4.6 Article

UV-visible observations of atmospheric O4 absorptions using direct moonlight and zenith-scattered sunlight for clear-sky and cloudy sky conditions -: art. no. 4424

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
Volume 107, Issue D20, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2001JD001026

Keywords

radiative transport; UV-vis spectroscopy; DOAS; O-4 absorption; oxygen dimer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atmospheric observations of the O-4 absorption bands at 360.5, 380.2, 477.3, 532.2, 577.2 and 630.0 nm are presented for different atmospheric conditions (clear and cloudy skies) and viewing geometries (direct and zenith-scattered light observations). From the observations of direct moonlight it was possible to derive absolute O-4 absorption cross sections for atmospheric conditions. We found that the relative shape of the observed absorption bands is similar to those of the O-4 spectrum measured by Greenblatt et al. [1990] in the laboratory. However, in general (except for the absorption band at 380.2 nm), the O-4 absorption cross sections derived in this study are larger by several percent compared to those of the other (mainly laboratory) observations. Using the observations of zenith-scattered light, we investigated the radiative transport through the atmosphere. Our observations under cloudy sky conditions confirmed that the light path enhancement due to multiple Mie scattering on cloud droplets is independent of wavelength. From the observations under clear-sky conditions we studied the influence of Mie scattering on aerosol. It was not possible to describe the selected clear-sky measurements by taking into account only Rayleigh scattering. We found that the comparison of the O-4 measurements with model results for different sets of assumed aerosol extinctions provides a new, very sensitive tool to derive aerosol parameters from zenith sky ground-based measurements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available