,
March 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Jung, T., Palmer, T. N., Rodwell, M. J., and Serrar, S.: Diagnosing forecast
error using relaxation experiments, ECMWF Newsletter 82, ECMWF, Shinfield
Park, Reading, Berkshire RG2 9AX, UK, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Kaiser, J. W., Heil, A., Andreae, M. O., Benedetti, A., Chubarova, N.,
Jones, L., Morcrette, J.-J., Razinger, M., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., and
van der Werf, G. R.: Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire
assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power, Biogeosciences,
9, 527–554, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-527-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-9-527-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Katragkou, E., Zanis, P., Tsikerdekis, A., Kapsomenakis, J., Melas, D.,
Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Inness, A., Schultz, M. G., Stein, O.,
and Zerefos, C. S.: Evaluation of near-surface ozone over Europe from the
MACC reanalysis, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2299–2314,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2299-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-2299-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Kinne, S., Schulz, M., Textor, C., Guibert, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T. F., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Collins, W., Dentener,
F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P.,
Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Herzog, M., Horowitz, L., Isaksen, I.,
Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kristjansson, J. E.,
Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Lesins, G., Liu, X., Lohmann, U.,
Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, O.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: An AeroCom initial assessment –
optical properties in aerosol component modules of global models, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 6, 1815–1834, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Kinnison, D. E., Brasseur, G. P., Walters, S., Garcia, R. R.,. Marsh, D. R,
Sassi, F., Harvey, V. L., Randall, C. E., Emmons, L., Lamarque, J. F., Hess,
P., Orlando, J. J., Tie, X. X., Randel, W., Pan, L. L., Gettelman, A.,
Granier, C., Diehl, T., Niemeier, U., and Simmons, A. J.: Sensitivity of
Chemical Tracers to Meteorological Parameters in the MOZART-3 Chemical
Transport Model, J. Geophys. Res, 112, D03303, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010739" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010739</ext-link>,
2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Komhyr, W. D., Barnes, R. A., Borthers, G. B., Lathrop, J. A., Kerr, J. B.,
and Opperman, D. P.: Electrochemical concentration cell ozonesonde
performance evaluation during STOIC 1989, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 9231–9244,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Josse, B., Young, P. J., Cionni, I.,
Eyring, V., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. J., Doherty, R.,
Dalsoren, S., Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G., Ghan, S. J., Horowitz, L. W., Lee,
Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Plummer, D., Righi, M.,
Rumbold, S. T., Schulz, M., Skeie, R. B., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo,
K., Szopa, S., Voulgarakis, A., and Zeng, G.: The Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of
models, simulations and climate diagnostics, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 179–206,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Lefever, K., van der A, R., Baier, F., Christophe, Y., Errera, Q., Eskes, H.,
Flemming, J., Inness, A., Jones, L., Lambert, J.-C., Langerock, B., Schultz,
M. G., Stein, O., Wagner, A., and Chabrillat, S.: Copernicus stratospheric
ozone service, 2009–2012: validation, system intercomparison and roles of
input data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2269–2293,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H. J., Dobber, M. R., Malkki, A., Visser,
H., de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O. V., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1093–1101, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Bhartia, P. K., Chance, K., Spurr, R. J. D., and Kurosu, T. P.:
Ozone profile retrievals from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2521–2537, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2521-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-2521-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Manney, G., Santee, M. L., Rex, M., Livesey, N. J., Pitts, M. C., Veefkind,
P., Nash, R. R., Wohltmann, I., Lehmann, R., Froidevaux, L., Poole, L. R.,
Schoeberl, M. R., Haffner, D. P., Davies, J., Dorokhov, V., Gernandt, H.,
Johnson, B., Kivi, R., Kyr o, E., Larsen, N., Levelt, P. F., Makshtas, A.,
McElroy, C. T., Nakajima, H., Parrondo, M. C., Tarasick, D.W., von der
Gathen, P.,Walker, P. K. A., and Zinoviev, N. S.: Unprecedented Arctic ozone
loss in 2011, Arctic winter 2010/2011 at the brink of an ozone hole, Nature,
478, 469–475, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10556" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature10556</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Marenco, A., Thouret, V., Nìedìelec, P., Smit, H. G., Helten, M., Kley, D.,
Karcher, F., Simon, P., Law, K., Pyle, J., Poschmann, G., Von Wrede, R.,
Hume, C., and Cook, T.: Measurement of ozone and water vapour by Airbus
in-service air-craft: The MOZAIC airborne programme, an overview, J.
Geophys. Res., 103, 25631–25642, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
McNally, A. P., Watts, P. D., Smith, J. A., Engelen, R. J., Kelly, G. A.,
Thépaut, J.-N., and Matricardi, M.: The assimilation of AIRS
radiance data at ECMWF, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 935–957, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Meijer, E. W., van Velthoven, P. F. J., Brunner, D. W., Huntrieser, H., and
Kelder, H.: Improvement and evaluation of the parameterization of nitrogen
oxide production by lightning, Phys. Chem. Earth Pt. C, 26, 577–583, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Miyazaki, K., Eskes, H. J., and Sudo, K.: A tropospheric chemistry reanalysis
for the years 2005–2012 based on an assimilation of OMI, MLS, TES, and
MOPITT satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 8315–8348,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8315-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-8315-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Monks, P. S., Archibald, A. T., Colette, A., Cooper, O., Coyle, M., Derwent,
R., Fowler, D., Granier, C., Law, K. S., Mills, G. E., Stevenson, D. S.,
Tarasova, O., Thouret, V., von Schneidemesser, E., Sommariva, R., Wild, O.,
and Williams, M. L.: Tropospheric ozone and its precursors from the urban to
the global scale from air quality to short-lived climate forcer, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 8889–8973, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8889-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-8889-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Jones, L., Salmond, D., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A., Benedetti, A., Bonet, A., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., Schulz,
M., Serrar, S., Simmons, A. J., Sofiev, M., Suttie, M., Tompkins, A. M., and
Untch, A.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF Integrated Forecast
System, Part I: Forward modelling, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011235" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011235</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Morcrette, J. J., Benedetti, A., Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., and
Suttie, M.: Prognostic Aerosols in the ECMWF IFS: MACC vs. GEMS Aerosols,
ECMWF Technical Memorandum, 659, 32 pp., 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Munro, R., Siddans, R., Reburn, W. J., and Kerridge, B. J.: Direct
measurements of tropospheric ozone distributions from space, Nature, 392,
168–171, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Munro, R., Eisinger, M., Anderson, C., Callies, J., Corpaccioli, E., Lang,
R., Lefebvre, A., Livschitz, Y., and Albinana, A. P.: GOME-2 on MetOp, Proc.
of The 2006 EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite Conference, Helsinki, Finland,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Nedelec, P., Cammas, J.-P., Thouret, V., Athier, G., Cousin, J.-M., Legrand,
C., Abonnel, C., Lecoeur, F., Cayez, G., and Marizy, C.: An improved
infrared carbon monoxide analyser for routine measurements aboard commercial
Airbus aircraft: technical validation and first scientific results of the
MOZAIC III programme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 3, 1551–1564,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-3-1551-2003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-3-1551-2003</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Novelli, P. C. and Masarie, K. A.: Atmospheric Carbon Monoxide Dry Air Mole
Fractions from the NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling
Network, 1988–2012, Version: 8 August 2013,
<uri>ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co/flask/surface/</uri> (last
access: 6 May 2016), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Novelli, P. C., Masarie, K. A., Lang, P. M., Hall, B. D., Myers, R. C., and
Elkins, J. W.: Reanalysis of tropospheric CO trends: effects of the
1997–1998 wildfires, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4464, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003031" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD003031</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Olivier, J., Peters, J., Granier, C., Petron, G., Muller, J. F., and Wallens, S.:
Present and future surface emissions of atmospheric compounds, POET report
#2, EU project EVK2-1999-00011, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Onogi, K., Tsutsui, J., Koide, H., Sakamoto, M., Kobayashi, S., Hatsushika,
H., Matsumoto, T., Yamazaki, N., Kamahori, H., Takahashi, K., Kadokura, S.,
Wada, K., Kato, K., Oyama, R., Ose, T., Mannoji, N., and Taira, R.: The
JRA-25 Reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 85, 369–432, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Reddy, M. S., Boucher, O., Bellouin, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Dufresne,
J.-L., and Pham, M.: Estimates of global multicomponent aerosol optical depth
and direct radiative perturbation in the Laboratoire de Météorologie
Dynamique general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D10S16,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004757" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD004757</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J. M, Tanré, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A. M,
Martins, J. V., Li, R.-R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T.
F., Vermote, E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS Aerosol Algorithm, Products,
and Validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>Rienecker, M. M., Suarez, M. J., Gelaro, R., Todling, R., Bacmeister, J.,
Liu, E., Bosilovich, M. G., Schubert, S. D., Takacs, L., Kim, G.- K., Bloom,
S., Chen, J., Collins, D., Conaty, A., da Silva, A., Gu, W., Joiner, J.,
Koster, R. D., Lucchesi, R., Molod, A. M., Owens, T., Pawson, S., Pegion,
P., Redder, C. R., Reichle, R., Robertson, F. R., Ruddick, A. G.,
Sienkiewicz, M., and Woollen, J.: MERRA – NASA's Modern- Era Retrospective,
Anal. Res. Appl., J. Climate, 24, 3624–3648, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLID-11-00015.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLID-11-00015.1</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P.,
Kistler, R., Woollen, J., Behringer, D., Liu, H., Stokes, D., Grumbine, R.,
Gayno, G., Hou, Y. T., Chuang, H. Y., Juang, H. M. H., Sela, J., Iredell,
M., Treadon, R., Kleist, D., Van Delst, P., Keyser, D., Derber, J., Ek, M.,
Meng, J., Wei, H., Yang, R., Lord, S., Van Den Dool, H., Kumar, A., Wang,
W., Long, C., Chelliah, M., Xue, Y., Huang, B., Schemm, J. K., Ebisuzaki,
W., Lin, R., Xie, P., Chen, M., Zhou, S., Higgins, W., Zou, C. Z., Liu, Q.,
Chen, Y., Han, Y., Cucurull, L., Reynolds, R. W., Rutledge, G., and
Goldberg, M.: The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 91, 1015–1057, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>Schere, K., Flemming, J., Vautard, R., Chemel, C., Colette, A., Hogrefe, C.,
Bessagnet, B., Meleux, F., Mathur, R., Roselle, S., Hu, R.-M., Sokhi, R. S.,
Rao, S. T., and Galmarini, S.: Trace gas/aerosol boundary concentrations and
their impacts on continental-scale AQMEII modeling domains, Atmos. Environ.,
53, 38–50, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.09.043" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.09.043</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Schutgens, N. A. J., Nakata, M., and Nakajima, T.: Estimating aerosol
emissions by assimilating remote sensing observations into a Global
transport model, Remote Sens., 4, 3528–3543, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Reid, J. S., Holben, B., Hyer, E. J., and Curtis, C.: An
analysis of the collection 5 MODIS over-ocean aerosol optical depth product
for its implication in aerosol assimilation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
557–565, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-557-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-557-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Stevenson, D. S., Krol, M. C., Emmons, L. K.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Pétron, G., Dentener, F. J., Ellingsen, K., Schultz, M. G.,
Wild, O., Amann, M., Atherton, C. S., Bergmann, D. J., Bey, I., Butler, T.,
Cofala, J., Collins, W. J., Derwent, R. G., Doherty, R. M., Drevet, J.,
Eskes, H. J., Fiore, A. M., Gauss, M., Hauglustaine, D. A., Horowitz, L. W.,
Isaksen, I. S. A., Lawrence, M. G., Montanaro, V., Müller, J.-F., Pitari, G.,
Prather, M. J., Pyle, J. A., Rast, S., Rodriguez, J. M., Sanderson, M. G.,
Savage, N. H., Strahan, S. E., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Unger, N., van Noije, T.
P. C., and Zeng, G.: Multi-model simulations of carbon monoxide: Comparison
with observations and projected near-future changes, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D19306, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007100</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>Sindelarova, K., Granier, C., Bouarar, I., Guenther, A., Tilmes, S.,
Stavrakou, T., Müller, J.-F., Kuhn, U., Stefani, P., and Knorr, W.:
Global data set of biogenic VOC emissions calculated by the MEGAN model over
the last 30 years, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 9317–9341,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9317-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9317-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>Spada, M., Jorba, O., Pérez García-Pando, C., Janjic, Z., and
Baldasano, J. M.: Modeling and evaluation of the global sea-salt aerosol
distribution: sensitivity to size-resolved and sea-surface temperature
dependent emission schemes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11735–11755,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11735-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-11735-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>Stein, O., Schultz, M. G., Bouarar, I., Clark, H., Huijnen, V., Gaudel, A.,
George, M., and Clerbaux, C.: On the wintertime low bias of Northern
Hemisphere carbon monoxide in global model studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9295–9316, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9295-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-9295-2014</ext-link>, 2014</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Steinbrecht, W., Shwartz, R., and Claude, H.: New pump correction for the
Brewer-Mast ozonesonde: Determination from experiment and instrument
intercomparisons, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 15, 144–156, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>Tegtmeier, S., Hegglin, M. I., Anderson, J., Bourassa, A., Brohede, S.,
Degenstein, D., Froide- vaux, L., Fuller, R., Funke, B., Gille, J., Jones,
A., Kasai, Y., Krüger, K., Kyrölä, E., Lingen- felser, G.,
Lumpe, J., Nardi, B., Neu, J., Pendlebury, D., Remsberg, E., Rozanov, A.,
Smith, L., Toohey, M., Urban, J., von Clarmann, T., Walker, K. A., and Wang,
R. H. J.: SPARC Data Initiative: a comparison of ozone climatologies from
international satellite limb sounders, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 12229–12247,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JD019877" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD019877</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Easter, R., Feichter, H., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S.,
Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I., Iversen, I.,
Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M.,
Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J.,
Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.:
Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within
AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1777–1813, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006</ext-link>,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Uppala, S., Kallberg, P., Simmons, A. J., Andrae, U., Bechtold, V. D. C.,
Fiorino, M., Gibson, J. K., Haseler, J., Hernandez, A., Kelly, G. A., Li,
X., Onogi, K., Saarinen, S., Sokka, N., Allan, R. P., Andersson, E., Arpe,
K., Balmaseda, M. A., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J.,
Bormann, N., Caires, S., Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Dragosavac, M., Fisher,
M., Fuentes, M., Hagemann, S., Holm, E., Hoskins, B. J., Isaksen, L.,
Janssen, P. A. E. M., Jenne, R., McNally, A. P., Mahfouf, J. F., Morcrette,
J. J., Rayner, N. A., Saunders, R. W., Simon, P., Sterl, A., Trenberth, K.
E., Untch, A., Vasiljevic, D., Viterbo, P., and Woollen, J.: The ERA-40
re-analysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 2961–3012, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>van der A, R. J., Allaart, M. A. F., and Eskes, H. J.: Multi sensor
reanalysis of total ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11277–11294,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11277-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11277-2010</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>van der A, R. J., Allaart, M. A. F., and Eskes, H. J.: Extended and refined
multi sensor reanalysis of total ozone for the period 1970–2012, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 8, 3021–3035, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3021-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-3021-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>Verstraeten, W. W., Neu, J. L., Williams, J. E., Bowman, K. W., Worden, J.
R., and Boersma, K. F.: Rapid increases in tropospheric ozone production and
export from China, Nat. Geosci., 8, 690–695, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2493" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2493</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>von Clarmann, T., Glatthor, N., Grabowski, U., Höpfner, M., Kellmann,
S., Kiefer, M., Linden, A., Mengistu Tsidu, G., Milz, M., Steck, T.,
Stiller, G. P., Wang, D. Y., Fischer, H., Funke, B., Gil-López, S., and
López-Puertas, M.: Retrieval of temperature and tangent altitude
pointing from limb emission spectra recorded from space by the Michelson
Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), J. Geophys. Res.,
108, 4736, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003602" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003602</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>Wagner, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Brunke, E.-G., Clerbaux, C.,
Cupeiro, M., Cristofanelli, P., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Flentje, H., George,
M., Gilge, S., Hilboll, A., Inness, A., Kapsomenakis, J., Richter, A., Ries,
L., Spangl, W., Stein, O., Weller, R., and Zerefos, C.: Evaluation of the
MACC operational forecast system – potential and challenges of global
near-real-time modelling with respect to reactive gases in the troposphere,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 14005–14030, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-14005-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-14005-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>
Waters, J.W., Froidevaux, L., Harwood, R. S., Jarnot, R. F., Pickett, H. M.,
Read, W. G., Siegel, P. H., Cofield, R. E., Filipiak, M. J., Flower, D. A.,
Holden, J. R., Lau, G. K., Livesey, N. J., Manney, G. L., Pumphrey, H. C.,
Santee, M. L., Wu, D. L., Cuddy, D. T., Lay, R. R., Loo, M. S., Perun, V.
S., Schwartz, M. J., Stek, P. C., Thurstans, R. P., Boyles, M. A., Chandra,
K. M., Chavez, M. C., Chen, G. S., Chudasama, B. V., Dodge, R., Fuller, R.
A., Girard, M. A., Jiang, J. H., Jiang, Y., Knosp, B. W., Labelle, R. C.,
Lam, J. C., Lee, A. K., Miller, D., Oswald, J. E., Patel, N. C., Pukala, D.
M., Quintero, O., Scaff, D. M., Vansnyder, W., Tope, M. C., Wagner, P. A.,
and Walch, M. J.: The Earth Observing System Microwave Limb Sounder (EOS
MLS) on theAura Satellite, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1075–1092, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of Surface Resistances to Gaseous Dry
Deposition in Regional-Scale Numerical Models, Atmos. Environ., 23,
1293–1304, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>Worden, H. M., Deeter, M. N., Frankenberg, C., George, M., Nichitiu, F.,
Worden, J., Aben, I., Bowman, K. W., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P. F., de Laat, A.
T. J., Detweiler, R., Drummond, J. R., Edwards, D. P., Gille, J. C.,
Hurtmans, D., Luo, M., Martínez-Alonso, S., Massie, S., Pfister, G., and
Warner, J. X.: Decadal record of satellite carbon monoxide observations,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 837–850, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-837-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-837-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>Yarwood, G., Rao, S., Yocke, M., and Whitten, G.: Updates to the carbon bond
chemical mechanism: CB05. Final report to the US EPA, EPA Report Number:
RT-0400675, available at: <uri>http://www.camx.com</uri> (last access: 1 July 2014),
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The CAMS interim Reanalysis of Carbon Monoxide, Ozone and Aerosol for 2003–2015</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">A new global reanalysis data set of atmospheric composition (AC) for the
period 2003–2015 has been produced by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service (CAMS). Satellite observations of total column (TC) carbon monoxide
(CO) and aerosol optical depth (AOD), as well as several TC and profile
observations of ozone, have been assimilated with the Integrated
Forecasting
System for Composition (C-IFS) of the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasting. Compared to the previous Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate (MACC) reanalysis (MACCRA), the
new CAMS interim reanalysis (CAMSiRA) is of a coarser horizontal resolution
of about 110 km, compared to 80 km, but covers a longer period with the intent
to be continued to present day. This paper compares CAMSiRA with MACCRA
and a control run experiment (CR) without assimilation of AC retrievals. CAMSiRA
has smaller biases than the CR with respect to independent observations of CO,
AOD and stratospheric ozone. However, ozone at the surface could not be
improved by the assimilation because of the strong impact of surface
processes such as dry deposition and titration with nitrogen monoxide (NO),
which were both unchanged by the assimilation. The assimilation of AOD led
to a global reduction of sea salt and desert dust as well as an exaggerated
increase in sulfate. Compared to MACCRA, CAMSiRA had smaller biases for
AOD, surface CO and TC ozone as well as for upper stratospheric and
tropospheric ozone. Finally, the temporal consistency of CAMSiRA was better
than the one of MACCRA. This was achieved by using a revised emission data
set as well as by applying careful selection and bias correction to the
assimilated retrievals. CAMSiRA is therefore better suited than MACCRA for
the study of interannual variability, as demonstrated for trends
in surface CO.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Auligne, T., McNally, A. P., and Dee, D. P.: Adaptive bias correction for
satellite data in a numerical weather prediction system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 133, 631–642, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Basher, R. E.: Review of the Dobson spectrophotometer and its
accuracy, Global Ozone Res. Monit. Proj., Rep. 13, World Meteor. Organ.,
Geneva, Switzerland, December, available at: <a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/dobson/papers/report13/report13.html" target="_blank">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/dobson/papers/report13/report13.html</a> (last access: 3 February 2017), 1982.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bechtold, P., Orr, A. Morcrette, J.-J., Engelen, R., Flemming, J., and
Janiskova, M.: Improvements in the stratosphere and mesosphere of the IFS,
ECMWF Newsletter No. 120, Summer, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Beekmann M., Ancellet G., Megie G., Smit H. G. J., and Kley D.:
Intercomparison campaign for vertical ozone profiles including
electrochemical sondes of ECC and Brewer-Mast type and aground based
UV-differential absorption radar, J. Atmos. Chem., 10, 259–288, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Morcrette, J.-J., and Boucher, O.: Estimates of
aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
2045–2062, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Benedetti, A., Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Dethof, A., Engelen, R. J.,
Fisher, M., Flentje, H., Huneeus, N., Jones, L.,Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S.,
Mangold, A., Razinger, M., Simmons, A. J., Suttie, M., and the GEMS-AER team:
Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 2. Data assimilation, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011115" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2008JD011115</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Benedetti, A. Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J.-J., and Rémy, S.:
Global climate, Aerosols, in: State of the Climate in 2013, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 95, 36–37, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bhartia, P. K. and Wellemeyer, C.: TOMS-V8 total O<sub>3</sub> algorithm, in: OMI Ozone
Product ATBD,  NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD,
USA, Volume II, 15–31, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bhartia, P. K., McPeters, R. D., Mateer, C. L., Flynn, L. E., and
Wellemeyer, C., Algorithm for the estimation of vertical ozone profiles from
the backscattered ultraviolet technique, J. Geophys. Res., 101,
18793–18806, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Bocquet, M., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Hirtl, M., Žabkar, R., Carmichael,
G. R., Flemming, J., Inness, A., Pagowski, M., Pérez Camaño, J. L.,
Saide, P. E., San Jose, R., Sofiev, M., Vira, J., Baklanov, A., Carnevale,
C., Grell, G., and Seigneur, C.: Data assimilation in atmospheric chemistry
models: current status and future prospects for coupled chemistry
meteorology models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5325–5358,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5325-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-5325-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Boucher, O.: Atmospheric Aerosols, Properties and Climate Impacts, Springer
Netherlands, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9649-1" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9649-1</a>, 311 pp., 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Cariolle, D. and Dèquè, M.:. Southern hemisphere medium-scale waves
and total ozone disturbances in a spectral general circulation model, J.
Geophys. Res., 91, 10825–10846, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Cariolle, D. and Teyssèdre, H.: A revised linear ozone photochemistry
parameterization for use in transport and general circulation models:
multi-annual simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2183–2196,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Cesnulyte, V., Lindfors, A. V., Pitkänen, M. R. A., Lehtinen, K. E. J.,
Morcrette, J.-J., and Arola, A.: Comparing ECMWF AOD with AERONET
observations at visible and UV wavelengths, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 593–608,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-593-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-593-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Coldewey-Egbers, M., Loyola R., D. G., Braesicke, P., Dameris, M., van
Roozendael, M., Lerot, C., and Zimmer, W.: A new health check of the ozone
layer at global and regional scales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4363–4372,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060212" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2014GL060212</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Cooper, O. R., Parrish, D. D., Ziemke, J., Balashov, N. V., Cupeiro, M.,
Galbally, I. E., Gilge, S., Horowitz, L., Jensen, N. R., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Naik, V., Oltmans, S. J., Schwab, J., Shindell, D. T., Thompson, A. M.,
Thouret, V., Wang, Y., and Zbinden, R. M.: Global distribution and trends of
tropospheric ozone: An observation-based review, Elementa, 2, 1–28, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000029" target="_blank">doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000029</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Courtier, P., Thépaut, J.-N., and Hollingsworth, A.: A strategy for
operational implementation of 4D-Var, using an incremental approach, Q. J.
Roy. Meteor. Soc., 120, 1367–1388, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Cuevas, E., Camino, C., Benedetti, A., Basart, S., Terradellas, E.,
Baldasano, J. M., Morcrette, J. J., Marticorena, B., Goloub, P., Mortier,
A., Berjón, A., Hernández, Y., Gil-Ojeda, M., and Schulz, M.: The
MACC-II 2007–2008 reanalysis: atmospheric dust evaluation and
characterization over northern Africa and the Middle East, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 3991–4024, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-3991-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-3991-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P.: Variational bias correction of radiance data in the ECMWF
system, in: Proceedings of the ECMWF workshop on assimilation of high
spectral resolution sounders in NWP, Reading, UK, 28 June–1 July 2004,
97–112, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P. and Uppala, S.: Variational bias correction of satellite radiance
data in the ERA-Interim reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 135,
1830–1841, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach,
H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart,
F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/qj.828</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Deeter, M. N.: MOPITT Version 5 Product User's Guide, Technical Report, NCAR,
Boulder, USA, <a href="http://www.acom.ucar.edu/mopitt/v5_users_guide_beta.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.acom.ucar.edu/mopitt/v5_users_guide_beta.pdf</a> (last access 24 July 2016),
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Deeter, M. N., Martínez-Alonso, S., Edwards, D. P., Emmons, L. K.,
Gille, J. C., Worden, H. M., Pittman, J. V., Daube, B. C., and Wofsy, S. C.: Validation
of MOPITT Version 5 thermal-infrared, near-infrared, and multispectral
carbon monoxide profile retrievals for 2000–2011, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
118, 6710–6725, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50272" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/jgrd.50272</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
de Laat, A. T. J., Aben, I., Deeter, M., Nédélec, P., Eskes, H.,
Attié, J.-L., Ricaud, P., Abida, R., El Amraoui, L., and Landgraf, J.:
Validation of nine years of MOPITT V5 NIR using MOZAIC/IAGOS measurements:
biases and long-term stability, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3783–3799,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3783-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-7-3783-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Dentener, F., Kinne, S., Bond, T., Boucher, O., Cofala, J., Generoso, S.,
Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Hoelzemann, J. J., Ito, A., Marelli, L., Penner, J.
E., Putaud, J.-P., Textor, C., Schulz, M., van der Werf, G. R., and Wilson,
J.: Emissions of primary aerosol and precursor gases in the years 2000 and
1750 prescribed data-sets for AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 4321–4344,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-4321-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Diamantakis, M. and Flemming, J.: Global mass fixer algorithms for
conservative tracer transport in the ECMWF model, Geosci. Model Dev., 7,
965–979, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-7-965-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Elguindi, N., Clark, H., Ordóñez, C., Thouret, V., Flemming, J.,
Stein, O., Huijnen, V., Moinat, P., Inness, A., Peuch, V.-H., Stohl, A.,
Turquety, S., Athier, G., Cammas, J.-P., and Schultz, M.: Current status of
the ability of the GEMS/MACC models to reproduce the tropospheric CO
vertical distribution as measured by MOZAIC, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 501–518,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-501-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-3-501-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Emmons, L. K., Arnold, S. R., Monks, S. A., Huijnen, V., Tilmes, S., Law, K.
S., Thomas, J. L., Raut, J.-C., Bouarar, I., Turquety, S., Long, Y., Duncan,
B., Steenrod, S., Strode, S., Flemming, J., Mao, J., Langner, J., Thompson,
A. M., Tarasick, D., Apel, E. C., Blake, D. R., Cohen, R. C., Dibb, J.,
Diskin, G. S., Fried, A., Hall, S. R., Huey, L. G., Weinheimer, A. J.,
Wisthaler, A., Mikoviny, T., Nowak, J., Peischl, J., Roberts, J. M.,
Ryerson, T., Warneke, C., and Helmig, D.: The POLARCAT Model Intercomparison
Project (POLMIP): overview and evaluation with observations, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 6721–6744, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-6721-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Eskes, H., Huijnen, V., Arola, A., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M.,
Botek, E., Boucher, O., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Cuevas, E., Engelen,
R., Flentje, H., Gaudel, A., Griesfeller, J., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J.,
Katragkou, E., Kinne, S., Langerock, B., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz,
M., Schulz, M., Sudarchikova, N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A.,
and Zerefos, C.: Validation of reactive gases and aerosols in the MACC
global analysis and forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3523–3543,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3523-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3523-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Field, R. D., van der Werf, G. R., and Shen, S. S. P.: Human amplification of
drought-induced biomass burning in Indonesia since 1960, Nat. Geosci.,
2, 185–188, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo443" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/ngeo443</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J. and Inness, A.: Global climate, Carbon Monxide, in: State of the
Climate in 2013, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, S43, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J., Stern, R., and Yamartino, R. J.: A new air quality regime
classification scheme for O<sub>3</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, SO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> observations sites, Atmos.
Environ., 39, 6121–6129, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J., Inness, A., Flentje, H., Huijnen, V., Moinat, P., Schultz, M.
G., and Stein, O.: Coupling global chemistry transport models to ECMWF's
integrated forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 2, 253–265,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2-253-2009" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-2-253-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J., Inness, A., Jones, L., Eskes, H. J., Huijnen, V., Schultz, M.
G., Stein, O., Cariolle, D., Kinnison, D., and Brasseur, G.: Forecasts and
assimilation experiments of the Antarctic ozone hole 2008, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 1961–1977, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1961-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-1961-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Arteta, J., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A.,
Blechschmidt, A.-M., Diamantakis, M., Engelen, R. J., Gaudel, A., Inness,
A., Jones, L., Josse, B., Katragkou, E., Marecal, V., Peuch, V.-H., Richter,
A., Schultz, M. G., Stein, O., and Tsikerdekis, A.: Tropospheric chemistry
in the Integrated Forecasting System of ECMWF, Geosci. Model Dev., 8,
975–1003, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-975-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Froidevaux, L., Anderson, J., Wang, H.-J., Fuller, R. A., Schwartz, M. J.,
Santee, M. L., Livesey, N. J., Pumphrey, H. C., Bernath, P. F., Russell III,
J. M., and McCormick, M. P.: Global OZone Chemistry And Related trace gas
Data records for the Stratosphere (GOZCARDS): methodology and sample results
with a focus on HCl, H<sub>2</sub>O, and O<sub>3</sub>, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
10471–10507, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-10471-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-10471-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Froidevaux, L., Jiang, Y. B., Lambert, A., Livesey, N. J., Read, W. G.,
Waters, J. W., Browell, E. V., Hair, J. W., Avery, M. A., McGee, T. J.,
Twigg, L.W., Sumnicht, G. K., Jucks, K.W., Margitan, J. J., Sen, B.,
Stachnik, R. A., Toon, G. C., Bernath, P. F., Boone, C. D., Walker, K. A.,
Filipiak, M. J., Harwood, R. S., Fuller, R. A., Manney, G. L., Schwartz, M.
J., Daffer, W. H., Drouin, B. J., Cofield, R. E., Cuddy, D. T., Jarnot, R.
F., Knosp, B.W., Perun, V. S., Snyder, W. V., Stek, P. C., Thurstans, R. P.,
and Wagner, P. A.: Validation of Aura Microwave LimbSounder stratospheric
ozone measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D15S20, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008771" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007JD008771</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Gaubert, B., Arellano Jr. A. F., Barré, J., Worden, H. M., Emmons, L.
K., Tilmes, S., Buchholz, R. R., Vitt, F., Raeder, K., Collins, N.,
Anderson, J. L., Wiedinmyer, C., Martinez Alonso, S., Edwards, D. P.,
Andreae, M. O., Hannigan, J. W., Petri, C., Strong, K., and Jones, N.: Toward
a chemical reanalysis in a coupled chemistry-climate model: An evaluation of
MOPITT CO assimilation and its impact on tropospheric composition, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 7310–7343, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024863" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2016JD024863</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Gaudel, A., Clark, H., Thouret, V., Jones, L., Inness, A., Flemming, J.,
Stein, O., Huijnen, V., Eskes, H., Nédélec, P., and Boulangerand, D.:
On the use of MOZAIC-IAGOS data to assess the ability of the MACC reanalysis
to reproduce the distribution of O<sub>3</sub> and CO in the UTLS over Europe, Tellus
B, 67, 27955, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v67.27955" target="_blank">doi:10.3402/tellusb.v67.27955</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
George, M., Clerbaux, C., Bouarar, I., Coheur, P.-F., Deeter, M. N.,
Edwards, D. P., Francis, G., Gille, J. C., Hadji-Lazaro, J., Hurtmans, D.,
Inness, A., Mao, D., and Worden, H. M.: An examination of the long-term CO
records from MOPITT and IASI: comparison of retrieval methodology, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 8, 4313–4328, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-4313-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-8-4313-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Giordano, L., Brunner, D., Flemming, J., Hogrefe, C., Im, U., Bianconi, R.,
Badia, A., Balzarini, A., Baró, R., Chemel, C., Curci, G., Forkel, R.,
Jiménez-Guerrero, P., Hirtl, M., Hodzic, A., Honzak, L., Jorba, O.,
Knote, C., Kuenen, J. J. P., Makar, P. A., Manders-Groot, A., Neal, L.,
Pérez, J. L., Pirovano, G., Pouliot, G., San José, R., Savage, N.,
Schröder,W., Sokhi, R. S., Syrakov, D., Torian,A., Tuccella, P.,
Werhahn, J., Wolke, R., Yahya, K., Žabkar, R., Zhang, Y., and Galmarini,
S.: Assessment of the MACC reanalysis and its influence as chemical boundary
conditions for regional air quality modelling in AQMEII-2, Atmos. Environ.,
115, 371–388, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Granier, C., Lamarque, J. F., Mieville, A., Muller, J. F., Olivier, J.,
Orlando, J., Peters, J., Petron, G., Tyndall, G., and Wallens, S.: POET, a database of
surface emissions of ozone precursors, available  at:
<a href="http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/projet/ACCENT/POET.php" target="_blank">http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/projet/ACCENT/POET.php</a> (last access: 3 February 2017), 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Granier, C., Bessagnet, B., Bond, T., D'Angiola, A., v. d. Gon, H. D., Frost, G. J.,
Heil, A., Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S., Klimont, Z., Kloster, S., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Liousse, C., Masui, T., Meleux, F., Mieville, A., Ohara, T., Raut, J.-C., Riahi, K.,
Schultz, M. G., Smith, S. J., Thomson, A.,  v. Aardenne, J., v. d. Werf, G. R., and
v. Vuuren, D. P.: Evolution of anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of
air pollutants at global and regional scales during the 1980–2010 period,
Climatic Change, 109, 163–190, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0154-1" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0154-1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Grythe, H., Ström, J., Krejci, R., Quinn, P., and Stohl, A.: A review of
sea-spray aerosol source functions using a large global set of sea salt
aerosol concentration measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1277–1297,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Guenther, A. B., Karl, T., Harley, P., Wiedinmyer, C., Palmer, P. I., and
Geron, C.: Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN
(Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature), Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
6, 3181–3210, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-3181-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-3181-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Hao, N., Koukouli, M. E., Inness, A., Valks, P., Loyola, D. G., Zimmer, W.,
Balis, D. S., Zyrichidou, I., Van Roozendael, M., Lerot, C., and Spurr, R.
J. D.: GOME-2 total ozone columns from MetOp-A/MetOp-B and assimilation in
the MACC system, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 2937–2951,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-2937-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-7-2937-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanré, D., Buis, J. P., Setzer, A.,
Vermote, E., Reagan, J. A., Kaufman, Y., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F.,
Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.: AERONET – A federated instrument network and
data archive for aerosol characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Hollingsworth, A., Engelen, R. J., Textor, C., Benedetti, A., Boucher, O.,
Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Granier,
C., Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J.-J., Rayner, P., Peuch, V. H., Rouil, L., and
Schultz, M. G.: Simmons, A. J. and The GEMS Consortium: Toward a Monitoring
and Forecasting System For Atmospheric Composition: The GEMS Project, B.
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 1147–1164, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Hsu N. C., Jeong M.-J., Bettenhausen, C., Sayer, A. M., Hansell, R., Seftor, C. S.,
Huang, J., and Tsay, S.-C.: Enhanced Deep Blue aerosol retrieval algorithm: The
second generation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 9296–9315, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50712" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/jgrd.50712</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Huijnen, V., Williams, J., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Krol, M., Dentener,
F., Segers, A., Houweling, S., Peters, W., de Laat, J., Boersma, F.,
Bergamaschi, P., van Velthoven, P., Le Sager, P., Eskes, H., Alkemade, F.,
Scheele, R., Nédélec, P., and Pätz, H.-W.: The global chemistry
transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric
chemistry version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445–473,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Huijnen V., Wooster, M. J., Kaiser, J. W., Gaveau, D.L. A., Flemming, J.,
Parrington, M., Inness, A., Murdiyarso, D., Main, B., and van Weele, M.: Fire
carbon emissions over maritime southeast Asia in 2015 largest since 1997,
Sci. Rep., 6, 26886, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep26886" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/srep26886</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Huneeus, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Griesfeller, J., Prospero, J.,
Kinne, S., Bauer, S., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Easter, R., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Grini, A., Horowitz, L.,
Koch, D., Krol, M. C., Landing, W., Liu, X., Mahowald, N., Miller, R.,
Morcrette, J.-J., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Perlwitz, J., Stier, P., Takemura,
T., and Zender, C. S.: Global dust model intercomparison in AeroCom phase I,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7781–7816, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-7781-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Im, U., Bianconi, R., Solazzo, E., Kioutsioukis, I., Badia, A., Balzarini,
A., Baró, R., Bellasio, R., Brunner, D., Chemel, C., Curci, G.,
Flemming, J., Forkel, R., Giordano, L., Jiménez- Guerrero, P., Hirtl,
M., Hodzic, A., Honzak, L., Jorba, O., Knote, C., Kuenen, J. J. P., Makar,
P. A., Manders-Groot, A., Neal, L., Pérez, J. L., Pirovano, G., Pouliot,
G., San Jose, R., Savage, N., Schroder, W., Sokhi, R.S., Syrakov, D.,
Torian, A., Tuccella, P., Werhahn, J., Wolke, R., Yahya, K., Zabkar, R.,
Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Hogrefe, C., and Galmarini, S.: Evaluation of operational
on-line-coupled regional air quality models over Europe and North America in
the context of AQMEII phase 2, Part I: Ozone, Atmos. Environ., 115, 404–420, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.042" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.042</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Inness, A., Baier, F., Benedetti, A., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Clark,
H., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P., Engelen, R. J., Errera, Q., Flemming, J.,
George, M., Granier, C., Hadji-Lazaro, J., Huijnen, V., Hurtmans, D., Jones,
L., Kaiser, J. W., Kapsomenakis, J., Lefever, K., Leitão, J., Razinger,
M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Simmons, A. J., Suttie, M., Stein, O.,
Thépaut, J.-N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Zerefos, C., and the MACC
team: The MACC reanalysis: an 8 yr data set of atmospheric composition,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4073–4109, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-4073-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-4073-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Inness, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Crepulja, M.,
Engelen, R. J., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Gaudel, A., Hendrick, F., Huijnen,
V., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Keppens, A., Langerock, B.,
de Mazière, M., Melas, D., Parrington, M., Peuch, V. H., Razinger, M.,
Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M.,
Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Data assimilation of satellite retrieved ozone,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide with ECMWF's Composition-IFS, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 15, 5275–5303, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Jacob, D. J. H., Liu, C., Mari, and Yantosca, R. M.: Harvard wet deposition scheme
for GMI, Harvard University Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group, in review,
March 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Jung, T., Palmer, T. N., Rodwell, M. J., and Serrar, S.: Diagnosing forecast
error using relaxation experiments, ECMWF Newsletter 82, ECMWF, Shinfield
Park, Reading, Berkshire RG2 9AX, UK, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Kaiser, J. W., Heil, A., Andreae, M. O., Benedetti, A., Chubarova, N.,
Jones, L., Morcrette, J.-J., Razinger, M., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., and
van der Werf, G. R.: Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire
assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power, Biogeosciences,
9, 527–554, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-527-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/bg-9-527-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Katragkou, E., Zanis, P., Tsikerdekis, A., Kapsomenakis, J., Melas, D.,
Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Inness, A., Schultz, M. G., Stein, O.,
and Zerefos, C. S.: Evaluation of near-surface ozone over Europe from the
MACC reanalysis, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2299–2314,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2299-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-2299-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Kinne, S., Schulz, M., Textor, C., Guibert, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T. F., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Collins, W., Dentener,
F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P.,
Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Herzog, M., Horowitz, L., Isaksen, I.,
Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kristjansson, J. E.,
Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Lesins, G., Liu, X., Lohmann, U.,
Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, O.,
Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: An AeroCom initial assessment –
optical properties in aerosol component modules of global models, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 6, 1815–1834, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Kinnison, D. E., Brasseur, G. P., Walters, S., Garcia, R. R.,. Marsh, D. R,
Sassi, F., Harvey, V. L., Randall, C. E., Emmons, L., Lamarque, J. F., Hess,
P., Orlando, J. J., Tie, X. X., Randel, W., Pan, L. L., Gettelman, A.,
Granier, C., Diehl, T., Niemeier, U., and Simmons, A. J.: Sensitivity of
Chemical Tracers to Meteorological Parameters in the MOZART-3 Chemical
Transport Model, J. Geophys. Res, 112, D03303, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010739" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2008JD010739</a>,
2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Komhyr, W. D., Barnes, R. A., Borthers, G. B., Lathrop, J. A., Kerr, J. B.,
and Opperman, D. P.: Electrochemical concentration cell ozonesonde
performance evaluation during STOIC 1989, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 9231–9244,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Josse, B., Young, P. J., Cionni, I.,
Eyring, V., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Collins, W. J., Doherty, R.,
Dalsoren, S., Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G., Ghan, S. J., Horowitz, L. W., Lee,
Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Plummer, D., Righi, M.,
Rumbold, S. T., Schulz, M., Skeie, R. B., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo,
K., Szopa, S., Voulgarakis, A., and Zeng, G.: The Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): overview and description of
models, simulations and climate diagnostics, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 179–206,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-6-179-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Lefever, K., van der A, R., Baier, F., Christophe, Y., Errera, Q., Eskes, H.,
Flemming, J., Inness, A., Jones, L., Lambert, J.-C., Langerock, B., Schultz,
M. G., Stein, O., Wagner, A., and Chabrillat, S.: Copernicus stratospheric
ozone service, 2009–2012: validation, system intercomparison and roles of
input data sets, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 2269–2293,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H. J., Dobber, M. R., Malkki, A., Visser,
H., de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O. V., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1093–1101, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X., Bhartia, P. K., Chance, K., Spurr, R. J. D., and Kurosu, T. P.:
Ozone profile retrievals from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2521–2537, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2521-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-2521-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Manney, G., Santee, M. L., Rex, M., Livesey, N. J., Pitts, M. C., Veefkind,
P., Nash, R. R., Wohltmann, I., Lehmann, R., Froidevaux, L., Poole, L. R.,
Schoeberl, M. R., Haffner, D. P., Davies, J., Dorokhov, V., Gernandt, H.,
Johnson, B., Kivi, R., Kyr o, E., Larsen, N., Levelt, P. F., Makshtas, A.,
McElroy, C. T., Nakajima, H., Parrondo, M. C., Tarasick, D.W., von der
Gathen, P.,Walker, P. K. A., and Zinoviev, N. S.: Unprecedented Arctic ozone
loss in 2011, Arctic winter 2010/2011 at the brink of an ozone hole, Nature,
478, 469–475, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10556" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nature10556</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Marenco, A., Thouret, V., Nìedìelec, P., Smit, H. G., Helten, M., Kley, D.,
Karcher, F., Simon, P., Law, K., Pyle, J., Poschmann, G., Von Wrede, R.,
Hume, C., and Cook, T.: Measurement of ozone and water vapour by Airbus
in-service air-craft: The MOZAIC airborne programme, an overview, J.
Geophys. Res., 103, 25631–25642, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
McNally, A. P., Watts, P. D., Smith, J. A., Engelen, R. J., Kelly, G. A.,
Thépaut, J.-N., and Matricardi, M.: The assimilation of AIRS
radiance data at ECMWF, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 935–957, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Meijer, E. W., van Velthoven, P. F. J., Brunner, D. W., Huntrieser, H., and
Kelder, H.: Improvement and evaluation of the parameterization of nitrogen
oxide production by lightning, Phys. Chem. Earth Pt. C, 26, 577–583, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Miyazaki, K., Eskes, H. J., and Sudo, K.: A tropospheric chemistry reanalysis
for the years 2005–2012 based on an assimilation of OMI, MLS, TES, and
MOPITT satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 8315–8348,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8315-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-8315-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Monks, P. S., Archibald, A. T., Colette, A., Cooper, O., Coyle, M., Derwent,
R., Fowler, D., Granier, C., Law, K. S., Mills, G. E., Stevenson, D. S.,
Tarasova, O., Thouret, V., von Schneidemesser, E., Sommariva, R., Wild, O.,
and Williams, M. L.: Tropospheric ozone and its precursors from the urban to
the global scale from air quality to short-lived climate forcer, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 8889–8973, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-8889-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-8889-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Jones, L., Salmond, D., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A., Benedetti, A., Bonet, A., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., Schulz,
M., Serrar, S., Simmons, A. J., Sofiev, M., Suttie, M., Tompkins, A. M., and
Untch, A.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF Integrated Forecast
System, Part I: Forward modelling, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011235" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2008JD011235</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Morcrette, J. J., Benedetti, A., Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., and
Suttie, M.: Prognostic Aerosols in the ECMWF IFS: MACC vs. GEMS Aerosols,
ECMWF Technical Memorandum, 659, 32 pp., 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Munro, R., Siddans, R., Reburn, W. J., and Kerridge, B. J.: Direct
measurements of tropospheric ozone distributions from space, Nature, 392,
168–171, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Munro, R., Eisinger, M., Anderson, C., Callies, J., Corpaccioli, E., Lang,
R., Lefebvre, A., Livschitz, Y., and Albinana, A. P.: GOME-2 on MetOp, Proc.
of The 2006 EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite Conference, Helsinki, Finland,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Nedelec, P., Cammas, J.-P., Thouret, V., Athier, G., Cousin, J.-M., Legrand,
C., Abonnel, C., Lecoeur, F., Cayez, G., and Marizy, C.: An improved
infrared carbon monoxide analyser for routine measurements aboard commercial
Airbus aircraft: technical validation and first scientific results of the
MOZAIC III programme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 3, 1551–1564,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-3-1551-2003" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-3-1551-2003</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Novelli, P. C. and Masarie, K. A.: Atmospheric Carbon Monoxide Dry Air Mole
Fractions from the NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling
Network, 1988–2012, Version: 8 August 2013,
<a href="ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co/flask/surface/" target="_blank">ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co/flask/surface/</a> (last
access: 6 May 2016), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Novelli, P. C., Masarie, K. A., Lang, P. M., Hall, B. D., Myers, R. C., and
Elkins, J. W.: Reanalysis of tropospheric CO trends: effects of the
1997–1998 wildfires, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4464, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003031" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2002JD003031</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Olivier, J., Peters, J., Granier, C., Petron, G., Muller, J. F., and Wallens, S.:
Present and future surface emissions of atmospheric compounds, POET report
#2, EU project EVK2-1999-00011, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Onogi, K., Tsutsui, J., Koide, H., Sakamoto, M., Kobayashi, S., Hatsushika,
H., Matsumoto, T., Yamazaki, N., Kamahori, H., Takahashi, K., Kadokura, S.,
Wada, K., Kato, K., Oyama, R., Ose, T., Mannoji, N., and Taira, R.: The
JRA-25 Reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 85, 369–432, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Reddy, M. S., Boucher, O., Bellouin, N., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Dufresne,
J.-L., and Pham, M.: Estimates of global multicomponent aerosol optical depth
and direct radiative perturbation in the Laboratoire de Météorologie
Dynamique general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D10S16,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004757" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2004JD004757</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J. M, Tanré, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A. M,
Martins, J. V., Li, R.-R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T.
F., Vermote, E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS Aerosol Algorithm, Products,
and Validation, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Rienecker, M. M., Suarez, M. J., Gelaro, R., Todling, R., Bacmeister, J.,
Liu, E., Bosilovich, M. G., Schubert, S. D., Takacs, L., Kim, G.- K., Bloom,
S., Chen, J., Collins, D., Conaty, A., da Silva, A., Gu, W., Joiner, J.,
Koster, R. D., Lucchesi, R., Molod, A. M., Owens, T., Pawson, S., Pegion,
P., Redder, C. R., Reichle, R., Robertson, F. R., Ruddick, A. G.,
Sienkiewicz, M., and Woollen, J.: MERRA – NASA's Modern- Era Retrospective,
Anal. Res. Appl., J. Climate, 24, 3624–3648, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLID-11-00015.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JCLID-11-00015.1</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P.,
Kistler, R., Woollen, J., Behringer, D., Liu, H., Stokes, D., Grumbine, R.,
Gayno, G., Hou, Y. T., Chuang, H. Y., Juang, H. M. H., Sela, J., Iredell,
M., Treadon, R., Kleist, D., Van Delst, P., Keyser, D., Derber, J., Ek, M.,
Meng, J., Wei, H., Yang, R., Lord, S., Van Den Dool, H., Kumar, A., Wang,
W., Long, C., Chelliah, M., Xue, Y., Huang, B., Schemm, J. K., Ebisuzaki,
W., Lin, R., Xie, P., Chen, M., Zhou, S., Higgins, W., Zou, C. Z., Liu, Q.,
Chen, Y., Han, Y., Cucurull, L., Reynolds, R. W., Rutledge, G., and
Goldberg, M.: The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 91, 1015–1057, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Schere, K., Flemming, J., Vautard, R., Chemel, C., Colette, A., Hogrefe, C.,
Bessagnet, B., Meleux, F., Mathur, R., Roselle, S., Hu, R.-M., Sokhi, R. S.,
Rao, S. T., and Galmarini, S.: Trace gas/aerosol boundary concentrations and
their impacts on continental-scale AQMEII modeling domains, Atmos. Environ.,
53, 38–50, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.09.043" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.09.043</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Schutgens, N. A. J., Nakata, M., and Nakajima, T.: Estimating aerosol
emissions by assimilating remote sensing observations into a Global
transport model, Remote Sens., 4, 3528–3543, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Reid, J. S., Holben, B., Hyer, E. J., and Curtis, C.: An
analysis of the collection 5 MODIS over-ocean aerosol optical depth product
for its implication in aerosol assimilation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,
557–565, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-557-2011" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-11-557-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Stevenson, D. S., Krol, M. C., Emmons, L. K.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Pétron, G., Dentener, F. J., Ellingsen, K., Schultz, M. G.,
Wild, O., Amann, M., Atherton, C. S., Bergmann, D. J., Bey, I., Butler, T.,
Cofala, J., Collins, W. J., Derwent, R. G., Doherty, R. M., Drevet, J.,
Eskes, H. J., Fiore, A. M., Gauss, M., Hauglustaine, D. A., Horowitz, L. W.,
Isaksen, I. S. A., Lawrence, M. G., Montanaro, V., Müller, J.-F., Pitari, G.,
Prather, M. J., Pyle, J. A., Rast, S., Rodriguez, J. M., Sanderson, M. G.,
Savage, N. H., Strahan, S. E., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Unger, N., van Noije, T.
P. C., and Zeng, G.: Multi-model simulations of carbon monoxide: Comparison
with observations and projected near-future changes, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
D19306, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007100" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006JD007100</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Sindelarova, K., Granier, C., Bouarar, I., Guenther, A., Tilmes, S.,
Stavrakou, T., Müller, J.-F., Kuhn, U., Stefani, P., and Knorr, W.:
Global data set of biogenic VOC emissions calculated by the MEGAN model over
the last 30 years, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 9317–9341,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9317-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-9317-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Spada, M., Jorba, O., Pérez García-Pando, C., Janjic, Z., and
Baldasano, J. M.: Modeling and evaluation of the global sea-salt aerosol
distribution: sensitivity to size-resolved and sea-surface temperature
dependent emission schemes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 11735–11755,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-11735-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-11735-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Stein, O., Schultz, M. G., Bouarar, I., Clark, H., Huijnen, V., Gaudel, A.,
George, M., and Clerbaux, C.: On the wintertime low bias of Northern
Hemisphere carbon monoxide in global model studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,
9295–9316, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9295-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-14-9295-2014</a>, 2014
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Steinbrecht, W., Shwartz, R., and Claude, H.: New pump correction for the
Brewer-Mast ozonesonde: Determination from experiment and instrument
intercomparisons, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 15, 144–156, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Tegtmeier, S., Hegglin, M. I., Anderson, J., Bourassa, A., Brohede, S.,
Degenstein, D., Froide- vaux, L., Fuller, R., Funke, B., Gille, J., Jones,
A., Kasai, Y., Krüger, K., Kyrölä, E., Lingen- felser, G.,
Lumpe, J., Nardi, B., Neu, J., Pendlebury, D., Remsberg, E., Rozanov, A.,
Smith, L., Toohey, M., Urban, J., von Clarmann, T., Walker, K. A., and Wang,
R. H. J.: SPARC Data Initiative: a comparison of ozone climatologies from
international satellite limb sounders, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 12229–12247,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JD019877" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2013JD019877</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T.,
Easter, R., Feichter, H., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S.,
Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I., Iversen, I.,
Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M.,
Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J.,
Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.:
Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within
AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1777–1813, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006</a>,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Uppala, S., Kallberg, P., Simmons, A. J., Andrae, U., Bechtold, V. D. C.,
Fiorino, M., Gibson, J. K., Haseler, J., Hernandez, A., Kelly, G. A., Li,
X., Onogi, K., Saarinen, S., Sokka, N., Allan, R. P., Andersson, E., Arpe,
K., Balmaseda, M. A., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J.,
Bormann, N., Caires, S., Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Dragosavac, M., Fisher,
M., Fuentes, M., Hagemann, S., Holm, E., Hoskins, B. J., Isaksen, L.,
Janssen, P. A. E. M., Jenne, R., McNally, A. P., Mahfouf, J. F., Morcrette,
J. J., Rayner, N. A., Saunders, R. W., Simon, P., Sterl, A., Trenberth, K.
E., Untch, A., Vasiljevic, D., Viterbo, P., and Woollen, J.: The ERA-40
re-analysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 2961–3012, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
van der A, R. J., Allaart, M. A. F., and Eskes, H. J.: Multi sensor
reanalysis of total ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11277–11294,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11277-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-11277-2010</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
van der A, R. J., Allaart, M. A. F., and Eskes, H. J.: Extended and refined
multi sensor reanalysis of total ozone for the period 1970–2012, Atmos.
Meas. Tech., 8, 3021–3035, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-3021-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/amt-8-3021-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>
Verstraeten, W. W., Neu, J. L., Williams, J. E., Bowman, K. W., Worden, J.
R., and Boersma, K. F.: Rapid increases in tropospheric ozone production and
export from China, Nat. Geosci., 8, 690–695, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2493" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/ngeo2493</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>
von Clarmann, T., Glatthor, N., Grabowski, U., Höpfner, M., Kellmann,
S., Kiefer, M., Linden, A., Mengistu Tsidu, G., Milz, M., Steck, T.,
Stiller, G. P., Wang, D. Y., Fischer, H., Funke, B., Gil-López, S., and
López-Puertas, M.: Retrieval of temperature and tangent altitude
pointing from limb emission spectra recorded from space by the Michelson
Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), J. Geophys. Res.,
108, 4736, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003602" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2003JD003602</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>
Wagner, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Brunke, E.-G., Clerbaux, C.,
Cupeiro, M., Cristofanelli, P., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Flentje, H., George,
M., Gilge, S., Hilboll, A., Inness, A., Kapsomenakis, J., Richter, A., Ries,
L., Spangl, W., Stein, O., Weller, R., and Zerefos, C.: Evaluation of the
MACC operational forecast system – potential and challenges of global
near-real-time modelling with respect to reactive gases in the troposphere,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 14005–14030, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-14005-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-14005-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>
Waters, J.W., Froidevaux, L., Harwood, R. S., Jarnot, R. F., Pickett, H. M.,
Read, W. G., Siegel, P. H., Cofield, R. E., Filipiak, M. J., Flower, D. A.,
Holden, J. R., Lau, G. K., Livesey, N. J., Manney, G. L., Pumphrey, H. C.,
Santee, M. L., Wu, D. L., Cuddy, D. T., Lay, R. R., Loo, M. S., Perun, V.
S., Schwartz, M. J., Stek, P. C., Thurstans, R. P., Boyles, M. A., Chandra,
K. M., Chavez, M. C., Chen, G. S., Chudasama, B. V., Dodge, R., Fuller, R.
A., Girard, M. A., Jiang, J. H., Jiang, Y., Knosp, B. W., Labelle, R. C.,
Lam, J. C., Lee, A. K., Miller, D., Oswald, J. E., Patel, N. C., Pukala, D.
M., Quintero, O., Scaff, D. M., Vansnyder, W., Tope, M. C., Wagner, P. A.,
and Walch, M. J.: The Earth Observing System Microwave Limb Sounder (EOS
MLS) on theAura Satellite, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1075–1092, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>
Wesely, M. L.: Parameterization of Surface Resistances to Gaseous Dry
Deposition in Regional-Scale Numerical Models, Atmos. Environ., 23,
1293–1304, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>
Worden, H. M., Deeter, M. N., Frankenberg, C., George, M., Nichitiu, F.,
Worden, J., Aben, I., Bowman, K. W., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P. F., de Laat, A.
T. J., Detweiler, R., Drummond, J. R., Edwards, D. P., Gille, J. C.,
Hurtmans, D., Luo, M., Martínez-Alonso, S., Massie, S., Pfister, G., and
Warner, J. X.: Decadal record of satellite carbon monoxide observations,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 837–850, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-837-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-13-837-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib106"><label>106</label><mixed-citation>
Yarwood, G., Rao, S., Yocke, M., and Whitten, G.: Updates to the carbon bond
chemical mechanism: CB05. Final report to the US EPA, EPA Report Number:
RT-0400675, available at: <a href="http://www.camx.com" target="_blank">http://www.camx.com</a> (last access: 1 July 2014),
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
