<?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" xml:lang="en" 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-19-2149-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>The measurement of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at KMA GAW regional stations,
its characteristics, and comparisons with<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> other East Asian sites</article-title><alt-title>The measurement of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at KMA GAW regional stations</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{The measurement of atmospheric {$\chem{CO_{2}}$} at KMA GAW regional stations}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{H. Lee et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>Haeyoung</given-names></name>
          <email>leehy80@korea.kr</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0121-8525</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Sang-Ok</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ryoo</surname><given-names>Sang-Boom</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>Jeong-Soon</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>Gang-Woong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Environmental Meteorology Research Division, National Institute of
Meteorological Sciences,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Jeju, 63568, Republic of Korea</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratory, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Gyeonggi-do, 17035, Republic of Korea</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science, Daejeon, 34113,
Republic of Korea</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Haeyoung Lee (leehy80@korea.kr)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>19</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>2149</fpage><lpage>2163</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>4</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>28</day><month>September</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/acp-19-2149-2019.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/acp-19-2149-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/acp-19-2149-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/acp-19-2149-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e156">To understand the carbon cycle at policy-relevant spatial scales, a high
density of high-quality <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement sites is needed. In 2012, the
Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) installed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitoring
systems at Anmyeondo (AMY) in the west, Jejudo Gosan Suwolbong (JGS) in the
southwest, and Ulleungdo (ULD) in the east of South Korea. Three stations were instrumented
with identical greenhouse gas measurement systems based on cavity ring-down
spectroscopy (CRDS) and a new drying system developed by KMA and the Korea
Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS). This drying system is
suitable in humid areas; water vapor measured using CRDS in ambient air
was 0.001 % to 0.004 % across the stations. Measurement uncertainties
expressed by the quadrature sum of the uncertainties from the drying system,
scale propagations, repeatability, and reproducibility were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm from all KMA stations in the 68 % confidence interval. Average monthly
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> enhancements above the local background at each station were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at AMY, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at JGS, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
(1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) at ULD, respectively, during 2012 to 2016. At AMY station,
located between China and South Korea, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> annual means and seasonal
variations are also greater than the other KMA stations, indicating that it is
affected not only by local vegetation, but also added anthropogenic sources.
Selected baseline <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at AMY and at JGS in the west of South Korea is
more sensitive to East Asia (e.g., China) according to wind direction and speed. Through
the comparison of long-term trends and growth rates at AMY with other East
Asian stations over 15 years, it was suggested that they could be affected not only by local vegetation but also by measurement quality.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e275">Carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, is one of
the main drivers of climate change on Earth. Measurements of atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have assumed increased importance to track the increase in global
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to fossil fuel combustion (Canadell et al., 2007; Knorr,
2009).</p>
      <p id="d1e300">Roughly half of anthropogenic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emitted by fossil fuel combustion
is stored in the atmosphere, whereas the other half is absorbed by the oceans
and terrestrial ecosystems. Recent studies showed the atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
network is not yet dense enough to confirm or invalidate the increased global
carbon uptake, estimated from ocean measurement or ocean models (Wanninkhof
et al., 2013), but emphasized that the combination of a highly dense
observation network, coupled with atmospheric models, leads to better
understanding of regional carbon fluxes (Dolman et al., 2009). Therefore,
confidence in our understanding of carbon cycle processes may be improved by
a higher density of continuous measurement sites.</p>
      <p id="d1e325">There are now over 400 regional stations monitoring atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under the Global Atmosphere Watch Programme (GAW) of the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) (<uri>https://gawsis.meteoswiss.ch</uri>, last access: 1<?pagebreak page2150?> December 2014). These
sites capture more regional-scale information on fluxes than global
stations, which reflect only well-mixed air mass. However, if technical
measurement skill and data quality control are not sufficient, the data may
not be useful to help identify and understand changes to the carbon cycle
caused by climate change. Also, both measurement uncertainty and imperfect
knowledge of the composition of background air can limit the precision of
observation-based estimates of local- or regional-scale greenhouse gas
enhancements (Turnbull et al., 2009, 2015; Graven et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e342">The Korean Peninsula is important due to its location, as it is affected by flow from the
Asian continent, especially China. South Korea's atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitoring
history started at Tae-Ahn Peninsula (TAP; 36<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>44<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 126<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>08<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; 20 m a.s.l.), in the west of South Korea, in 1990 with weekly
flask-air samples as a part of the NOAA/CMDL/GMD Cooperative Global Air
Sampling Network (<uri>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/flask.php</uri>, last access: 1 August 2018). Studies
demonstrated that its regional characteristically high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was affected by
China's industrial regions, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was affected by Russian
wetlands and local rice cultivation near TAP (Dlugokencky et al., 1993; Kim
et al., 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e419">Since 1999, the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) has been monitoring
atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at Anmyeondo (AMY; 36.53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
126.32<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; 46 m above sea level from a 40 m tower), about 28 km
from TAP. Nevertheless, this was the first attempt to continuously monitor
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in South Korea. In 2012, KMA expanded its monitoring network to include
data from the southwest (Jejudo Gosan Suwolbong, JGS; 33.30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
126.16<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) and the east (Ulleungdo, ULD; 37.48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
130.90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) of South Korea to cover the whole peninsula for a better
understanding of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sources and sinks. At the same time, all three
monitoring stations started to use analyzers based on cavity ring-down
spectroscopy (CRDS; a different model at each station; Picarro, CA, USA) with
the same measurement method. So far, even though measurements began in 1999
at AMY, there is no published description of methods used to measure and
process the data from the three KMA sites.</p>
      <p id="d1e510">In this paper, we present the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement such as the sampling
system, data quality, and processing methods at these three KMA monitoring
stations. The measurement uncertainties are calculated separately from the
hourly, daily, and monthly standard deviations, which include natural
variability and measurement uncertainty. We analyze the characteristics of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at KMA stations during 2012 to 2016 and compare the data to other
stations in East Asia: the global background WMO GAW station in Waliguan
(WLG; 36.28<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 100.90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; 3810 m), China, and Ryori
(RYO; 30.03<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 141.82<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; 260 m), which reflects global
growth rates as a regional WMO GAW station in Japan (Watanabe et al., 2000).
In addition, we present 15 years of long-term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements in
East Asia, including those from AMY. Furthermore, this paper will serve as a
reference for KMA data archived at the World Data Centre for Greenhouse
Gases.</p><?xmltex \hack{\vspace{-3mm}}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Experiment</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Sampling sites</title>
      <p id="d1e595">The locations of Anmyeondo (AMY), Jejudo Gosan Suwolbong (JGS), and
Ulleungdo (ULD) stations are shown in Fig. 1, and their details are summarized
in Table 1.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e600">Locations of <bold>(a)</bold> the three KMA monitoring stations in South Korea, and
Mt. Waliguan WMO GAW global station and Ryori WMO GAW regional station in
East Asia. Surrounding environment of the <bold>(b)</bold> Anmyeondo (AMY), <bold>(c)</bold> Jejudo
Gosan Suwolbong (JGS), and <bold>(d)</bold> Ullengdo (ULD) stations. These figure panels are
derived from Google Maps.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e621">AMY is located in the west part of South Korea, about 130 km southwest of the
megacity of Seoul. Within a 100 km radius, the semiconductor industry and
relevant industries exist. Also, the largest thermal power plants fired by
coal and heavy oil in South Korea are within 35 km of the northeast and
southeast of the station. Local activity is related to agriculture, such as
rice paddies, sweet potatoes, and onions, while the area is also known for
its leisure opportunities during summer. The west and south side of AMY is
open to the sea and along the coast, and there is a large tidal mudflat with
many pine trees.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e628">Information about the three KMA monitoring stations in South Korea and
the two monitoring stations in East Asia.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Station</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ID</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Longitude</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Latitude</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Altitude</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Inlet height</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Measurement history</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Anmyeondo, South Korea</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AMY</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">126.32<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36.53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">47 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">20 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since 1999 to July 2004</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">40 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since July 2004</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Jejudo Gosan Suwolbong, South Korea</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JGS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">126.16<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">33.30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">71.47 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since 2012</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ulleungdo*, South Korea</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">ULD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">130.90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">37.48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">220.9 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since 2012</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mt. Waliguan, China</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WLG</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100.90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36.28<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3810 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since 1990</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ryori, Japan</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RYO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">141.82<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">39.03<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">260 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">20 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Since 1987</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e631">* ULD is not a GAW station.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e921">JGS is located in the west part of Jeju Island, which is the biggest
volcanic island (1845.88 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the southwest of South Korea and about 90 km from the mainland. Jeju is popular for tourists regardless of the season,
while the region of Suwolbong is famous as a Global Geopark due to the
outcrops of volcanic deposits exposed along the coastal cliff where JGS is
located. In Jeju, there are two major power plants fired by heavy oil at
approximately 47 km northeast and 16 km southeast of the stations. The
side of the station from the southwest to the northwest is open to the sea, where
there are volcanic basalt rocks. The sea to the south is connected to the
East China Sea and the sea to the west is linked to the Yellow Sea. Next to
JGS there is a wide plain where mainly potatoes, garlic, and onions are
harvested.</p>
      <p id="d1e936">ULD is located in the east part of Ulleung Island, which is in the east of South Korea and about 155 km from the mainland. In the southeast of the
Korean Peninsula, there are cities very famous for steel, chemical, and
petrochemical industries along the coastline, and these cities are located
about 200–250 km southwest of the island. Ulleung Island is 72 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and of volcanic origin, and it is a rocky steep-sided island, with the top of a
large stratovolcano reaching a maximum elevation of 984 m. This peak is
located northwest of ULD. There are a few small mountains whose heights
are about 500 to 960 m a.s.l., within 5 km to the north and southeast of
the station. Due to those geological features, ULD is mainly affected by
airflow up over the hill from the southwest and downslope winds from
the northeast. There is also a small town in the valley northeast of the
station with a small port, which is 810 m away from the station. In the
southwest area, there is a small brickyard 200 m from the ULD. Farming and
fishing industries are very active on the island, though there is no farm in
the southern area.
An automatic weather station (AWS) was installed at AMY near the inlet, and
10 m<?pagebreak page2151?> above the station at JGS and ULD, but separate from the air inlet
tower.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Measurement system: inlet, drying system, and instruments</title>
      <p id="d1e954">The measurement system consists of three main parts: the inlet, the drying
system, and the instruments (Fig. 2). The intake is an inverted stainless steel box
(15 cm (W) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 cm (D) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 cm (H)) with a stainless steel filter (D 4.7 cm, pore
size 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) mounted on a plastic mesh holder and connected to the
Dekabon sampling tubing (Nitta Moore 1300-10, I.D. 6.8 mm, O.D. 10 mm). Over
times longer than 1 month, a significant pressure drop occurs between the
inlet and the pump, so the filter is replaced monthly.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e983">Schematic of the in situ system when the drying system is at the
state described in Step 3 in AMY, JGS, and ULD.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2152?><p id="d1e992">Sample air is dried with a system that has a cold trap (CT-90, Operon,
South Korea), which is connected to the pump (KNF N145.1.2AN.18, Germany, 55 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" 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>, 7 bar in AMY; KNF N035AN.18, Germany, 30 L min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" 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>, 4 bar in JGS and
ULD). The cold trap is set to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and maintains its temperature.
When the sample air comes from outside into the drying system, the inner
temperature increases. Therefore ambient air is cooled down to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the first chamber, and then to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in the
second chamber. To increase dehumidification efficiency, the second chamber
is filled with stainless steel beads (Fig. 2).</p>
      <p id="d1e1077">One of the dual traps is used to dry ambient air for 24 h while the
other is warmed and drained. The dehumidification and water drain sequence
is as follows: Step 1: pump/cold trap A is employed to dry ambient air for
24 h. Step 2: pump/cold trap B is turned off to melt ice at ambient
temperature for 20 h. Step 3: pump B turns on to pressurize and allow water
to drain for 2 h. Step 4: cold trap B turns on and cools to operating
temperature for 2 h. The difference between this system and a typical cryogenic one
is that it was designed with a dual mode, with one trap drying while water
is automatically drained from the other. Therefore it avoids the cold trap
impinger clogging during long-term, unattended monitoring. This drying
system was developed by KMA and the Korea Research Institute of Standards and
Science (KRISS) in 2011 for the remote monitoring stations so that it can be
easily accessed remotely.</p>
      <p id="d1e1081">Even though the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitored using CRDS was not calibrated, hourly mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through the drying system is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.005</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % at AMY, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.002</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in JGS, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % in ULD during 2012 to
2016. Laboratory standard gases prepared by the Central Calibration
Laboratory (CCL), which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Global Monitoring Division in Boulder, Colorado, USA,
typically contain less than 0.0001 % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<uri>http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccl/airstandard.html</uri>, last access: 1 August 2018). When we sampled them directly
using CRDS without this drying system, mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10 min average) was
0.0009 % regardless of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> level across the KMA monitoring
stations.</p>
      <p id="d1e1187">For example, when there is a difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at AMY between laboratory
standard gases and ambient samples of 0.003 %, this creates a small bias of
0.012 ppm on 400 ppm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> according to the equation suggested by Rella
et al. (2013):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M74" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dilution</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dry</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">act</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fraction and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">act</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the actual water
mole fraction (in %). Since working standards showed almost the same level of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to laboratory standards through using CRDS, we considered the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fraction dilution offsets between calibration standards and
sample air when the uncertainty was estimated (Sect. 3.1).</p>
      <p id="d1e1303">After the drying system, ambient air flows through the 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 in. (O.D.) stainless
steel tubing to an 8-port multi-position valve (VICI, EMTMA-CE), which selects among standard gases and ambient air. A leak test of all lines is performed every
month. CRDS is well known for its highly linear and stable response (Crosson,
2008). The G2301 model (Picarro, USA) was installed in October 2011, and it became
our official <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement at AMY starting on 1 January 2012. Picarro
models G1301 and G2401 have been used to measure ambient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> since 1 January and 12 February in 2012, at JGS and ULD,
respectively. Those analyzers monitor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> every 5 s across the KMA
greenhouse gas (GHG) network.</p>
      <p id="d1e1357">At AMY, a non-dispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR; Ultramat 6, Siemens,
Germany) was used to monitor atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> every 30 s from
1 February 1999 to 31 December 2011.<?pagebreak page2153?> During the period, we used a three-step dehumidification system, (1) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> cold trap, (2) nafion, and
(3) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mg</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ClO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, before installing the new system.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Calibration, quality control, and data processing</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <title>Calibration method</title>
      <p id="d1e1420">The metrological definition of calibration is followed, operation that,
under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between
the quantity values with measurement uncertainties provide by measurement
standards and corresponding indications with associated measurement
uncertainties and, in a second step, uses this information to establish a
relation for obtaining a measurement result for an indication (JCGM, 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e1423">After starting to operate the KMA GHG network in 2012, we calibrate our
instruments against the WMO-X2007 scale with our working standards. Our standard
hierarchy consists of the laboratory standards from CCL, which are the
highest rank in our network (<uri>https://www.empa.ch/web/s503/gaw_glossary</uri>, last access: 1 December 2018),
and working standards that are certified by the laboratory
standards. Four laboratory standards are prepared from 360 to 480 ppm, with
an uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.070</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm (Zhao and Tans, 2006). Since AMY is a central
lab for the GHG network, working standards used at three stations are filled
and certified by laboratory standards using CRDS for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dry mole
fraction at AMY. We have four working standards at each station from 360 to 460 ppm at intervals of 30–40 ppm, with an uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.088</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
after transferring the scale. This value is also used as the scale
propagation factor of the measurement uncertainty in Sect. 3.1.</p>
      <p id="d1e1460">Our ability to maintain and propagate the WMO-X2007 scale was shown through
the 6th Round Robin comparison of standards hosted by the CCL
(<uri>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/wmorr/wmorr_results.php</uri>, last access: 1 December 2018; the difference of low-level <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm, while it was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm for high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), a comparison of continuous measurements with the
traveling instrument of the World Calibration Centre (WCC-Empa, 2014 and 2017a, b), and a co-located comparison of discrete samples collected at AMY
and analyzed by NOAA ESRL with our in situ analyzer results. This ongoing
comparison between Level 1 (L1) hourly data from using CRDS and weekly
flask-air samples collected at AMY has been implemented since December 2013.
The mean difference between flask-ask samples minus in situ samples is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
from 2014 to 2016, close to GAW's compatibility goal for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
Northern Hemisphere (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm) (Fig. 3).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e1550">L1 hourly data (yellow dots, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> OBS), L2 daily data (blue dots), and smoothed curves fitted to L2 daily averages (red line,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> BG) at <bold>(a)</bold> AMY, <bold>(b)</bold> JGS, and <bold>(c)</bold> ULD.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2154?><p id="d1e1591">The analyzers are calibrated every 2 weeks; all four working standard gases
are sampled using CRDS for 40 min. The first 30 min of each cylinder run is rejected and 10 min is used for the calibration of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to ensure
instrument stabilization. Four standards are adequate to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
as indicated by mean residuals of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.0003</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.026</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm from a linear
function fitted to the measurements of standards. Calibration connects
analyzer response to the WMO-X2007 scale and also tracks drift in the
analyzer. The drift of CRDS over 2 weeks is negligible, indicating that the
mean values were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.006</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at AMY, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
at JGS, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.019</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at ULD respectively. Therefore the
calibrations are applied as a stepwise change fortnightly.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
      <p id="d1e1662">When we started monitoring atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with a NDIR at AMY, it was
calibrated every 2 h with 4-point calibration tanks against the KRISS scale
from February 1999 to December 2011. During this period, we used the cylinders which
were certified by KRISS directly without working standards. KRISS and WMO
scales agreed well in CCQM-P41 organized by the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures (BIPM)
(<uri>https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/QM/P41/CCQM-P41_part1.pdf</uri>, last access: 11 February 2019).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <title>Data quality control process</title>
      <p id="d1e1685">All data are monitored, collected, and stored at the Environmental
Meteorological Research Division (EMRD), National Institute of Meteorological
Sciences (NIMS) in Jeju, South Korea. Raw data based on 5 s intervals are
processed two ways: (1) auto-flagging and (2) manual flagging. Auto-flagging
identifies instrument malfunction and the instrument detection limit of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Auto-flags are assigned when our algorithm detects deviations
from prescribed ranges for analyzer engineering data.</p>
      <p id="d1e1699">Acceptable values for the parameters related to instrument function are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%) &lt; 0.02; 139.95 &lt; cavity pressure (Torr)
&lt; 140.05; and 44.99 &lt; cavity temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
&lt; 45.01. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.02 % indicates periods when the
drying system had problems or a leak in the gas line occurred, while the
ranges of cavity pressure and temperature were suggested by the manufacturer.
The instrument measurement range is based on the calibration range, from 360 to
460 ppm at 30–40 ppm intervals. Therefore flags are assigned when
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is outside this range.</p>
      <p id="d1e1748">Manual flags are assigned by technicians at each station according to the
logbook based on inlet filter exchange, diaphragm pump error, low flow
rate, dehumidification system error, calibration periods, experimental
periods such as participation in comparison experiments, observatory
environmental issues such as construction next to a station, extreme weather,
or other issues related to the instrument. These codes refer to definitions
by the World Data Centre for reactive gases and aerosols maintained by EBAS
for the GAW Programme (<uri>http://www.nilu.no/projects/ccc/flags/flags.html</uri>, last access: 1 July 2017) and
were modified for the South Korean network.</p>
      <p id="d1e1754">Data with flags are reviewed by scientists at the EMRD, and valid data are
selected as Level 1 (L1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS3">
  <title>Regional background selection method</title>
      <p id="d1e1763">L1 data include local and long-range-transported pollution by human and/or
biotic activities. Therefore, only those data that represent non-polluted
and well-mixed air should be selected for analysis on a regional scale. The
data are selected for background when they meet the following conditions. (1) Hourly
averages are calculated when there are at least 60 30 s
measurements from the NDIR and at least 300 5 s measurements using CRDS, (2) the hourly average of Level 1 has a standard deviation less than
A, (3) and the differences between consecutive hourly averages are less
than B. A and B were determined empirically and are equal. We determined
1.8 ppm for AMY, 1 ppm for JGS, and 0.8 ppm for ULD. This process selects
55 % to 60 % of the data at each station, and they are defined as
Level 2 (L2) hourly data. To calculate daily averages (L2 daily), at least 6 L2
hourly data are required. In this paper, the smoothed curves fitted to L2
daily data are calculated with methods by Thoning et al. (1989) to represent
the regional baseline as reducing noise due to synoptic-scale atmospheric
variability and measurement gaps. Figure 3 shows L1 hourly data, L2 daily
data, and the smoothed curves fitted to L2 daily data.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Measurement uncertainty</title>
      <p id="d1e1779">Variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed at KMA's stations includes contributions
from natural atmospheric variability and variability related to the air
handling and measurement procedures. Natural atmospheric variability is
represented, for example, by the standard deviation of all measurements
contributing to a time average, after the contribution of experimental noise
is accounted for. Here we develop methods to calculate practical realistic
measurement uncertainties. Based on measurements of target cylinders and a
co-located comparison of measurements at AMY, we assume systematic biases are
negligible. According to the previous studies, the total measurement
uncertainty consists of multiple uncertainty components (Andrews et al.,
2014, Verhulst et al., 2017). However, in this paper, we assess the
measurement uncertainty based on the following components:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M114" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scale</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total measurement uncertainty in the reported
dry-air mole fractions, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
uncertainty from the drying system, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is repeatability,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is reproducibility, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scale</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the uncertainty of
propagating the WMO-X<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> scale to working standard gases.</p>
      <?pagebreak page2155?><p id="d1e1947"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed from the differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%) between the ambient airstream through the drying system
and standard gases injected directly, bypassing the drying system. According
to the GAW recommendation, the standard gases should be treated through the
same system to air sample (WMO, 2016). However, our drying efficiency is not
constant, so we injected standard gases directly as a reference value. Here,
we define <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the standard gases as 0.0009 %. This value was
constant and stable during 2012 to 2016. On the other hand, the drying system
efficiency is not constant, so this uncertainty component was time dependent.
Equation (1) was applied to this factor, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">act</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
difference between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in samples and standard gases (0.0009 %).
Hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dilution offsets range from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.09 ppm at AMY,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.07 ppm at JGS, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.08 ppm at ULD during 2012 to
2016. Since positive and negative values are found, we use the following
equation:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M130" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dilution
offsets from Eq. (1), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of hourly mean values. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is tabulated for each station in Table 2.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p id="d1e2178">The uncertainty estimates for measurements of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at each
station from 2012 to 2016. Units are ppm. All terms are in the 68 %
confidence interval.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Uncertainty factors</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AMY</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">JGS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">ULD</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.023</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.009</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.018</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.053</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.046</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.025</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.048</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.056</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.065</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scale</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.088</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.088</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.088</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.116</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.114</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.114</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2353"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is determined from the standard deviations of working standard
measurements, as described in Sect. 2.3.1 and expressed by a pooled
standard deviation:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M144" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msqrt><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of 10 min averages of working
standard measurements, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the number of data during 10 min (based 5 s intervals), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of calibrations during the
period. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied from 0.02 to 0.09 ppm at AMY, 0.02 to 0.07 ppm at
JGS, and 0.01 to 0.05 at ULD. The pooled standard deviations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are shown in Table 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e2487"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the drift occurring between 2-weekly calibration episodes, which
was mentioned in Sect. 2.3.1. We determined it as the differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measured from cylinders with subsequent calibrations over 2
weeks. It ranged from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.1 ppm at AMY, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.09 ppm at JGS, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.11 ppm at ULD. We expressed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the standard deviation of
all drift values during the experimental period using Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>), where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during 2 weeks, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the total number of data. They are tabulated with other uncertainty terms by
site in Table 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e2604">According to the Zhao and Thans (2006) the uncertainty of working standards can
be calculated by the propagation error arising from the uncertainty of
primaries with maximum propagation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
repeatability. Similarly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scale</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for working standards is determined by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M163" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">scale</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lab</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lab</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the uncertainty of laboratory standards, which CCL
(NOAA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>ESRL) certified. Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">lab</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has the same value as the uncertainty
of secondaries, 0.070 ppm, in the 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> absolute scale. These values are
the same for all stations since they are calibrated by a central lab in AMY.
Therefore <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the repeatability at AMY since we propagate the
standard scale through the same analyzer and setup for the atmospheric
monitoring.</p>
      <p id="d1e2711">In the future, quoted uncertainties could be greater due to the inclusion of more
error sources. Repeatability and reproducibility may become more precise
with improvements in technologies and methods.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{{$\protect\chem{CO_{2}}$} data from 2012 to 2016 at KMA's three monitoring stations}?><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data from 2012 to 2016 at KMA's three monitoring stations</title>
      <p id="d1e2731">The L1 hourly data, L2 daily data, and smoothed curves fitted to L2 daily data
are shown in Fig. 3. Episodes of elevated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were often observed at
AMY, with a mean difference between maximum and minimum L1 hourly values in a
year of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">102.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm; for the other sites, maximum
minus minimum values were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">62.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at JGS and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">55.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm in ULD. The enhancement relative to the
local background mole fraction helps evaluate local additions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with the excess signal defined as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M175" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BG</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is L1 hourly data and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">BG</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates regional
background at the site, determined from the smoothed curve fitted to L2
daily data (Sect. 2.3.3). When we roughly analyzed the footprints for
hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at three stations, the potential source region was
considered not only to be the Korean Peninsula but also northeastern China
(KMA, 2014). This happens due to the synoptic system in which the developing low
pressure over the source regions causes the pollution to uplift into the free
troposphere and makes it descend to the downwind area (Tohjima et al., 2010, 2014; Lee et al., 2016).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2882">Bivariate polar plots for observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L1) in winter (<bold>a</bold>),
spring (<bold>b</bold>), summer (<bold>c</bold>), and autumn (<bold>d</bold>) at AMY in 2016</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2156?><p id="d1e2914">Monthly mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at AMY was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at JGS and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at ULD during 2012 to 2016. As
described in Sect. 2.1, since there are a lot of local activities around
AMY, the mean value is larger than at other stations. It was assumed that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is greater in winter compared to other seasons since
photosynthesis is not active and respiration is diminished, while
anthropogenic sources such as residential sectors would dominate. However,
all three stations showed the highest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in summer (JJA); it was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at AMY, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at JGS, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
at ULD. Meanwhile the smallest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was during spring (MAM) at AMY
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm and during winter (DJF) at JGS and ULD with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm, respectively. Even though the
selected data, which agree with the conditions given in Sect. 2.3.3, accounted for
55 % to 60 % of total data, the percentages are different according to
the seasons. For example, during summer they decreased to 46 % at AMY,
43 % at JGS, and 34 % at ULD; meanwhile they account for 61 %–75 %
at all stations during winter. This means that since the Korean Peninsula is
affected by the Siberian high from winter to spring with a strong westerly wind,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured in well-mixed air relative to summer. Also, the
wind speed decreased and diurnal variation increased during summer, so
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OBS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> might reflect local/regional sources and sink more than other
seasons. We also discuss this issue in Sect. 3.3 and 3.4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Local/regional effects on observed {$\protect\chem{CO_{2}}$}}?><title>Local/regional effects on observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d1e3128">To understand the influence of local surface wind on observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
bivariate polar plots were used. These plots are expressed by dependence of
all hourly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fractions (L1 data) on wind direction and speed
in 2016 (Figs. 4–6). The wind data are derived from the AWS which was described
in Sect. 2.1.</p>
      <p id="d1e3153">At AMY, lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from autumn to winter occurred when winds mainly
come from 315 to 360<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. In spring, lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
started to include winds from 180 to 225<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and the
dominant wind direction shifted to the south (180 to
225<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in summer, indicating that lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is linked to
air masses from the sea (Yellow Sea). However, when wind speed is less than 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" 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>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is elevated in all seasons and even in the
Yellow Sea. Especially in summer, this condition (wind speed &lt; 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> accounts for 80 % of total
data, which might enhance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">XS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as indicated in Sect. 3.2. This also suggests that the high
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be observed in the air mass transported from not only from mainland South Korea but also from west regions from western parts of the Yellow Sea.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3282">Bivariate polar plots for observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L1) in winter (<bold>a</bold>),
spring (<bold>b</bold>), summer (<bold>c</bold>), and autumn (<bold>d</bold>) at JGS in 2016.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3315">JGS observed the strongest winds among the three stations for all seasons,
with wind speed &gt; 7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" 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> occurring almost 36 %
of the time and a maximum speed of up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" 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>. Lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed with winds from 315 to
340<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Yellow Sea) and 120 to 160<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (East China
Sea), with wind speed &gt; 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" 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> regardless of
seasons. In contrast, JGS is contaminated with local <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions
when wind comes from 45 to 135<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with wind speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" 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>. Since the National Geopark is east of the station,
JGS could be affected by tourist activities such as transportation. The
station is surrounded by farmlands, so it also could be affected by
farming activities such as burning trash and fields. High <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
also observed even with strong wind, especially on the side of the Yellow Sea.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3450">Bivariate polar plots for observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (L1) in winter (<bold>a</bold>),
spring (<bold>b</bold>), summer (<bold>c</bold>), and autumn (<bold>d</bold>) at ULD in 2016.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2158?><p id="d1e3482">For ULD, the main wind directions are quite clearly from 0 to
90<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (30 %) and from 180 to 270<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (33 %),
and wind speed less than 5 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" 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> occurs 72 % of the time.
Normally lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is monitored regardless of wind direction and wind
speed. High <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> episodes were mainly observed when the wind sector
was between 180 to 225<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, presumably affected by the
industry complex located in the southeast of the Korean Peninsula and the
brickyard 200 m from the station. This wind direction is very dominant in
summer with lower wind speed than other seasons.</p>
      <p id="d1e3547">Overall, both stations on the west side of South Korea, AMY and JGS, might be more
affected by continental air mass, so their observations contain information
about its sources and sinks, while they are also affected by local
activities. Our eastern station, ULD, reflects lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than other
two stations with limited local activities. And it was also suggested that
data from regional GAW stations have complex information, so it is necessary
to develop a selection method for baseline conditions to better understand
regional characteristics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Average diurnal variation</title>
      <p id="d1e3567">Diurnal <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations, calculated as the average departure from the
daily mean, in April, August, November, and January, are used to represent the
average diurnal variations in spring, summer, autumn, and winter over 5 years
in Fig. 7. The standard deviations of the hourly means are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm in AMY, JGS, and ULD in
January, April, and November, but increased in August to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <?xmltex \hack{\mbox\bgroup}?><inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm<?xmltex \hack{\egroup}?> at AMY, JGS, and ULD,
respectively.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e3647">Mean diurnal variations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fraction. Values show
the average departure from the daily mean in January, April, August, and
November at <bold>(a)</bold> AMY, <bold>(b)</bold> JGS, and <bold>(c)</bold> ULD from 2012 to 2016.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3676">Prior studies described that diurnal variations can be influenced by the atmospheric rectifier effect
that is derived from the covariance between terrestrial ecosystem
metabolism, such as the intensity of photosynthesis and density of
vegetation, and vertical atmospheric transport (Denning et al, 1999; Chan et
al., 2008). Generally, rapid growth of turbulence at the surface after
sunrise results in a high boundary layer and leads to decreased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
measured at the station during daytime, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> accumulates in a
stable nocturnal boundary layer created by a temperature inversion due to
surface radiative cooling during the night (Higuchi et al., 2003). Also, the
diurnal cycle in summer is the result of a combination of several factors,
including active photosynthesis.</p>
      <p id="d1e3701">AMY and JGS showed those typical characteristics during all seasons, even
though the differences between minimum and maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
significantly varied by month. However, ULD only showed this trend in summer, while very steady values were shown for other seasons throughout the day.</p>
      <p id="d1e3716">At AMY, the differences between maximum and minimum values were 13.5 and
6.9 ppm in August and November, respectively, while these values were around
3 ppm in other seasons. This trend is very typical, as mentioned above. For
JGS, these values were observed in the order of 9.6 &gt; 3.3 &gt;2.8 &gt; 0.88 ppm in August, April, November, and
January, respectively. During summer, both AMY and JGS show an afternoon
plateau in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from around mid-afternoon due to the combination of
changes in the photosynthetic rate and increased boundary layer before
sunset. In the evening <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases again when respiration dominates
and the boundary layer becomes neutral or stable. Those two stations also
show the clear wind pattern such as land–sea breeze which might enhance the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> diurnal cycle in summer. In contrast, at ULD, an average diurnal
cycle was only obvious in August (peak to peak value of 3.9 ppm), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased monotonically during the afternoon. In other seasons,
diurnal variations were 0.5–1 ppm.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3766">Annual mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fractions with standard deviations from
2012 to 2016, mean seasonal amplitudes, and mean growth rates. Seasonal amplitudes
are calculated from the detrended data. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at ULD in 2012 was only calculated from February to December, without January. Units are dry-air
mole fractions (ppm).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Year</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WLG</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">AMY</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">JGS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">ULD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">RYO</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">394.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">402.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">399.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">398.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">397.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">397.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">402.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">401.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2014</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">398.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">407.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">403.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">401.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">401.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2015</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">401.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">410.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">407.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">405.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">404.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2016</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">404.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">412.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">410.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">409.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">407.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean seasonal amplitude over 5 years</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Maximum</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Minimum</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean annual growth rate over 5 years (ppm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" 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>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4508">For ULD the wind has no diurnal pattern different from the other two
stations; however, wind comes from certain sectors regardless of time, which we mentioned in
Sects. 2.1 and 3.3.<?pagebreak page2159?> ULD, at 221 m, is higher than AMY and JGS, so it
is less affected by local activities. Those geographical characteristics
lead to steady values at ULD except for summer when the photosynthesis is most active.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Seasonal cycle and growth rates in East Asia</title>
      <p id="d1e4518">Seasonal variations from KMA's three stations and two other stations, WLG and
RYO, in East Asia, are compared in Fig. 8. WLG flask-air data from
NOAA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>ESRL<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>GMD and quasi-continuous measurements at RYO by the Japan
Meteorological Agency, which were downloaded from the World Data Centre for
Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG), were fitted with smoothed curves and compared to
KMA observations. It is known that the seasonal cycle of atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at surface observation stations in the Northern Hemisphere is
driven primarily by net ecosystem production fluxes from terrestrial
ecosystems (Tucker et al., 1986; Fung et al., 1987; Keeling et al., 1989).
The averaged seasonal amplitude from 2012 to 2016 was smallest at WLG with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm and largest at AMY with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm. For JGS
and RYO, peak to peak amplitudes were similar at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm, whereas the peak to peak amplitude was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at ULD (Table 3).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4609">The time series of <bold>(a)</bold> the monthly mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> the
annual growth rate at WLG, AMY, JGS, ULD, and RYO. Annual growth rate was
defined as the increase in the annual mean of de-seasonal (long-term trend)
values from the corresponding value in the previous year. The growth rate
reported by WMO is overlaid on <bold>(b)</bold> and this value is annual increase (not
de-seasonal), absolute differences from the previous year.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4638">Normally, maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> appears from 4.8 ppm at JGS to 5.8 ppm at AMY
in April, while the minimum appears in August between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at WLG and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
at AMY according to the station. The highest maximum and lowest minimum mean
value appeared at AMY, indicating that even though AMY is located at a similar
latitude to these other stations, it seems to capture photosynthetic uptake
and respiration release of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by terrestrial ecosystems more than
others. Also atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at AMY includes added anthropogenic
emissions transported through the Yellow Sea from the Asian continent as
explained in Sects. 3.2 and 3.3. Meanwhile WLG is hardly affected by
vegetation due to its altitude (Table 1).</p>
      <p id="d1e4694">The annual growth rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which was computed by the
increase in annual means of de-seasonal trends from one year to the next at
KMA sites, was quite similar to other East Asian stations and to the global
growth rate from WMO (Fig. 8b). From 2012 to 2016, the average annual
increase observed at all stations in East Asia was between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" 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 mean value is similar to the global increase
of 2.21 ppm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" 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> from 2007 to 2016 reported by WMO. (This value is determined by
the absolute differences from previous year.) The large increase in 2016 and
2015 was due to increased natural emissions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> related to the
most recent El Niño event (Betts et al., 2016). Averaged annual
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was highest at AMY and lowest at WLG among East Asian stations
listed in Table 3, which shows that their differences are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm. The low growth rate in 2014 at ULD might be caused by unusually low
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in July–August 2014, resulting in no significant annual
differences between 2013 and 2014, although the reasons are still unclear.
Further studies are necessary to fully understand these results.</p>
      <p id="d1e4803">Since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a long-lived atmospheric species, the growth rate should
be similar between the stations in the same region, even if they are subject
to different combinations of anthropogenic and biogenic fluxes. However, our
long-term trend comparison showed that measurement and environmental changes
also affected its growth rate.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4819"><bold>(a)</bold> Long-term trend of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and its
<bold>(b)</bold> instantaneous growth rate at WLG, AMY, and RYO. Overlaid grey line indicated
the period of the negative (in 2004 and 2006) and positive (in 2012) growth
rates at AMY compared to the other two East Asian stations (WLG and RYO).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/2149/2019/acp-19-2149-2019-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4844">The long-term trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fractions at AMY, WLG, and RYO from
2002 to 2016, which were extracted using the method of Thoning et al. (1989),
are shown in Fig. 9. The trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at WLG and RYO increased in
parallel, whereas AMY increased with a similar slope but with larger
fluctuations than the other stations. Especially the negative growth rate,
which was only observed at northern high latitudes in 1992 due to the Mount
Pinatubo eruption, was recorded in 2004 and 2006 at AMY, while a high growth
rate was recorded in 2012 without the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Stenchikov et al., 2002;
Heimann and Reichetein, 2008; WDCGG, 2017).</p>
      <?pagebreak page2160?><p id="d1e4869">In July 2004, the inlet height at AMY was changed from 20 to 40 m above
ground (Table 1); observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fractions before moving the inlet
height reflected more influence from local activities that affected the
long-term trend (Song et al., 2005). According to the logbook, in 2005 AMY
was under construction to expand the space with a new building, and the
instrument showed strong and highly localized signals during the period.</p>
      <p id="d1e4883">The measurement system, such as the instruments, the drying systems, and the standard
scale, was changed in 2012, as described in Sects. 2.2 and 2.3.1. It was proved
that CRDS provides higher precision measurements than the NDIR, and there were
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> offsets in a comparison between the two instruments (Chen et al.,
2010; Zellweger et al., 2016). Maintaining the traceability of standard gas to the primary
standard with the same scale under the GAW Programme would be more of an incentive to
assure the long-term consistency (WMO, 2017). This result suggests that
factors not only related to local sources and sinks, but that environmental
changes around stations and level of technical skill are also very important
for the monitoring of regional background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the long term. On the other
hand, ongoing comparisons of measurements at co-located sites and for the
same species, such as between discrete samples and continuous<?pagebreak page2161?> measurement
(Masarie et al., 2001), are valuable means to maintain data quality and
identify sampling issues rapidly. After 2012, long-term trends increased in
parallel, with AMY <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm greater than RYO, and RYO <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm greater than WLG.
<?xmltex \hack{\vspace{-3mm}}?></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4940">Now many scientists are on the way to determining regional and national emissions
through top-down methods using in situ data, so the importance of high-density
monitoring stations such as WMO GAW regional stations is increasing since
their data include a lot of information about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fluxes. In this
regard, it remains a challenge for WMO GAW stations to provide high-quality
data to better constrain emissions and sinks. In this paper we introduced the
three KMA stations and measurement systems for high-quality data, and we
analyzed observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> characteristics with comparisons to other East
Asian stations.</p>
      <p id="d1e4965">KMA instrumented three monitoring stations covering the Korean Peninsula in
2012 using CRDS and a new drying system at each station. The drying system
showed 0.001 % to 0.004 % water vapor in CRDS when sampling ambient air,
while it was 0.0009 % in laboratory cylinders; these values satisfy the GAW
recommendation of 0.0039 % (WMO, 2016). It also suggests the possibility
of the monitoring of atmospheric species in humid areas with easy maintenance and remote
control of the system.</p>
      <p id="d1e4968">From 2012 to 2016, our measurement uncertainties, which include components
of the drying system, measurement repeatability, reproducibility, and scale
propagation, are quite similar, with 0.116, 0.114, and 0.114 ppm at
AMY, JGS, and ULD, respectively. In the future these uncertainties may
increase as other components of uncertainty, and their variations over time,
are added.</p>
      <p id="d1e4971">We assessed the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> enhancement relative to local background level at
each station; this was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at AMY, while it was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm
at JGS and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ppm at ULD during 2012 to 2016. This indicates
that AMY has higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> episodes compared to the other stations. The
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mole fractions observed at AMY and at JGS in the west part of
South Korea are more sensitive to East Asia (e.g., China) according to wind
direction and speed. Meanwhile they also reflect locally contaminated
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under stagnant conditions. At JGS, however, local
anthropogenic emissions were very limited due to high wind speed, and observed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> levels are lower compared to AMY. The diurnal variations at these
two stations indicate they reflect the impacts of local vegetation and the
degree and speed of atmospheric mixing. At ULD, east of the South Korean mainland,
well-mixed air masses with small diurnal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were
observed, as well as similar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> levels regardless of wind direction and speed due to
its location.</p>
      <p id="d1e5089">The seasonal variation at AMY is large compared to the other stations in East
Asia, indicating that it could be affected not only by vegetation but also
by anthropogenic emissions transported from the Asian continent, such as from China.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed at three KMA stations is higher than at WLG and similar
to RYO as expected by their locations, while growth rate is shown to be very
similar to RYO and WLG during 2012 to 2016.</p>
      <p id="d1e5103">When AMY was compared to WLG and RYO in East Asia over 15 years, the
long-term trend increased with a similar slope but with larger fluctuations
compared to the other two stations. This seems to reflect not only carbon
sources and sinks but also environment changes at the stations and the level of
sophisticated measurement expertise.</p>
      <p id="d1e5106">Since <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed in KMA includes much information about carbon
fluxes in East Asia, these data are helpful in improving understanding of the
carbon cycle in this region. In addition, to enhance the understanding of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations at South Korean monitoring stations, isotopes measurements
such as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would be very useful (Turnbull et al., 2011).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e5159">Our L2 hourly and daily data of AMY since 1999 and JGS
since 2012, which are used for this paper, can be downloaded from the World
Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG, 2019;
<uri>http://gaw.kishou.go.jp</uri>; last access: 1 February 2019) under the WMO
GAW Programme. ULD data can be accessed through the same website in the near
future.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e5168">HL, SBR, and GWL designed the study. HL is responsible for the
measurement including data management and quality assurances. Data analysis
in this paper was carried out by HL, SBR, and GWL. SOH operated the
measurement system at each station. HL and JSL installed these measurement
systems at each station and developed the new drying system.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e5174">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement">

      <p id="d1e5180">This article is part of
the special issue “The 10th International Carbon Dioxide Conference (ICDC10)
and the 19th WMO/IAEA Meeting on Carbon Dioxide, other Greenhouse Gases and
Related Measurement Techniques (GGMT-2017) (AMT/ACP/BG/CP/ESD inter-journal
SI)”. It is a result of the 19th WMO/IAEA Meeting on Carbon Dioxide, Other
Greenhouse Gases, and Related Measurement Techniques (GGMT-2017), Empa
Dübendorf, Switzerland, 27–31 August 2017.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5186">We would like to thank Edward Dlugokencky (NOAA/ESRL) for his helpful
comments on this paper. We also acknowledge Ryori station in Japan and Waliguan
station in China for their data contributions. Finally we appreciate all
staff and technicians at AMY, JGS, and ULD in the South Korean network. This work was
funded by the Korea Meteorological Administration<?pagebreak page2162?> Research and Development
Program “Research and Development for KMA Weather, Climate, and Earth system
Services – Development of Monitoring and Analysis Techniques for Atmospheric
Composition in Korea” under grant KMA2018-00522.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Rachel Law<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Andrews, A. E., Kofler, J. D., Trudeau, M. E., Williams, J. C., Neff, D. H.,
Masarie, K. A., Chao, D. Y., Kitzis, D. R., Novelli, P. C., Zhao, C. L.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Lang, P. M., Crotwell, M. J., Fischer, M. L., Parker, M.
J., Lee, J. T., Baumann, D. D., Desai, A. R., Stanier, C. O., De Wekker, S.
F. J., Wolfe, D. E., Munger, J. W., and Tans, P. P.: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements from tall towers in the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory's
Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network: instrumentation, uncertainty
analysis, and recommendations for future high-accuracy greenhouse gas
monitoring efforts, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 647–687,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-647-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-647-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Knight, J. R., Keeling, R. F., and Kennedy, J. J.:
El Nino and a record <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rise, Nat. Clim. Change, 6,
806–810, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Canadell, J. G., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R.,
Field, C. B., Buitenhuis, E., Ciais, P., Conway, T. J., Gilett, N. P.,
Houghton, J. T., and Marland, G.: Contributions to accelerating atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency
of natural sinks, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 18866–18870,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0702737104</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Chan, D., Ishizawa, M., Higuchi, K., Maksyutov, S., and Chen, J.: Seasonal
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rectifier effect and large-scale extratropical atmospheric
transport, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D17309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009443" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009443</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chen, H., Winderlich, J., Gerbig, C., Hoefer, A., Rella, C. W., Crosson, E.
R., Van Pelt, A. D., Steinbach, J., Kolle, O., Beck, V., Daube, B. C.,
Gottlieb, E. W., Chow, V. Y., Santoni, G. W., and Wofsy, S. C.: High-accuracy
continuous airborne measurements of greenhouse gases (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) using the
cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) technique, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3,
375–386, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-375-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-3-375-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Crosson, E. R.: A cavity ring-down analyzer for measuring atmospheric levels
of methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, Appl. Phys. B, 92, 403–408,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Denning S., Takahashi, T., and Friedlingstein, P.: Can a strong atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rectifier effect be reconciled with a “reasonable” carbon budget?, Tellus,
51B, 249–253, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Harris, J. M., Chung, Y. S., Tans, P. P., and Fung, I.: The
relationship between the methane seasonal cycle and regional sources and
sinks at Tae-ahn Peninsula, Korea, Atmos. Environ., 27, 2115–2120, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Dolman, A. J., Gerbig, C., Noilhan, J., Sarrat, C., and Miglietta, F.:
Detecting regional variability in sources and sinks of carbon dioxide: a
synthesis, Biogeosciences, 6, 1015–1026,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1015-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-6-1015-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Fung, I. Y., Tucker, C. J., and Prentice, K. C.: Application of advanced very high
resolution radiometer vegetation index to study atmosphere biosphere exchange
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 2999–3015, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Graven, H. D., Guilderson, T. P., and Keeling, R. F.: Observations of
radiocarbon in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at La Jolla, California, USA 1992–2007: Analysis
of the long-term trend, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D02302,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016533" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016533</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Heimann, M. and Reichstein, M.: Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and
climate feddbacks, Nature, 451, 289–292, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Higuchi, K., Worthy, D., Chan, D., and Shashkov, A.: Regional source/sink impact
on the diurnal, seasonal and inter-annual variations in atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at a boreal forest site in Canada, Tellus B, 55, 115–125, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>JCGM: International vocabulary of metrology-Basic and general
concepts and associated terms (VIM, 3rd edition, 2008 version with minor
corrections), available at:
<uri>https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf</uri> (last access: 1 December 2018),
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Carter, A. F., Piper, S. C., Whorf, T. P., Heimann,
M., Mook, W. G., and Roeloffzen, H.: A three-dimensional model of atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> transport based on observed winds: 1. Analysis of observational
data in Aspects of Climate Variability in the pacific and the Western
Americas, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 55, edited by: Peterson, D. H., 165–236,
AGU, Washington, DC, USA, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-S., Chung, Y.-S., and Tans, P. P.: A study on carbon dioxide concentrations and
carbon isotopes measured in East Asia during 1991–2001, Air Qual. Atmos.
Hlth., 7, 173–179, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
KMA: Report of Global Atmosphere Watch 2013, Korea Meteorological
Administration, 11-1360000-000991-10, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Knorr, W.: Is the airborne
fraction of anthropogenic <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions increasing?, J. Geophys. Res.,
36, L21710, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL040613</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, G., Oh, H.-R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J., Song, C.-K., Chang, L.-S., Lee, J.-B., and Lee, S.:
Airborne Measurements of High Pollutant Concentration Events in the Free
Troposphere over the West Coast of South Korea between 1997 and 2011,
Aerosol Air Qual. Res, 16, 1118–1130, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Masarie, K. A., Langenfelds, R. L., Allison, C. E., Conway, T. J.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Francey, R. J., Novelli, P. C., Steele, L. P., Tans, P. P., Vaughn,
B., and White, J. W. C.: NOAA/CSIRO, Flask Air Intercomparison Experiment: A
Strategy for Directly Assessing Consistency among Atmospheric Measurements
Made by Independent Laboratories, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
20445–20464, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Rella, C. W., Chen, H., Andrews, A. E., Filges, A., Gerbig, C., Hatakka, J.,
Karion, A., Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Steinbacher, M., Sweeney, C.,
Wastine, B., and Zellweger, C.: High accuracy measurements of dry mole
fractions of carbon dioxide and methane in humid air, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6,
837–860, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-837-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-837-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Song, B., Park, K. J., Yoo, H. J., and Choi, B. C.: A comparative study on two
consecutive years' <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurement from the different
height of air sample inlet at KGAWO, Asia-Pac. J. Atmos.
Sci., 41, 851–895, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Stenchikov, G., Robock, A., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Hamilton, K., and
Ramachandran, S.: Arctic Oscillation response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo
eruption: Effects of volcanic aerosols and ozone depletion, J. Geophys. Res.,
107, 4803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002090" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002090</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2163?><ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Thoning, K. W., Tans, P. P., and Komhyr, W. D.: Atmospheric Carbon dioxide at
Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC Data, 1984–1985, J.
Geophys. Res., 94, 8549–8565, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Tohjima, Y., Mukai, H., Hashimoto, S., and Patra, P. K.: Increasing synoptic
scale variability in atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at Hateruma Island associated with
increasing East-Asian emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 453–462,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-453-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-453-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Tohjima, Y., Kubo, M., Minejima, C., Mukai, H., Tanimoto, H., Ganshin, A.,
Maksyutov, S., Katsumata, K., Machida, T., and Kita, K.: Temporal changes in
the emissions of CH4 and CO from China estimated from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> correlations observed at Hateruma Island, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1663–1677,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1663-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-1663-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Tucker, C. J., Fung, I. Y., Keeling, C. D., and Gammon, R. H.: Relationship between
atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations and a satellite-derived vegetation index,
Nature, 319, 195–199, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Turnbull, J. C., Rayner, P., Miller, J., Newberger, T., Ciais, P., and Cozic,
A.: On the use of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a tracer for fossil fuel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:
Quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, D22302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012308" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD012308</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Turnbull, J. C., Pieter, P. T., Lehman, S. J., Baker, D.,
Conway, T. J., Chung, Y. S., Gregg, J., Miller, J. B., Southon, J. R., and Zhou, L.-X.: Atmospheric observations of carbon monoxide and fossil fuel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions from East Asia, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D24306,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016691" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016691</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Turnbull, J. C., Sweeney, C., Karion, A., Newberger, T., Lehman, S. J., Tans,
P. P., Davis, K. J., Lauvaux, T., Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Cambaliza,
M. O., Shepson, P. B., Gurney, K., Patarasuk, R., and Razlivanoc, I.: Toward
quantification and sources sector identification of fossil fuel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions from an urban area: Results from the INFLUX experiment,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 292–312, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022555" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022555</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Verhulst, K. R., Karion, A., Kim, J., Salameh, P. K., Keeling, R. F., Newman,
S., Miller, J., Sloop, C., Pongetti, T., Rao, P., Wong, C., Hopkins, F. M.,
Yadav, V., Weiss, R. F., Duren, R. M., and Miller, C. E.: Carbon dioxide and
methane measurements from the Los Angeles Megacity Carbon Project – Part 1:
calibration, urban enhancements, and uncertainty estimates, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 17, 8313–8341, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017</ext-link>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Wanninkhof, R., Park, G.-H., Takahashi, T., Sweeney, C., Feely, R., Nojiri,
Y., Gruber, N., Doney, S. C., McKinley, G. A., Lenton, A., Le Quéré, C.,
Heinze, C., Schwinger, J., Graven, H., and Khatiwala, S.: Global ocean carbon
uptake: magnitude, variability and trends, Biogeosciences, 10, 1983–2000,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1983-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-1983-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Watanabe, F., Uchino, O., Joo, Y., Aono, M.,
Higashijima, K., Hitano, Y., Tsuboi, K., and Suda, K.:
Interannual variation of growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration observed at the JMA's three monitoring stations: Large
increase in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1998, J.
Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 78, 673–683, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of methane and carbon dioxide at the
regional GAW station Anmyeon-do Republic of Korea Jun, 14/2, 18 pp., 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of surface ozone, carbon monoxide,
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide at the regional GAW station
Anmyeon-do Republic of Korea Jun, 17/1, 48 pp., 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of surface ozone, carbon monoxide,
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide at the regional GAW station
Jeju-Gosan Republic of Korea Jun, 17/2, 42 pp., 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
WDCGG: WDCGG DATA SUMMARY, Greenhouse gases and other atmospheric gases,
No. 41, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>WDCGG: L2 hourly and daily data of AMY since 1999 and JGS since 2012,
available at: <uri>http://gaw.kishou.go.jp</uri>, last access: 1 February
2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>WMO: 18th WMO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>IAEA Meeting on carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases
and related tracers measurement techniques (GGMT-2015), La Jolla, CA, USA, 13–17 September 2015, No. 229,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
WMO: WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Implementation Plan: 2016–2023,
No. 228, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Zellweger, C., Emmenegger, L., Firdaus, M., Hatakka, J., Heimann, M.,
Kozlova, E., Spain, T. G., Steinbacher, M., van der Schoot, M. V., and
Buchmann, B.: Assessment of recent advances in measurement techniques for
atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9,
4737–4757, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4737-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-4737-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, C. L. and Tans, P. P.: Estimating uncertainty of the WMO mole
fraction scale for carbon dioxide in air, J. Geophys. Res.,
111, D08S09, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006003</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The measurement of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> at KMA GAW regional stations, its characteristics, and comparisons with other East Asian sites</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>To understand the carbon cycle at policy-relevant spatial scales, a high
density of high-quality CO<sub>2</sub> measurement sites is needed. In 2012, the
Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) installed CO<sub>2</sub> monitoring
systems at Anmyeondo (AMY) in the west, Jejudo Gosan Suwolbong (JGS) in the
southwest, and Ulleungdo (ULD) in the east of South Korea. Three stations were instrumented
with identical greenhouse gas measurement systems based on cavity ring-down
spectroscopy (CRDS) and a new drying system developed by KMA and the Korea
Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS). This drying system is
suitable in humid areas; water vapor measured using CRDS in ambient air
was 0.001&thinsp;% to 0.004&thinsp;% across the stations. Measurement uncertainties
expressed by the quadrature sum of the uncertainties from the drying system,
scale propagations, repeatability, and reproducibility were  ∼ 0.11&thinsp;ppm from all KMA stations in the 68&thinsp;% confidence interval. Average monthly
CO<sub>2</sub> enhancements above the local background at each station were 4.3±3.3&thinsp;ppm at AMY, 1.7±1.3&thinsp;ppm at JGS, and 1±1.9&thinsp;ppm
(1<i>σ</i>) at ULD, respectively, during 2012 to 2016. At AMY station,
located between China and South Korea, CO<sub>2</sub> annual means and seasonal
variations are also greater than the other KMA stations, indicating that it is
affected not only by local vegetation, but also added anthropogenic sources.
Selected baseline CO<sub>2</sub> at AMY and at JGS in the west of South Korea is
more sensitive to East Asia (e.g., China) according to wind direction and speed. Through
the comparison of long-term trends and growth rates at AMY with other East
Asian stations over 15 years, it was suggested that they could be affected not only by local vegetation but also by measurement quality.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Andrews, A. E., Kofler, J. D., Trudeau, M. E., Williams, J. C., Neff, D. H.,
Masarie, K. A., Chao, D. Y., Kitzis, D. R., Novelli, P. C., Zhao, C. L.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Lang, P. M., Crotwell, M. J., Fischer, M. L., Parker, M.
J., Lee, J. T., Baumann, D. D., Desai, A. R., Stanier, C. O., De Wekker, S.
F. J., Wolfe, D. E., Munger, J. W., and Tans, P. P.: CO<sub>2</sub>, CO, and
CH<sub>4</sub> measurements from tall towers in the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory's
Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network: instrumentation, uncertainty
analysis, and recommendations for future high-accuracy greenhouse gas
monitoring efforts, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 647–687,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-647-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-647-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Knight, J. R., Keeling, R. F., and Kennedy, J. J.:
El Nino and a record CO<sub>2</sub> rise, Nat. Clim. Change, 6,
806–810, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Canadell, J. G., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R.,
Field, C. B., Buitenhuis, E., Ciais, P., Conway, T. J., Gilett, N. P.,
Houghton, J. T., and Marland, G.: Contributions to accelerating atmospheric
CO<sub>2</sub> growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency
of natural sinks, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 18866–18870,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chan, D., Ishizawa, M., Higuchi, K., Maksyutov, S., and Chen, J.: Seasonal
CO<sub>2</sub> rectifier effect and large-scale extratropical atmospheric
transport, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D17309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009443" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009443</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, H., Winderlich, J., Gerbig, C., Hoefer, A., Rella, C. W., Crosson, E.
R., Van Pelt, A. D., Steinbach, J., Kolle, O., Beck, V., Daube, B. C.,
Gottlieb, E. W., Chow, V. Y., Santoni, G. W., and Wofsy, S. C.: High-accuracy
continuous airborne measurements of greenhouse gases (CO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>4</sub>) using the
cavity ring-down spectroscopy (CRDS) technique, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3,
375–386, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-375-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-3-375-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Crosson, E. R.: A cavity ring-down analyzer for measuring atmospheric levels
of methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, Appl. Phys. B, 92, 403–408,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Denning S., Takahashi, T., and Friedlingstein, P.: Can a strong atmospheric
CO<sub>2</sub> rectifier effect be reconciled with a “reasonable” carbon budget?, Tellus,
51B, 249–253, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Harris, J. M., Chung, Y. S., Tans, P. P., and Fung, I.: The
relationship between the methane seasonal cycle and regional sources and
sinks at Tae-ahn Peninsula, Korea, Atmos. Environ., 27, 2115–2120, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dolman, A. J., Gerbig, C., Noilhan, J., Sarrat, C., and Miglietta, F.:
Detecting regional variability in sources and sinks of carbon dioxide: a
synthesis, Biogeosciences, 6, 1015–1026,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1015-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-1015-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Fung, I. Y., Tucker, C. J., and Prentice, K. C.: Application of advanced very high
resolution radiometer vegetation index to study atmosphere biosphere exchange
of CO<sub>2</sub>, J. Geophys. Res., 92, 2999–3015, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Graven, H. D., Guilderson, T. P., and Keeling, R. F.: Observations of
radiocarbon in CO<sub>2</sub> at La Jolla, California, USA 1992–2007: Analysis
of the long-term trend, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D02302,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016533" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016533</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Heimann, M. and Reichstein, M.: Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and
climate feddbacks, Nature, 451, 289–292, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Higuchi, K., Worthy, D., Chan, D., and Shashkov, A.: Regional source/sink impact
on the diurnal, seasonal and inter-annual variations in atmospheric
CO<sub>2</sub> at a boreal forest site in Canada, Tellus B, 55, 115–125, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
JCGM: International vocabulary of metrology-Basic and general
concepts and associated terms (VIM, 3rd edition, 2008 version with minor
corrections), available at:
<a href="https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf</a> (last access: 1 December 2018),
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Carter, A. F., Piper, S. C., Whorf, T. P., Heimann,
M., Mook, W. G., and Roeloffzen, H.: A three-dimensional model of atmospheric
CO<sub>2</sub> transport based on observed winds: 1. Analysis of observational
data in Aspects of Climate Variability in the pacific and the Western
Americas, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 55, edited by: Peterson, D. H., 165–236,
AGU, Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-S., Chung, Y.-S., and Tans, P. P.: A study on carbon dioxide concentrations and
carbon isotopes measured in East Asia during 1991–2001, Air Qual. Atmos.
Hlth., 7, 173–179, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
KMA: Report of Global Atmosphere Watch 2013, Korea Meteorological
Administration, 11-1360000-000991-10, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Knorr, W.: Is the airborne
fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> emissions increasing?, J. Geophys. Res.,
36, L21710, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040613" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040613</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, G., Oh, H.-R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J., Song, C.-K., Chang, L.-S., Lee, J.-B., and Lee, S.:
Airborne Measurements of High Pollutant Concentration Events in the Free
Troposphere over the West Coast of South Korea between 1997 and 2011,
Aerosol Air Qual. Res, 16, 1118–1130, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Masarie, K. A., Langenfelds, R. L., Allison, C. E., Conway, T. J.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Francey, R. J., Novelli, P. C., Steele, L. P., Tans, P. P., Vaughn,
B., and White, J. W. C.: NOAA/CSIRO, Flask Air Intercomparison Experiment: A
Strategy for Directly Assessing Consistency among Atmospheric Measurements
Made by Independent Laboratories, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
20445–20464, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Rella, C. W., Chen, H., Andrews, A. E., Filges, A., Gerbig, C., Hatakka, J.,
Karion, A., Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Steinbacher, M., Sweeney, C.,
Wastine, B., and Zellweger, C.: High accuracy measurements of dry mole
fractions of carbon dioxide and methane in humid air, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6,
837–860, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-837-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-837-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Song, B., Park, K. J., Yoo, H. J., and Choi, B. C.: A comparative study on two
consecutive years' CO<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>4</sub> measurement from the different
height of air sample inlet at KGAWO, Asia-Pac. J. Atmos.
Sci., 41, 851–895, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Stenchikov, G., Robock, A., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Hamilton, K., and
Ramachandran, S.: Arctic Oscillation response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo
eruption: Effects of volcanic aerosols and ozone depletion, J. Geophys. Res.,
107, 4803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002090" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002090</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Thoning, K. W., Tans, P. P., and Komhyr, W. D.: Atmospheric Carbon dioxide at
Mauna Loa Observatory 2. Analysis of the NOAA GMCC Data, 1984–1985, J.
Geophys. Res., 94, 8549–8565, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Tohjima, Y., Mukai, H., Hashimoto, S., and Patra, P. K.: Increasing synoptic
scale variability in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> at Hateruma Island associated with
increasing East-Asian emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 453–462,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-453-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-453-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Tohjima, Y., Kubo, M., Minejima, C., Mukai, H., Tanimoto, H., Ganshin, A.,
Maksyutov, S., Katsumata, K., Machida, T., and Kita, K.: Temporal changes in
the emissions of CH4 and CO from China estimated from CH<sub>4</sub>∕CO<sub>2</sub> and
CO∕CO<sub>2</sub> correlations observed at Hateruma Island, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1663–1677,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1663-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1663-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Tucker, C. J., Fung, I. Y., Keeling, C. D., and Gammon, R. H.: Relationship between
atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> variations and a satellite-derived vegetation index,
Nature, 319, 195–199, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Turnbull, J. C., Rayner, P., Miller, J., Newberger, T., Ciais, P., and Cozic,
A.: On the use of <sup>14</sup>CO<sub>2</sub> as a tracer for fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub>:
Quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, D22302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012308" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012308</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Turnbull, J. C., Pieter, P. T., Lehman, S. J., Baker, D.,
Conway, T. J., Chung, Y. S., Gregg, J., Miller, J. B., Southon, J. R., and Zhou, L.-X.: Atmospheric observations of carbon monoxide and fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions from East Asia, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D24306,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016691" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016691</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Turnbull, J. C., Sweeney, C., Karion, A., Newberger, T., Lehman, S. J., Tans,
P. P., Davis, K. J., Lauvaux, T., Miles, N. L., Richardson, S. J., Cambaliza,
M. O., Shepson, P. B., Gurney, K., Patarasuk, R., and Razlivanoc, I.: Toward
quantification and sources sector identification of fossil fuel CO<sub>2</sub>
emissions from an urban area: Results from the INFLUX experiment,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 292–312, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022555" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022555</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Verhulst, K. R., Karion, A., Kim, J., Salameh, P. K., Keeling, R. F., Newman,
S., Miller, J., Sloop, C., Pongetti, T., Rao, P., Wong, C., Hopkins, F. M.,
Yadav, V., Weiss, R. F., Duren, R. M., and Miller, C. E.: Carbon dioxide and
methane measurements from the Los Angeles Megacity Carbon Project – Part 1:
calibration, urban enhancements, and uncertainty estimates, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 17, 8313–8341, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017</a>, 2017.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Wanninkhof, R., Park, G.-H., Takahashi, T., Sweeney, C., Feely, R., Nojiri,
Y., Gruber, N., Doney, S. C., McKinley, G. A., Lenton, A., Le Quéré, C.,
Heinze, C., Schwinger, J., Graven, H., and Khatiwala, S.: Global ocean carbon
uptake: magnitude, variability and trends, Biogeosciences, 10, 1983–2000,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1983-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1983-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Watanabe, F., Uchino, O., Joo, Y., Aono, M.,
Higashijima, K., Hitano, Y., Tsuboi, K., and Suda, K.:
Interannual variation of growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration observed at the JMA's three monitoring stations: Large
increase in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1998, J.
Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 78, 673–683, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of methane and carbon dioxide at the
regional GAW station Anmyeon-do Republic of Korea Jun, 14/2, 18 pp., 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of surface ozone, carbon monoxide,
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide at the regional GAW station
Anmyeon-do Republic of Korea Jun, 17/1, 48 pp., 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
WCC-Empa: System and performance audit of surface ozone, carbon monoxide,
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide at the regional GAW station
Jeju-Gosan Republic of Korea Jun, 17/2, 42 pp., 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
WDCGG: WDCGG DATA SUMMARY, Greenhouse gases and other atmospheric gases,
No. 41, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
WDCGG: L2 hourly and daily data of AMY since 1999 and JGS since 2012,
available at: <a href="http://gaw.kishou.go.jp" target="_blank">http://gaw.kishou.go.jp</a>, last access: 1 February
2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
WMO: 18th WMO∕IAEA Meeting on carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases
and related tracers measurement techniques (GGMT-2015), La Jolla, CA, USA, 13–17 September 2015, No. 229,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
WMO: WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Implementation Plan: 2016–2023,
No. 228, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Zellweger, C., Emmenegger, L., Firdaus, M., Hatakka, J., Heimann, M.,
Kozlova, E., Spain, T. G., Steinbacher, M., van der Schoot, M. V., and
Buchmann, B.: Assessment of recent advances in measurement techniques for
atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9,
4737–4757, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4737-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-4737-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, C. L. and Tans, P. P.: Estimating uncertainty of the WMO mole
fraction scale for carbon dioxide in air, J. Geophys. Res.,
111, D08S09, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006003</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
