2018
DOI: 10.5194/amt-2018-238
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is a scaling factor required to obtain closure between measured and modelled atmospheric O<sub>4</sub> absorptions? – A case study for two days during the MADCAT campaign

Abstract: Abstract. In this study the consistency between MAX-DOAS measurements and radiative transfer simulations of the atmospheric O4 absorption is investigated on two mainly clear days during the MAD-CAT campaign in Mainz, Germany, in Summer 2013. In recent years several studies indicated that measurements and radiative transfer simulations of the atmospheric O4 absorption can only be brought into agreement if a so-called scaling factor (

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

3
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(31 reference statements)
3
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This poor performance is related to a general mismatch between modeled and measured dSCDs, as has also been found for other campaigns in the past (see Wagner et al, 2018, and references therein). We thus perform another MAPA retrieval with an O 4 SF of f = 0.8 (Fig.…”
Section: Aerosolssupporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This poor performance is related to a general mismatch between modeled and measured dSCDs, as has also been found for other campaigns in the past (see Wagner et al, 2018, and references therein). We thus perform another MAPA retrieval with an O 4 SF of f = 0.8 (Fig.…”
Section: Aerosolssupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Ortega et al, 2016) do not see a need for a SF. An in-depth discussion of the O 4 SF is provided in Wagner et al (2018).…”
Section: Scaling Of O 4 Dscdsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to estimate temp , we compared the O 4 DSCDs retrieved using absorption cross sections measured at 253 K and 293 K to those retrieved with cross section measured at 273 K. The comparison shows that the O 4 DSCDs are underestimated by 5.1% at the UV band and 2.5% at the VIS band when the effective temperature is 293 K. On the other hand, the O 4 DSCDs 25 are overestimated by 6.9% at the UV band and 3.9% at the VIS band when the effective temperature is 253 K. These systematic errors are almost constant, regardless of the observation geometry. Between 253 and 293 K, the average variation rate of O 4 DSCD at UV band is 0.3% / K. This result is in general agreement with Wagner et al (2018). They found that with the fitting window of 352 -387 nm, O 4 DSCDs retrieved using the cross section at 203 K are reported to be 30% smaller than those retrieved using the cross section at 293 K, i.e.…”
Section: Error Caused By Temperaturesupporting
confidence: 84%
“…As discussed in Section 3.1, O 4 absorption cross section measured at 273 K is used in the DOAS fitting. However, the effective temperature of the MAX-DOAS measurements could be signifi-20 cantly different from 273 K. Previous studies show that O 4 absorption has a strong and systematic dependence on temperature (Thalman and Volkamer, 2013;Wagner et al, 2018).…”
Section: Error Caused By Temperaturementioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation