% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Harris:24728,
      author       = {Harris, R. J. and Rex, M. and Knudsen, B. M. and Manney, G.
                      L. and Müller, R. and von der Gathen, P.},
      title        = {{C}omparison of empirically derived ozone loss rates in the
                      {A}rctic vortex},
      journal      = {Journal of geophysical research / Atmospheres},
      volume       = {107},
      issn         = {0022-1406},
      address      = {Washington, DC},
      publisher    = {Union},
      reportid     = {PreJuSER-24728},
      pages        = {D20},
      year         = {2002},
      note         = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
      abstract     = {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 similar to460 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.},
      keywords     = {J (WoSType)},
      cin          = {ICG-I},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB47},
      pnm          = {Chemie und Dynamik der Geo-Biosphäre},
      pid          = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK257},
      shelfmark    = {Meteorology $\&$ Atmospheric Sciences},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000180371300001},
      doi          = {10.1029/2001JD000482},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/24728},
}