4.5 Article

A reanalysis of ozone on Mars from assimilation of SPICAM observations

期刊

ICARUS
卷 302, 期 -, 页码 308-318

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.026

关键词

Mars atmosphere; Mars data assimilation; Atmospheres chemistry

资金

  1. UK Space Agency/STFC
  2. UKSA [ST/I003096/1, ST/I003061/1, ST/P001262/1]
  3. STFC [ST/L000776/1]
  4. European Union [UPWARDS-633127]
  5. STFC [ST/L000776/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/L000776/1, 1139870] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. UK Space Agency [ST/I003096/1, ST/R001405/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have assimilated for the first time SPICAM retrievals of total ozone into a Martian global circulation model to provide a global reanalysis of the ozone cycle. Disagreement in total ozone between model prediction and assimilation is observed between 45 degrees S-10 degrees S from L-S = 135-180 degrees and at northern polar (60 degrees N-90 degrees N) latitudes during northern fall (L-S = 150-195 degrees). Large percentage differences in total ozone at northern fall polar latitudes identified through the assimilation process are linked with excessive northward transport of water vapour west of Tharsis and over Arabia Terra. Modelling biases in water vapour can also explain the underestimation of total ozone between 45 degrees S-10 degrees S from L-S = 135-180 degrees. Heterogeneous uptake of odd hydrogen radicals are unable to explain the outstanding underestimation of northern polar total ozone in late northern fall. Assimilation of total ozone retrievals results in alterations of the modelled spatial distribution of ozone in the southern polar winter high altitude ozone layer. This illustrates the potential use of assimilation methods in constraining total ozone where SPICAM cannot observe, in a region where total ozone is especially important for potential investigations of the polar dynamics. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据