Comparison of empirically derived ozone losses in the Arctic vortex : SAGE III-Ozone Loss Validation Experiment and Third European Stratospheric Experiment on Ozone-2000 (SOLVE/THESEO)
Comparison of empirically derived ozone losses in the Arctic vortex : SAGE III-Ozone Loss Validation Experiment and Third European Stratospheric Experiment on Ozone-2000 (SOLVE/THESEO)
复制标题
北极涡旋中凭经验得出的臭氧损失比较：SAGE III-臭氧损失验证实验和第三次欧洲平流层 Ozone-2000 实验 (SOLVE/THESEO)
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Gathen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Harris;M. Rex;F. Goutail;B. Knudsen;G. Manney;R. Müller;P. Gathen
[i]一些研究报告了对北极涡旋臭氧损失的经验估计。他们使用了卫星和现场测量，主要覆盖了1990年代的北极冬季。虽然臭氧损失的模式之间在质量上是一致的，但对公布的数值进行定量比较显示出明显的不同。在这篇文章中，我们更详细地考察了这些分歧。我们选择集中于五项主要技术(Match、SAOZ/REPROBUS)、微波测深仪(MLS)、涡旋平均下降和卤素掩星实验(HALOE)臭氧示踪方法。重新计算了三个冬季(1994/1995年、1995/1996年和1996/1997年)的臭氧损失估计数，以便使用相同的时间周期、海拔范围和北极涡旋的定义。这一重新计算表明，各种估计之间的一致性非常好。例如，对Match和MLS的结果进行表面比较，发现有很大的差异(1995年3月结束于∼460K的空气分别为2.0ppmv±0.3ppmv和0.85ppmv)。然而，这里给出的更精确的比较显示，对于各个MLS周期(0.5±0)，一致性很好。1对0.5ppmv；0.4±0.2对0.3-0.4ppmv；0.16±0.09ppmv对无显著损失)。对1999/2000年得到的柱损失的初步比较也显示出与四种技术的良好一致性，得到105DU(SAOZ/Reprobus)、80DU(来自极地臭氧和气溶胶监测(POAM)/Reprobus的380-700K部分柱)、85±10DU(HALOE臭氧示踪剂)和88±13(400-580部分柱来自Match)。与使用HALOE臭氧示踪剂关系计算的臭氧损失有一些剩余的差异；重要的是确保初始关系真正代表臭氧损失期间之前的涡旋。
[i] A number of studies have reported empirical estimates of ozone loss in the Arctic vortex. They have used satellite and in situ measurements and have principally covered the Arctic winters in the 1990s. While there is qualitative consistency between the patterns of ozone loss, a quantitative comparison of the published values shows apparent disagreements. In this paper we examine these disagreements in more detail. We choose to concentrate on the five main techniques (Match, Systeme d'Analyse par Observation Zenithale (SAOZ)/REPROBUS, Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), vortex average descent, and the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) ozone tracer approach). Estimates of the ozone losses in three winters (1994/1995, 1995/1996 and 1996/1997) are recalculated so that the same time periods, altitude ranges, and definitions of the Arctic vortex are used. This recalculation reveals a remarkably good agreement between the various estimates. For example, a superficial comparison of results from Match and from MLS indicates a big discrepancy (2.0 ± 0.3 and 0.85 ppmv, respectively, for air ending at ∼460 K in March 1995). However, the more precise comparisons presented here reveal good agreement for the individual MLS periods (0.5 ± 0. 1 versus 0.5 ppmv; 0.4 ± 0.2 versus 0.3-0.4 ppmv; and 0.16 ± 0.09 ppmv versus no significant loss). Initial comparisons of the column losses derived for 1999/2000 also show good agreement with four techniques, giving 105 DU (SAOZ/REPROBUS), 80 DU (380-700 K partial column from Polar Ozone and Aerosol Monitoring (POAM)/REPROBUS), 85 ± 10 DU (HALOE ozone tracer), and 88 ± 13 (400-580 partial column from Match). There are some remaining discrepancies with ozone losses calculated using HALOE ozone tracer relations; it is important to ensure that the initial relation is truly representative of the vortex prior to the period of ozone loss.