Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-5-5419-2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/amtd-5-5419-2012
03 Aug 2012
 | 03 Aug 2012
Status: this preprint was under review for the journal AMT but the revision was not accepted.

Resolution of an important discrepancy between remote and in-situ measurements of tropospheric BrO during Antarctic enhancements

H. K. Roscoe, N. Brough, A. E. Jones, F. Wittrock, A. Richter, M. Van Roozendael, and F. Hendrick

Abstract. Tropospheric BrO was measured by a ground-based remote-sensing spectrometer at Halley in Antarctica, and BrO was measured by remote-sensing spectrometers in space using similar spectral regions and Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (DOAS) analyses. Near-surface BrO was simultaneously measured at Halley by Chemical Ionisation Mass Spectrometry (CIMS), and in an earlier year near-surface BrO was measured at Halley over a long path by a DOAS spectrometer. During enhancement episodes, total amounts of tropospheric BrO from the ground-based remote-sensor were similar to those from space, but if we assume that the BrO was confined to the boundary layer they were very much larger than values measured by either near-surface technique. This large apparent discrepancy can be resolved if substantial amounts of BrO were in the free troposphere during most enhancement episodes. Amounts observed by the ground-based remote sensor at different elevation angles, and their formal inversions to vertical profiles, also show that much of the BrO was often in the free troposphere. This is consistent with the ~5 day lifetime of Bry, from the enhanced BrO observed during some Antarctic blizzards, and from aircraft measurements of BrO well above the surface in the Arctic.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
H. K. Roscoe, N. Brough, A. E. Jones, F. Wittrock, A. Richter, M. Van Roozendael, and F. Hendrick
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
H. K. Roscoe, N. Brough, A. E. Jones, F. Wittrock, A. Richter, M. Van Roozendael, and F. Hendrick
H. K. Roscoe, N. Brough, A. E. Jones, F. Wittrock, A. Richter, M. Van Roozendael, and F. Hendrick

Viewed

Total article views: 1,732 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,078 542 112 1,732 108 96
  • HTML: 1,078
  • PDF: 542
  • XML: 112
  • Total: 1,732
  • BibTeX: 108
  • EndNote: 96
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 21 Nov 2024