<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-19-407-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH</article-title><alt-title>Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{S. Naus et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Naus</surname><given-names>Stijn</given-names></name>
          <email>stijn.naus@wur.nl</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4879-9379</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Montzka</surname><given-names>Stephen A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-0400</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Pandey</surname><given-names>Sudhanshu</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5938-385X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff5">
          <name><surname>Basu</surname><given-names>Sourish</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8605-5894</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Dlugokencky</surname><given-names>Ed J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Krol</surname><given-names>Maarten</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3506-2477</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Meteorology and Air Quality, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Netherlands Institute for Space Research SRON, Utrecht, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Stijn Naus (stijn.naus@wur.nl)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>11</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>19</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>407</fpage><lpage>424</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>2</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>16</day><month>August</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>December</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e153">The hydroxyl radical (OH) is the main atmospheric oxidant and the primary sink of
the greenhouse gas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In an attempt to constrain atmospheric levels
of OH, two recent studies combined a tropospheric two-box model with
hemispheric-mean observations of methyl chloroform (MCF) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
These studies reached different conclusions concerning the most likely
explanation of the renewed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth rate, which reflects the
uncertain and underdetermined nature of the problem. Here, we investigated
how the use of a tropospheric two-box model can affect the derived
constraints on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to simplifying assumptions inherent to a two-box
model. To this end, we derived species- and time-dependent quantities from a
full 3-D transport model to drive two-box model simulations. Furthermore, we
quantified differences between the 3-D simulated tropospheric burden and the
burden seen by the surface measurement network of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Compared to commonly used parameters in
two-box models, we found significant deviations in the magnitude and
time-dependence of the interhemispheric exchange rate, exposure to OH, and
stratospheric loss rate. For MCF these deviations can be large due to changes
in the balance of its sources and sinks over time. We also found that changes
in the yearly averaged tropospheric burden of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCF can be
obtained within 0.96 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
0.14 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> by the NOAA surface network, but that substantial
systematic biases exist in the interhemispheric mixing ratio gradients that
are input to two-box model inversions.</p>
    <p id="d1e233">To investigate the impact of the identified biases on constraints on OH, we
accounted for these biases in a two-box model inversion of MCF and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We found that the sensitivity of interannual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> anomalies
to the biases is modest (1 %–2 %), relative to the uncertainties on
derived OH (3 %–4 %). However, in an inversion where we implemented all
four bias corrections simultaneously, we found a shift to a positive trend in
OH concentrations over the 1994–2015 period, compared to the standard
inversion. Moreover, the absolute magnitude of derived global mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and by extent, that of global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions, was affected much more strongly
by the bias corrections than their anomalies (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). Through our
analysis, we identified and quantified limitations in the two-box model
approach as well as an opportunity for full 3-D simulations to address these
limitations. However, we also found that this derivation is an extensive and
species-dependent exercise and that the biases were not always entirely
resolvable. In future attempts to improve constraints on the atmospheric
oxidative capacity through the use of simple models, a crucial first step is
to consider and account for biases similar to those we have identified for
the two-box model.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e293">For the interpretation of atmospheric observations in the context of, for
example, atmospheric pollution or in that of global warming, atmospheric
models are often used. Atmospheric models vary in complexity from simple one-box models to state-of-the-art 3-D transport models. Different types of
models are suitable for addressing different types of problems to different
degrees of scrutiny. Therefore, there is no model category that fits all
problems. Simple box models<?pagebreak page408?> are easy to set up, computationally cheap, and
transparent. For these and other reasons, their use in atmospheric studies is
ubiquitous and has provided useful insights (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="altparen.1"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="altparen.2"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.3"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="altparen.4"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="altparen.5"/>). However, simple box models also put limitations on
the derived results, as they are by definition less comprehensive than
complex models. For example, box models do not explicitly contain much
information on a species' spatial distribution, which can be important if
interacting quantities (e.g. loss processes) are distributed
non-homogeneously in space. Where exactly these limitations lie and what the
gain is from increasing model complexity can be difficult to diagnose and
depends on the application.</p>
      <p id="d1e311">A problem that has often been approached in box models is that of
constraining the global atmospheric oxidizing capacity, which is largely
determined by the tropospheric hydroxyl radical (OH) concentration
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx31" id="paren.6"/>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is dubbed the detergent of the
atmosphere for its dominant role in the removal of a wide variety of
pollutants, including urban pollutants (CO, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), greenhouse gases
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, HFCs), and HCFCs,
which are greenhouse gases, and also
contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. The budgets of many of these
pollutants have been strongly perturbed since pre-industrial times, and it is
important to understand what consequences this has had in the past, and could
have in the future, for the atmosphere's oxidizing capacity.</p>
      <p id="d1e347">Due to its high reactivity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has a lifetime of seconds, which inhibits
extrapolation of direct measurements. Moreover, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> abundance is the net
result of many different reactions and reaction cycles, and thus modelling it
process-based in full-chemistry models is complex and dependent on uncertain
emission inventories of the many gases involved. Therefore, the most robust
observational constraints on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the larger scales are thought to be
derived indirectly from its effect on tracers: gases that are predominantly
removed by OH. Depending on how well the tracer emissions are known, the time
evolution of the global mixing ratio of such a tracer can serve to constrain
OH. The most well-established tracer for this purpose is methyl chloroform
(MCF; e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="altparen.7"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="altparen.8"/>). In part, this is
because it was identified early on as a tracer with a well-defined production
inventory that allowed emission estimates with small errors, relative to
other gases (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="altparen.9"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="altparen.10"/>). Moreover, production
of MCF was phased out in compliance with the Montreal Protocol, and the
resulting rapid drop in emissions made loss against <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the dominant term in
the MCF budget <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.11"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e398">Research and debate surrounding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19 bib1.bibx20" id="altparen.12"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="altparen.13"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="altparen.14"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="altparen.15"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="altparen.16"/>) has lead to considerable improvements in its
constraints, for example, a likely upper bound on global interannual
variability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of a few percent <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.17"/>. Two recent studies
derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations in a tropospheric two-box model through an inversion of
atmospheric MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.18"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="altparen.19"/>). In such an inversion, a range of parameters is optimized
(most prominently emissions of MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and OH) so that the
modelled mixing ratios best match atmospheric observations of the tracers
involved.</p>
      <p id="d1e474">Both studies found that constraints on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in this set-up were weak enough
that a wide range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration variations over time and, by extent,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emission scenarios were possible as an explanation for the
post-2007 increase in its measured global mole fraction. This is an important
conclusion, because the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth rate, combined with the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lifetime (in turn dominated by MCF-derived OH), is generally
assumed to provide the strongest top-down constraints on global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions and variations therein. We note that in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.20"/> the two
tropospheric boxes were supplemented by a single stratospheric box, making it
technically a three-box model. However, due to our focus on the troposphere,
we hereafter treat this type of model, too, as a two-box model, and where
relevant we discuss the implication of the addition of a stratospheric box.</p>
      <p id="d1e541">There are two important reasons to approach the problem of constraining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
a model of exactly two tropospheric boxes. Firstly, through the focus on
annual timescales and hemispheric spatial scales, the result is only
sensitive to interannual variability in large-scale transport of the modelled
tracers. Moreover, by focusing on interannual variability as opposed to
absolute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or emission levels, remaining systematic offsets are not thought
to significantly affect the outcome.</p>
      <?pagebreak page409?><p id="d1e560">Secondly, a crucial part of the optimization consists of disentangling the
influence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and that of emission variations on observed MCF mixing
ratios. Ideally, MCF emission variations would be prior knowledge. However,
though MCF production is well documented, the emission timing is much more
uncertain <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.21"/>. MCF was mainly used as a solvent in, for
example, paint and degreasers of metals. In these applications, MCF is
released only when used, rather than when produced, which results in
uncertainty in the emission timing. Moreover, due to the continuing decline
of the atmospheric MCF mixing ratios, small, ongoing MCF emissions could
eventually become important. Observation-inferred emissions exceeding
bottom-up emission inventories have been identified both from the US
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.22"/> and from Europe <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.23"/> as well as from other
processes, such as MCF re-release from the ocean <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="paren.24"/>.
Therefore, in the absence of other constraints, emission uncertainties would
limit the use of MCF for deriving interannual variability of OH. However, in
a two-box set-up, an additional constraint is provided by the IH mole
fraction gradient of MCF. Emission inventories show that MCF emissions are
predominantly located in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has a NH to
SH ratio that is uncertain, but the ratio has a likely range of 0.80 to 1.10
(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="altparen.25"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="altparen.26"/>). This means that emission variations
have a strong effect on the IH mole fraction gradient of MCF, whereas the
effect of large-scale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations is much weaker. Thus, the IH gradient is
an important piece of information that can help to disentangle the influence
of emissions from the influence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on MCF growth rate variations. This use
of the IH gradient for constraining global emissions of anthropogenically
emitted gases has also been recognized in previous research
(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="altparen.27"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="altparen.28"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e621">Despite the appealing degree of simplicity offered by the two-box model, its
results still hinge on many simplifying assumptions, both explicit (e.g.
interhemispheric transport) and implicit (e.g. intrahemispheric transport).
In this context, the uncertain outcome of the two recent two-box model
studies puts forward an important question: how do the simplifying assumptions
inherent to the two-box set-up affect the conclusions drawn from it? Or,
conversely, would these conclusions change when moving the analysis to a 3-D
transport model? A recent study <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.29"/> partly explored these
questions. The study investigated how to incorporate information from 3-D
transport models in a two-box model to increase the robustness of two-box
model-derived constraints on OH. They found that there are key parameters in
the two-box model that can be tuned to better represent the 3-D simulation
results and thus ideally better represent atmospheric transport in general.
For example, they found that IH transport rates can be species-dependent.</p>
      <p id="d1e627">Here, we provide a different approach to the issue. In the first part of our
study, we parametrized results from the 3-D global transport and chemistry
model TM5 into a two-box model. Through this parametrization, we explored
difficulties in the translation from the “reality” of a 3-D transport model
to a two-box model and the assumptions made in the process. We focused on
four aspects of the parametrization.</p>
      <p id="d1e630">Firstly, we investigated the tracer-dependent nature of IH transport as
reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.30"/>. Secondly, we analysed the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio.
Previous research has shown that because of tracer-specific source–sink
distributions, different tracers can be exposed to different global mean OH
concentrations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.31"/>. We extended this observation to a
species-dependent IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio. Thirdly, we looked at the stratospheric loss
for MCF specifically. This net loss to the stratosphere might be slowing
after its emissions dropped (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="altparen.32"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="altparen.33"/>).
Fourthly, we used the 3-D simulation to investigate differences between the
burden seen by the surface measurement network of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Global Monitoring Division (NOAA-GMD) and the true
tropospheric and hemispheric burden in our 3-D model, a bias that was also
discussed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.34"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e666">In the second part of this study, we assessed the impact of these four
potential biases on derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations in a two-box inversion set-up that
is very similar to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.35"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.36"/>. The objective
was to provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of biases in a two-box
inversion and to explore if and how these can be accounted for. Though this
study is focused on the problem of OH, it also serves as a case study of
potential pitfalls in two-box models in general, when applied to interpreting
global-scale atmospheric observations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Two-box inversion</title>
      <p id="d1e694">In this section, we discuss the set-up of our two-box model inversion. The
model incorporated two tracers (MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and consisted of two
boxes (the troposphere in the NH and in the SH), which were delineated by the Equator, i.e. it is fixed in time. The stratosphere was implicitly included in the model through
a first-order loss process that was taken to be equal for both hemispheres.
The governing equations for a tracer mixing ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are given in
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e717"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" specific-use="align" content-type="subnumberedsingle"><mml:math id="M42" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">other</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1.1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{9.5mm}}?><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">other</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1.2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><?xmltex \hack{\hspace{9mm}}?><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e942">Thus, within each hemisphere, there were emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), loss to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), loss to the stratosphere (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), loss
to other processes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">other</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; e.g. ocean deposition), and transport
between the hemispheres (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The model
ran at an annual time step. The fundamentals of this model set-up are also
found in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.37"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.38"/>, though the exact treatment
of the different budget terms can differ. For example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.39"/>
combined all tropospheric loss, including loss to the stratosphere, in one
term, whereas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.40"/> included a stratospheric box, so that
stratospheric loss becomes a transport rather than a first-order loss term.
Where relevant, we point out further differences with these previous studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e1050">Since the objective was to leverage observed mixing ratios to infer
information on tropospheric OH, we also set up an inverse estimation
framework, complementary to the above forward model. The objective of the
inversion was to optimize a state <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that the forward model best
reproduced the observations without straying too far from a first best
guess: the prior. Therefore, the state is the vector which contains all
parameters that needed to be optimized. The optimization objective is
analogous to minimizing the cost function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as defined in
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>):</p>
      <?pagebreak page410?><p id="d1e1070"><disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M51" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the prior and observation error covariance
matrices respectively, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the forward model, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
observation vector. In addition, we compute the cost function gradient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>).</p>
      <p id="d1e1233"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M57" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>J</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pri</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the transpose of the forward model, also known as the
adjoint model. Note that because the forward model <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">H</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was
non-linear (e.g. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> chemistry), we used the adjoint of the tangent-linear
forward model. Calculation of the cost function gradient facilitates quicker
convergence of the optimization. For the minimization we used the
Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm. In essence, this statistical
inversion set-up is the same as that used in the 4DVAR system of ECMWF
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.41"/> and TM5-4DVAR <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.42"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1336">For the optimization of MCF emissions, we used an extended version of the
emission model from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="text.43"/>. This emission model was adopted to
account for the varying and uncertain release rates of MCF when used in
different applications (e.g. degreasing agent or paint). This uncertainty
results in a gap between the uncertainty in production, or integrated
emissions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %), and the uncertainty in annual emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.44"><named-content content-type="pre">up to
40 %;</named-content></xref>. Therefore, production was distributed between
four different categories with different release rates: rapid, medium, slow,
and stockpile. In the prior distribution, the bulk of production (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %)
was placed in the rapid category. To account for uncertainty in the
production inventory, we also adopted an additional emission term
superimposed on the production-derived emissions. The emissions in year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
were then given by Eqs. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E5"/>). For each
year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we optimized four parameters for MCF emissions: three parameters
that shifted emissions between the rapid production category and each of the
other three categories (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Medium</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E6"/>) and the additional emissions
term (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Additional</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which had an uncertainty constant through
time. This emission model is similar to that used in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.45"/>,
though ours leaves more freedom with respect to the timing of emissions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1444"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M69" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Additional</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          for the emissions in year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, where

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M71" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            and, in the optimization,

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M72" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Med</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rap</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">prior</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1922">An important choice in the inversion set-up is which parameters to prescribe
and which to optimize. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.46"/> optimized all parameters, so as to
explore the full uncertainty of the optimization within the inversion
framework. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.47"/> only optimized hemispheric MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions and hemispheric OH, while the remaining uncertainties were partly
explored in sensitivity tests. We choose to optimize four end products for
each year: global OH, global MCF emissions, global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions, and
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emission fraction in the NH. Thus we had a closed system, as
we also fitted to four observations: the global mean mixing ratio and the IH
gradient of both MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition to the 4DVAR inversion, we
generated a Monte Carlo ensemble, where in each realization, the prior and the
observations were perturbed, relative to their respective uncertainties.
Then, the new prior was optimized using the new observations. The Monte Carlo
simulation quantified the sensitivity of the optimization to the prior choice
and to the realization of the observations. The Monte Carlo set-up also
allowed us to explore the sensitivity of the inversion to parameters that
were not optimized, such as the fraction of MCF emissions in the NH. This
approach had the added advantage that parameters that were perturbed in the
Monte Carlo simulation, but not optimized in the 4DVAR system, did not need
to have a Gaussian error distribution. Gaussian probability distributions are
normally a prerequisite in a 4DVAR inversion. The specifics of our inversion
set-up are given in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.</p>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1980">The relevant settings we used in the inversion of our two-box model.
The upper section contains the parameters optimized in the inversion, which
were also perturbed in the Monte Carlo ensemble. These parameters have
Gaussian uncertainties, and their mean and 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty are given.
The middle section contains parameters that were perturbed in the Monte
Carlo, but not optimized. The middle parameters have uniform uncertainties,
of which the lower and upper bound are given. The bottom section contains
parameters that were neither optimized nor perturbed. For these parameters,
the left column gives the standard setting, whereas the alternative column
indicates whether we also ran an inversion using a TM5-derived time series
(see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3">Parameters optimized in inversion and perturbed in the Monte Carlo ensemble (Gaussian) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Prior estimate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Uncertainty</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global MCF emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Based on</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">
                    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="text.48"/>
                  </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Medium</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Slow</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Stock</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">– Unreported emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0 Gg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10 Gg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">550 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> molec cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraction NH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">75 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3">Parameters not optimized in inversion, but perturbed in the Monte Carlo ensemble (uniform)  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Lower bound</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Upper bound</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraction NH MCF emissions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">100 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3">Parameters not optimized in inversion and not perturbed in the Monte Carlo ensemble  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Standard</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Alternative</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interhemispheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TM5 derived<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MCF lifetime with respect to</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">83 yr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">oceanic loss</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MCF lifetime with respect to</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">45 yr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TM5 derived<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">stratospheric loss</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lifetime with respect to</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">150 yr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TM5 derived<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">stratospheric loss</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interhemispheric transport</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1 yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">TM5 derived<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1992"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>TM5 set-up and two-box parametrizations</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>3-D model set-up</title>
      <p id="d1e2478">For the 3-D model simulations we used the atmospheric transport model TM5
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.49"/>. The model was operated at a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
horizontal resolution, at 25 vertical hybrid sigma-pressure levels. The
simulation period was 1988–2015, where we treated 1988 and 1989 as spin-up
years. TM5 transport was driven by meteorological fields from the ECMWF
ERA-Interim reanalysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.50"/>. Convection of tracer mass was based
on the entrainment and detrainment rates from the ERA-Interim dataset. This
is an update from the previous convective parametrization used by, for
example, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.51"/>. The new convective scheme results in faster
interhemispheric exchange of tracer mass, more in line with observations
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="paren.52"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page411?><p id="d1e2513">We ran TM5 with three tracers: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, MCF, and SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
we annually repeated the 2009–2010 a priori emission fields used by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="text.53"/>, and we also used the same fields for stratospheric loss
to Cl and O(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>D). For MCF, we used emissions from the
TransCom-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> project <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="paren.54"/>. Since these emissions were
available only up to 2006, we assumed a globally uniform exponential decay of
20 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> afterwards, similar to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="text.55"/>. MCF-specific loss
fields (ocean deposition and stratospheric photolysis) were also taken from
the TransCom-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> project. Details of the MCF loss and emission fields
can be found in the TransCom-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
protocol (<uri>http://transcom.project.asu.edu/pdf/transcom/T4.methane.protocol_v7.pdf</uri>, last access: 1 September 2018). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss
fields we used were a combination of the 3-D fields from
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.56"/> in the troposphere and stratospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as
derived using the 2-D MPIC chemistry model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="paren.57"/>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
fields were scaled by a factor 0.92, as described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.58"/>. For
SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, we used emission fields from the TransCom Age of Air project
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.59"/>, with no loss process implemented.</p>
      <p id="d1e2661">Since the above set-up is simplistic in some aspects (e.g. annually repeating
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions), we also ran a “nudged” simulation. In the nudged
simulation, we scaled the mixing ratios of a tracer up or down in latitudinal
bands, depending on the mismatch of the model with NOAA observations
(analogous to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="altparen.60"/>), with a relaxation time of 30 days. This
method ensured that the model followed the long-term trend in observations
without requiring a full inversion. The nudged simulation provided a test of
the sensitivity of our results to the source–sink distributions we used in
the 3-D simulation.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page412?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Parametrizing 3-D model output to two-box model input</title>
      <p id="d1e2684">Here we outline how we used the TM5 simulations to derive two-box model
parametrizations for stratospheric loss (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and for
interhemispheric exchange (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Firstly, the 3-D fields were divided
into three boxes: the troposphere in the NH and in the SH and the stratosphere. The
border between the hemispheres was taken as the Equator, fixed in time. Where
relevant we discuss the sensitivity of our results to this demarcation. We
defined a dynamical tropopause as the lowest altitude where the vertical
temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) gradient is smaller than 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, clipped at a geopotential
height of 9 and 18 km. Our analysis was found to be insensitive to the exact
definition of the tropopause. Next, we computed an annual budget for each
box. For the two tropospheric boxes, this was done as in
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>). This was supplemented by
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E7"/>) for the stratospheric box.</p>
      <p id="d1e2733"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M115" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Strat</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">local</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Strat</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2794">where emissions, local loss, and mixing ratios per box could be derived from the 3-D
model in- and output, and thus <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">strat</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could be inferred
from these equations. Note that we did not strictly need the stratospheric
budget equation to resolve two parameters, but we used it to resolve
numerical inaccuracies. Resolving the budget of each species in this manner
provided the necessary input of the tropospheric two-box model defined in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/> such that on the hemispheric and annual scale,
identical results were obtained with the 3-D and the two-box models.</p>
      <p id="d1e2821">An additional parameter that we derived from the TM5 simulations was the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio to which each tracer was exposed. We quantified this parameter as
the ratio between hemispheric lifetimes with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>):</p>
      <p id="d1e2852"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M121" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NH</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2904">Note that this ratio might differ from the physical IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio because of correlations between the tracer
distribution, the OH field, and the temperature distribution.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3">
  <title>Model-sampled observations</title>
      <p id="d1e2921">The standard in tracking global trends in atmospheric trace gases are surface
measurement networks. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCF these are most notably the NOAA-GMD
(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="altparen.61"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.62"/>) and the AGAGE <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.63"><named-content content-type="pre">Advanced Global
Atmospheric Gases Experiment;</named-content></xref> networks. By selecting
measurement sites far removed from sources, the theory is that a small number
of sites already puts strong constraints on the global growth rate
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.64"/>. In general, quantification of the robustness of the
derived growth rates based solely on observations can be difficult, since
there are likely systematic biases inherent to sampling a small number of
surface sites. When assimilated into a 3-D transport model, these biases will
largely be resolved (if transport is correctly simulated). However, when the
data are aggregated to two hemispheric averages, as in a two-box model,
quantification of the potential biases is crucial.</p>
      <p id="d1e2949">We explored the resulting bias in our model framework. By subsampling the TM5
output at the locations of NOAA stations, at NOAA measurement instances, we
generated a set of model-sampled observations. These model-sampled
observations were intended to be as representative as possible for the
real-world observations of the NOAA network. To aggregate the station data to
hemispheric averages, we used methods similar to those deployed by NOAA (for
MCF, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.65"/>, with further details on our adaption in Sect. S1 in the Supplement; for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="altparen.66"/>).
Hemispheric averages for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were derived from 27 sites and MCF averages from 12 sites. By
comparison of the resulting products with the calculated tropospheric burden,
as derived from the full tropospheric mixing ratios, we could assess how well
the burden derived from the NOAA network represents the model-simulated
tropospheric burden. The two end products we investigated for each tracer
were the rate of change of the global mean mixing ratio and that of the IH
gradient. Note that by mixing ratio we mean the dry air mole fraction. These
two parameters best reflect the information as it is used in a two-box model;
the global mean mixing ratio is used to constrain the combined effect of OH
and emissions, while the IH gradient is used to distinguish between the two.
Note that in previous box-model studies of MCF, often only global growth
rates were derived <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx31" id="paren.67"/>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Potential biases in the two-box model</title>
      <p id="d1e2990">By concentrating on the budget of MCF, we identified three parameters that
need attention in the two-box model: IH transport, the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio, and loss of MCF to the stratosphere. In addition, we
investigated the potential bias in converting station data to hemispheric
averages (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3"/> and S1). We quantified these biases and
propagated them in two-box model inversions, as discussed in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS2"/>, to quantify their impact on derived quantities
related to OH.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Interhemispheric transport</title>
      <?pagebreak page413?><p id="d1e3011">IH transport of tracer mass can vary because of variations in IH transport of
air mass (e.g. influenced by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, particularly at
Earth's surface; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="altparen.68"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="altparen.69"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx36" id="altparen.70"/>) or because of variations in the source–sink
distribution and thus of the tracer's concentration distribution itself.
Generally, interannual variability in IH transport is considered to be on the
order of 10 % <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="paren.71"/>. Two-box model studies typically assume
time-invariant IH exchange <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.72"/> and/or similar exchange rates
for different tracers <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="paren.73"/>. Here we investigated whether such
assumptions hold for a tracer which undergoes strong source–sink
redistributions over time, such as MCF. The IH transport variations we
derived for each tracer are discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Surface sampling bias</title>
      <p id="d1e3042">As discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3"/>, we explored the bias that
results from representing hemispheric averages using sparse surface
observations. Surface networks are a valuable resource, because they provide
high-quality, long-term measurements of a growing variety of tracers.
However, temporal, horizontal, and vertical coverage of surface networks is
limited. In Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2"/> we discuss how these
limitations can result in biases in two-box model observations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{The interhemispheric {$\protect\chem{OH}$} ratio}?><title>The interhemispheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio</title>
      <p id="d1e3064">The IH ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations is an uncertain parameter. This is
mostly because of a mismatch between results from full-chemistry models
(1.13–1.42; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="altparen.74"/>) and from MCF-derived constraints
(0.80–1.10; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="altparen.75"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="altparen.76"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="altparen.77"/>). The latter is generally the loss ratio considered in
two-box models (1.0 in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="altparen.78"/>, and 0.95–1.20 in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.79"/>) and is similar to the ratio we used in the TM5
simulations (0.98 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="altparen.80"/>). However, the bias we consider
here is of a different nature; it is the difference between the physical IH
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio and the IH loss ratio a particular tracer is exposed to. It
is known that different tracers can be exposed to different oxidative
capacities <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.81"/>. Therefore, different tracers might similarly
be influenced by different IH ratios in OH. We explore this bias in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SSx4" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>MCF loss to the stratosphere</title>
      <p id="d1e3116">The second-most important loss process of MCF is stratospheric photolysis. In
our TM5 set-up, this loss process resulted in an in-stratosphere lifetime
(stratospheric burden divided by stratospheric loss) of 4 to
5 years. It is generally assumed that this in-stratosphere loss translates to
a global lifetime of MCF with respect to the stratosphere (global burden
divided by stratospheric loss) of 40 to
50 years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="altparen.82"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="altparen.83"/>), which corresponds to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of global MCF loss.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.84"/> assumed a time-invariant in-stratosphere lifetime, but
due to the inclusion of a stratospheric box, the global lifetime with respect
to stratospheric loss could vary somewhat due to changes in the
troposphere–stratosphere gradient. These
variations were tuned to result in a global lifetime with respect to
stratospheric loss of 40 (29–63) years. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.85"/> incorporated this
loss process in the OH loss term. Due to the rapid drop in MCF emissions and
the relatively slow nature of troposphere–stratosphere exchange, this
lifetime could vary through time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="altparen.86"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="altparen.87"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="altparen.88"/>). We will investigate this possibility in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS4"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Standard two-box inversion and bias correction</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3161">Hemispheric, annual mean time series of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a)</bold> and MCF <bold>(b)</bold>, as
derived from the NOAA surface sampling network (for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
27 sites were used; for MCF, 12 sites were used). Solid lines denote averages
as derived directly from the NOAA surface sampling network (which are used in
our standard inversion). Dashed lines denote the same time series, but
those that are adjusted by correction factors that were derived from our TM5 simulations.
The correction factors reflect the differences between hemispheric averages
based on model-sampled observations and hemispheric averages derived from
the full TM5 troposphere. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> shows the ratios
between the standard and corrected time series.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3200">To assess the impact of the biases discussed in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS3"/>
on a two-box model inversion, we ran our inversion (see
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>) using different settings. In the standard, default
inversion, we did not consider any of the four biases discussed above. Thus,
we used constant IH exchange (1 year), constant stratospheric loss of MCF
(45 years), and a constant IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio (0.98; see
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>). The first three potential bias corrections
were then straightforwardly implemented by replacing these constant values
with the time series we derived for each parameter from the full 3-D
simulations (details in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>). As mentioned in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>, the inversion did not include uncertainties in
these three parameters. We did this because conventional uncertainties tend
to be large, therefore including them would have attenuated the impact of the
bias corrections, while the corrections were the main interest of this
comparison. For the surface sampling bias, we first computed a correction
between the hemispheric means as derived from the model-sampled observations
and the calculated (TM5) hemispheric, tropospheric means (with demarcation at
the Equator). Then, we applied this correction to the real-world NOAA
hemispheric means we used in the standard inversion. This gave a new set of
observations, which we used in the inversion (discussed in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2"/>). Both the standard and the corrected set
of observations are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>. Through comparison of the
results of the standard inversion and of an inversion with one or more biases
implemented simultaneously, we can evaluate the individual and cumulative
impact of the biases on derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Biases</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1">
  <title>Interhemispheric transport</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e3264">The IH exchange rate for MCF, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, as derived
from a TM5 simulation (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?pagebreak page414?><p id="d1e3295">The IH exchange coefficients, derived for the three different tracers as
described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>, are shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. Clearly, the exchange rates differ between tracers both
in mean value as well as in interannual variability. MCF is the clear
outlier, but SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> also show different variations. The
drivers of these differences are differences in intrahemispheric tracer
distributions and in the underlying source and sink distributions. The three
tracers differ strongly in this respect; SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCF are emitted almost
exclusively in the NH mid-latitudes, whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has significant
emissions in the tropics and in the SH. SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> has no sink implemented in our
simulations, whereas MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have a sink with a distinct tropical
maximum in OH. This all affects how IH transport of air mass translates to IH
transport of tracer mass.</p>
      <p id="d1e3363">Most notable is the minimum in the IH exchange rate for MCF in the 2000–2005
period. The timing of the 1989–2003 decline in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> coincides with the
initial drop in MCF emissions. An important shift in the distribution of the
MCF mixing ratio is that the global minimum shifts from the South Pole to the
tropics. In the same period, there is a strong vertical redistribution which
has also likely impacted IH exchange. It is not obvious that these changes
should result in slower IH exchange, but in the end, in TM5, they do.</p>
      <p id="d1e3377">Another notable feature is the positive trend in the IH exchange rate for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and for SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we used
annually repeating sources, whereas for SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> we included emission
variations (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2"/>). This means that for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
changes in the source–sink distribution did not contribute to the trend or to
the variability. Indeed, in a simulation with annually repeating meteorology,
we found near-zero variability in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Sect. S4). Therefore, there
is something in the combination of the meteorological
data, the treatment of this data in TM5, and the source–sink distribution of
both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> which resulted in a significantly positive trend
in the IH exchange rate of both gases. This trend could either indicate an
acceleration of IH transport of air mass or a shift in the pattern of IH
transport which favours IH exchange of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. It is unclear
from this analysis what the underlying mechanism is exactly, except that it
is driven by temporal variations in transport, thus there are
parameters in the meteorological fields which also show a trend; otherwise
this final product cannot exhibit a trend. However, it might be that the
sensitivity of TM5 transport to these parameters is biased.</p>
      <p id="d1e3575">To test the sensitivity of the derived IH exchange rates to the source–sink
distribution, we compared <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the standard simulation to
the nudged simulation (the nudging procedure is explained in Sect. S2).
IH transport of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as derived from the nudged simulation showed
higher interannual variations than in the standard simulation (more
discussion in Sect. S4), which can be expected, as the source–sink
distribution becomes more variable. However, the general characteristics were
conserved; most notably, the positive trend over the entire period persisted,
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and for SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. For MCF, we find that the general
characteristics of derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are similarly insensitive to nudging,
with the main change being a deeper 2000–2005 minimum in the nudged
simulation. In the end, we deem the anomalies presented in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> to be quite robust with respect to the spatio-temporal
source–sink distribution.</p>
      <p id="d1e3634">When the hemispheric interface is shifted from the Equator to 8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
which is more representative of the average position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), the IH
exchange rate increases for all tracers, but the variability in IH exchange
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> remains largely unaffected (see Sect. S4).
However, for MCF, the variability shifts completely. Rather than decreasing
after the emission drop, the IH exchange rate now increases. This sensitivity
reflects that<?pagebreak page415?> for a tracer with a relatively small IH gradient which
minimizes in the tropics, it becomes difficult to define an IH transport rate
in a two-box model. By extension, care should be taken when interpreting the
IH gradient of MCF in later years, since the influence of IH transport is
difficult to isolate. Sensitivities in the derivation of the IH exchange rate
are discussed in more detail in Sect. S4.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2">
  <title>Surface sampling bias</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3674">The surface sampling bias in the global mixing ratio (MR) <bold>(a)</bold> and in
the IH gradient <bold>(b)</bold> of MCF and of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The bias was quantified as
the ratio between values derived from the NOAA surface sampling network and
values derived from the full (TM5) troposphere. The biases were derived from
27 and 12 sites for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and for MCF, respectively.
Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/> visualizes the impact of correcting for the sampling
bias in real-world NOAA observations.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p id="d1e3715">Mean observational errors as derived from TM5 simulations over the
1994–2015 period. The errors were quantified as the mean difference between
annual means derived from model-sampled observations and annual means derived
from the full tropospheric grid. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainties are given both in
ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and relative to the global mean mixing ratio. Uncertainties for MCF
are only given relative to the global mean because of its strong temporal
decline. </p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{0.86}[0.86]?><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Global</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">IH gradient</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">growth rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">rate of change</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.96 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> / 0.05 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.56 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> / 0.13 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MCF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–  / 0.14 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">– / 0.33 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e3881">Figures <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> show the surface network bias
in the global mean mixing ratios and in the IH gradient. In
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, the bias is quantified as the ratio between values
derived from the model-sampled observations (see
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS3"/>) and values derived from the hemispheric
(TM5) troposphere. A comparison with global mean mixing ratios derived from
real-world NOAA observations is given in Sect. S2.</p>
      <p id="d1e3892">The bias in the IH gradient was particularly large, because averages based on
NOAA surface stations systematically overestimated the tropospheric burden in
the NH and underestimated the burden in the SH. Two important effects
contributed to this bias. Firstly, in the NH, where most emissions were
located, mixing ratios tended to decrease with altitude, while in the SH
vertical gradients were much smaller or even reversed. Secondly, latitudinal
gradients of both MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> tended to be highest in the tropics,
where few or no measurement sites were available. Again, due to high
emissions in the NH, mixing ratios in the NH decreased towards the Equator,
while mixing ratios increased towards the Equator in the SH. Both biases were
of the opposite sign in each hemisphere. Thus, in a global average, these biases
largely cancelled, and only a small overestimate remained (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a). For the IH gradient, however, these biases
added up, which resulted in an overestimate of the IH gradient by surface
stations of up to 20 %–40 % (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b). For
MCF before 1995 and for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> throughout the analysis period, the bias
from the vertical gradient dominated. The shift in the bias for MCF was
driven by a shift in the latitudinal gradient. The IH gradient of MCF got a
minimum in the tropics, and apparently this exacerbated the effect of the lack
of tropical stations, combined with the simple, linear latitudinal
interpolation we adopted for MCF (see Sect. S1).</p>
      <p id="d1e3922">We note that the derived bias in the IH gradient is sensitive to the
demarcation of the two tropospheric boxes. When we shifted the IH interface
from the Equator to 8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, the bias was reduced to 15 % for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and varied between 15 % and 25 % for MCF. The trend in the IH
bias of MCF became smaller but persisted.</p>
      <p id="d1e3945"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.89"/> performed a similar analysis for MCF. They reported a
similar low-to-absent bias in the global mean and a more significant bias in
the IH gradient of MCF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). This is smaller than the bias we
found, even if we demarcated the hemisphere at 8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. However, an
important difference is that in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.90"/>, model-sampled observations
were compared to the surface grid, instead of to the full troposphere. Thus,
their bias estimate did not include vertical effects. When we used the
surface grid as a reference, the IH bias for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was reduced to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, i.e. it reversed. For MCF the bias shift persisted, and the
maximum bias was only slightly reduced to 15 %, indicating a dominant
influence from the latitudinal dimension. We emphasize that for a
tropospheric two-box model, the comparison with the full troposphere is most
relevant.</p>
      <p id="d1e3993">This analysis also provided an estimate of uncertainties in the rate of
change of the global mixing ratio and in that of the IH gradient: the
relevant observational parameters in a two-box inversion.
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/> gives the differences between the quantities
derived from model-sampled observations and from the full troposphere, i.e.
the “true” (TM5) error. We can compare this TM5-derived uncertainty to
uncertainties derived only from observations, which we used in the two-box
inversions. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we used uncertainties as reported by NOAA. These
were obtained by generating an ensemble of surface network realizations,
where in each realization different sites are excluded or double-counted
randomly (bootstrapping). For each realization, aggregated quantities such as
the global mean growth rate can be derived. The spread within the ensemble
then provides a measure for the uncertainty. For MCF no such uncertainties
are reported. Therefore, we developed our own method, which is described in
Sect. S1.</p>
      <p id="d1e4009">Following these methods, we found observation-derived uncertainties in the
global mean growth rate of around 0.60 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
0.6 % yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and for MCF respectively. NOAA does not
report an uncertainty in the IH gradient of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, but error
propagation from hemispheric means gave an uncertainty of
1.1 ppb yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. For MCF, we found a time-dependent uncertainty in the
rate of change of the IH gradient of 1.0 %–1.5 %.</p>
      <p id="d1e4070">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> errors we derived from the TM5 simulation were slightly
higher than the uncertainties reported by NOAA. Furthermore, since we used
annually repeating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions, variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions
can further increase the error. Indeed, the nudged run (see Sect. S2)
resulted in 20 % higher uncertainties. However, it is important to note
that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainties reported by NOAA are intended to<?pagebreak page416?> reflect
the match with the marine boundary layer (MBL), rather than with the full
troposphere. Therefore, it is not surprising that the errors we find are
somewhat higher.</p>
      <p id="d1e4117">For MCF, we adopted observation-derived uncertainties that were significantly
lower than those used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.91"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.92"/>; both
studies reported uncertainties of around 5 % in hemispheric averages. Both
studies used different methods that were grounded on different observational
information. In <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.93"/>, temporal variability dominated the
uncertainty estimate, while in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.94"/> spatial variations were
used. Our method is more similar to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.95"/> but with modifications
that averaged out some of the temporal variability, under the assumption that
variability at different measurement sites was largely uncorrelated (details
in Sect. S1). This shows that observation-derived uncertainties in MCF
averages are uncertain quantities, in large part due to the relatively low
number of available surface sites. Therefore, the uncertainty derived from
TM5 is an especially useful addition for MCF.</p>
      <p id="d1e4136">Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/> shows that TM5-derived uncertainties in MCF
averages are significantly lower than all observation-derived estimates. This
result indicates that even the use of a simple averaging algorithm and a
small number of surface sites, relative to what is available for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
already results in well-constrained hemispheric and global growth rates for
MCF. The TM5-derived estimate thus supports the use of our
observation-derived uncertainty estimates, rather than the higher estimates
used in previous studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Interhemispheric {$\protect\chem{OH}$} ratio}?><title>Interhemispheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio</title>
      <p id="d1e4167">In the TM5 simulations from which the global loss rates were derived, the
prescribed tropospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields were taken from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.96"/>. In
these fields, the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio is 0.98 when the IH interface is considered to
be the Equator. One might expect a similar ratio between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss in the NH
and in the SH, which we quantified through the IH ratio in tracer lifetime
with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E8"/>). We found that this is not
the case (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e4212">The ratio between tracer lifetime with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss in the SH
troposphere and NH troposphere (see Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E8"/>). Additionally,
the IH ratio in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations is shown.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4239">The loss ratio was up to 7 % higher than the physical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio. Moreover,
the ratio was not the same for MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the ratio that
corresponded to MCF showed a trend. The IH asymmetry in temperature in our
model was small, so it did not explain the difference between the IH loss
and the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio. Instead, we found that the systematic positive offset
was largely driven by an IH asymmetry in the spatio-temporal correlations
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and temperature. Mostly, this was because the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> maximum in the NH
was located at lower altitude than in the SH in our 3-D model. Since at low
altitudes, temperatures are higher, and higher temperatures correspond to
higher reaction rates, this asymmetry resulted in relatively high NH loss
rates. As such, the ratio bias was sensitive to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution used in
the 3-D model simulation.</p>
      <p id="d1e4295">The trend in the ratio for MCF was driven by the change in the spatial
distribution of MCF after the emission drop in the mid-1990s. Before the drop,
the IH gradient of MCF was emission-driven and high (25 %). This resulted
in a negative correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> temperature and MCF in the NH, which
drove the initially lower loss ratio. After the<?pagebreak page417?> emission drop, the IH
gradient became largely sink-dominated and dropped to 3 %. The ratio then
became similar, though not identical, to that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which also has
a relatively low IH gradient (5 %). The exact reasons for the IH asymmetry
in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> loss rate were complex; further details are discussed in Sect. S3.</p>
      <p id="d1e4332">The derived IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio was sensitive to the demarcation of the two
tropospheric boxes. When we shifted the position from the Equator to
8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, all IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios were reduced by 10 % to 15 %. However, the
offset between the physical IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio and the actual loss ratio remained
similar, as did the trend in the loss ratio for MCF.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS4">
  <title>Loss to the stratosphere</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e4376">The tropospheric loss rate to the stratosphere, as derived from the TM5 simulations (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2"/>).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f05.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e4387">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> shows the stratospheric loss rate, as derived from
Eqs. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E7"/>). Most notably, the
stratospheric loss rate showed a significant negative trend for MCF,
decreasing by 68 % from 1991 to 1997. The lifetime of MCF with respect to
stratospheric loss, as calculated from TM5, was in 1990 similar to the range
reported in literature: 40 to 50 years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="altparen.97"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="altparen.98"/>).
Afterwards however, the corresponding timescale for stratospheric loss
quickly increases. As loss to the stratosphere is a secondary loss process,
it is generally assumed that variability in MCF loss is driven predominantly
by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.99"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="altparen.100"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.101"/>). Here, we found that this is not necessarily the case. The
decline in loss to the stratosphere was not an artefact resulting from
treating a transport process as a loss process; when taking the exchange
proportional to the troposphere–stratosphere gradient, we still found a
decrease in the exchange rate of 63 %. Previous research has identified
that the tropospheric lifetime with respect to stratospheric loss could be
decreasing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="altparen.102"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="altparen.103"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="altparen.104"/>), but
not to the degree that we found here and not relative to the
troposphere–stratosphere gradient. This is important, because it means that
a three-box model with an explicit stratospheric box, such as in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.105"/>, would also not capture the decline.</p>
      <p id="d1e4433">The explanation we suggest for the increase in MCF lifetime with respect to
stratospheric loss has to do with the nature of troposphere–stratosphere
exchange, which consists of an upward and a downward flux. In practice, as
MCF emissions decreased, the troposphere started to transport air to the
stratosphere which was exposed to lower MCF emissions, while the stratosphere
was still transporting older air back to the troposphere (in the downward
branch of the Brewer–Dobson circulation; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="altparen.106"/>) that was
exposed to higher MCF emissions. Therefore, the delay between the two opposed
fluxes resulted in a reduced net upward flux rate in an atmosphere with
decreasing emissions compared to an atmosphere with increasing or constant
emissions. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found that the stratospheric
loss rate did not decrease in a TM5 simulation with MCF emissions fixed at
1988 levels and that stratospheric loss did decrease, but recovered, when we
fixed emissions at 2005 levels over the entire analysis period (results not
shown). This also implies that the troposphere–stratosphere exchange will
slowly recover when MCF emissions stop decreasing.</p>
      <p id="d1e4439">For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we found a stratospheric lifetime of 160–170 years, similar
to the range reported in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx9" id="text.107"/>. For SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, there was no
loss process implemented in our model. However, storage of SF<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
stratosphere acted as an effective sink to the troposphere, with a lifetime
of 100–160 years.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Two-box inversion results</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4483">The results of two inversions of the two-box model: tropospheric OH
anomalies <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emission anomalies <bold>(b)</bold>. In
the standard inversion, we kept IH transport, NH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio,
and stratospheric loss of MCF constant, and we used NOAA observations. In the
second inversion, we implemented all four bias corrections instead (as
described in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS4"/>). Both the mean anomalies and the
1-standard-deviation envelopes are shown, where
anomalies were taken relative to the time-averaged mean in each respective
ensemble member. Plotted in grey are the anomalies as derived by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.108"/> (from the NOAA dataset) and by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.109"/> (from a
combined NOAA and AGAGE dataset), adjusted so that they, too, average to
zero. The 1-standard-deviation envelope from the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="normal.110"/> estimate is
hatched in grey.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/407/2019/acp-19-407-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4536">In this section, we present a comparison between the results of the standard
inversion and an inversion that incorporated the four bias corrections
(referred to as “four biases”). The inversion set-ups are described in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS4"/>. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emission anomalies of
both inversions are presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>, along with
uncertainty envelopes of 1 standard deviation. The envelopes are wide, and
with respect to these envelopes there were no significant differences between
our two inversions. Interestingly, differences between the two inversions
were the smallest in the 1998–2007 period, during which MCF is thought to
provide the strongest constraint on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.111"/>. Note that the
final analysis period started from 1994 (rather than from 1990), because we
only had sufficient NOAA coverage of MCF available from 1994 onwards.</p>
      <p id="d1e4574">Shown in grey in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> are the anomalies derived by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.112"/> (from the NOAA dataset) and by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.113"/>. The four
inversions showed qualitatively similar time dependencies, and differences
generally fell within 1 standard deviation and always within 2 standard
deviations. Differences with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.114"/> are largest, most notably
after 2010, which can be expected since they use a combined AGAGE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> NOAA
dataset, whereas we only use NOAA data. In <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.115"/> it was shown that
the use of a different dataset can result in different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> anomalies, though
these differences were insignificant with respect to their<?pagebreak page418?> uncertainty
envelopes. Also visible is the uncertainty envelope of 1 standard deviation
from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.116"/>, which is notably larger than our envelopes. This is
likely due to a combination of the higher observational uncertainties and the
higher number of optimized parameters adopted in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.117"/>. Further
discussion of differences with these two studies is provided in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>.</p>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4617">Five metrics that describe the outcome of the two-box inversions.
The two-box inversions listed are the standard set-up, four inversions with
one bias implemented, and one inversion with all biases implemented. From
left to right: (1) mean absolute error (MAE) in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> anomalies between the
standard inversion and each respective inversion, (2) trend in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the
1994–2015 period, (3) mean lifetime of MCF with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (tropospheric
burden MCF divided by total loss to OH), (4) mean total tropospheric lifetime of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(tropospheric burden <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> divided by total loss <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and (5) mean annual
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions (with soil sink).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Implemented bias(es)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAE <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">OH trend</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> MCF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">trop</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(% yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(yr)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(yr)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">None (standard run)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">522</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interhemispheric transport</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">510</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface sampling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">501</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.00</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">546</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MCF stratospheric loss</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">555</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All four</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.18</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">539</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e5031">It is illustrative to further investigate how the identified biases impact
the results. For this purpose, Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/> presents five
metrics for each of the two inversions as well as for inversions where we
implemented the bias corrections one by one (taking standard settings for the
other parameters).</p>
      <p id="d1e5036">The first metric is the mean absolute error (MAE) in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> anomalies between
each respective inversion and the standard inversion. The MAE provides an
estimate of how much the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimate in a given year is affected by
accounting for the bias. The highest MAE of 1.3 % is small compared to the
full envelope of each individual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> inversion (3 %–4 %). This means that in
terms of interannual variability over the entire period, the outcome was not
affected by the biases much. However, as most biases showed their strongest
trends over short periods, the peak values of the differences between
inversions even out somewhat when averaging over the entire period.</p>
      <p id="d1e5063">Secondly, we derived an <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trend for each inversion set-up. As described in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>, we mapped the uncertainty of each inversion
set-up in a Monte Carlo ensemble of inversions. We fitted a linear trend to
the derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> time series of each ensemble member. From the resulting
collection of linear fit coefficients, we derived a mean linear fit
coefficient and its standard deviation. Differences between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends
derived from the different inversions are insignificant. However, it is
interesting to see that when all four biases are combined, we derived a shift
to more positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends. In the standard inversion, 43 % of the ensemble
shows a positive trend, whereas in the four-bias inversion 88 % of the
ensemble shows a positive trend.</p>
      <p id="d1e5100">The final three metrics are the tropospheric lifetime of MCF with respect to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MCF</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as in
Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>), the total tropospheric lifetime of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">other</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as in
Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>), and the derived global mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions,
averaged over the 1994–2015 period. For global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions, we
added the soil sink (32 [26–42] Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="altparen.118"/>), which was not
included in the two-box model set-up. Naturally, these three are strongly
correlated. When we compare the relative differences in, for example, the
lifetime of MCF with respect to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between different inversion set-ups to the
MAE in anomalies, it is clear that the systematic offset between the
different inversions (up to 10 %) was much higher than the differences in
anomalies (up to 1.3 %). This is similar to what was seen for the biases
themselves, where the systematic component tended to be much higher than the
temporal variations (e.g. the bias in the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio, shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>). We discuss this offset in more detail in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <?pagebreak page419?><p id="d1e5272">A first point that deserves discussion is the low global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions (1994–2015) we derived compared to those reported in literature.
Our best estimate corresponds to 539 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/>), which
is significantly lower than the 580–600 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates reported by the
two-box inversions of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.119"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.120"/>. Our estimate
is also on the low end of 3-D modelling studies; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="text.121"/> derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from 30 3-D model inversions and found emissions of
558 [540–570] Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the 2000–2012 period. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.122"/> performed
a full 3-D inversion of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fields that were optimized
against MCF in a separate 3-D model inversion <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.123"/>. In their
study, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">525</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> were found over the
1984–2003 period, so their estimate does not include the renewed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth.</p>
      <p id="d1e5417">We found that several factors contribute to the differences. Firstly, in the
model used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.124"/> the atmospheric mass was taken as the global
atmospheric mass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.15</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg), whereas we used the tropospheric
mass (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">18</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg). When we ran our two-box inversion with the
global atmospheric mass, we also found emissions close to 600 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Secondly, we could close the gap with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.125"/> by adjusting our a
priori two-box model parameters. Specifically, when we adopted an IH exchange
rate and an IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio similar to theirs (1.4 yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and 1.07
respectively) in our standard inversion, we found global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions of 595 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This points to a strong sensitivity of the derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions to these parameters of the two-box model, which in our
case are derived from full 3-D TM5 model simulations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5523">In our standard 3-D simulation, the IH gradient of MCF tended to be
overestimated compared to observations from the NOAA network up to 2005,
while global mean mixing ratios were captured much better. Translated into
our two-box model, an inversion would tend to reduce MCF emissions to
efficiently bring down the IH MCF gradient. To subsequently close the global
MCF budget, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will be reduced, resulting in lower global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
emissions in the two-box model inversion. The lower <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions we
derived in our two-box model inversion are thus in line with the
overestimated MCF latitudinal gradient in TM5. There are several possible
explanations for this overestimate.</p>
      <p id="d1e5556">Firstly, MCF emissions that we used in our 3-D simulation were too high. In
our two-box inversion, we found significantly lower MCF emissions
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–30 %) than the prior estimate based on emission inventories,
with the exception of the 2010–2014 period. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.126"/> also derived
MCF emissions from the IH gradient and found these to be systematically
lower than those based on bottom-up industrial inventories. Secondly, the
NH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>:</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio might be higher than 0.98 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="altparen.127"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="altparen.128"/>) and more in line with higher estimates from atmospheric
chemistry simulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.129"/>. Thirdly, a higher fraction of MCF
emissions could be located in the SH (15 %–20 % instead of 5 %–10 %).
Finally, IH exchange in TM5 could be too slow. A combination of the last two
points would also arise if MCF emissions moved from NH mid-latitudes to NH
low latitudes (e.g. India), since low-latitude emissions will be exchanged
more rapidly with the SH. At this point it is not clear which of these
explanations is most likely.</p>
      <p id="d1e5601">As is acknowledged in the previous two-box inversion studies of OH
(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="altparen.130"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="altparen.131"/>), the problem of deriving <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from MCF
and to a lesser degree from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is strongly under-constrained.
Therefore, many solutions fit the problem almost equally well. Moreover, a
best estimate, or most likely solution, derived from a two-box model is a
function of uncertain input parameters. For example, if it is
assumed a priori that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can only vary within a small band of 2 %, then a most
likely solution with small <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations will be found. In this study, we
have identified a number of parameters which show variations outside of
conventionally assumed bounds. As such, for these parameters, the variations
we find are never fully explored in a conventional two-box model inversion,
even if done as comprehensively as in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.132"/>. A clear example is
stratospheric loss of MCF, which is generally assumed to have only small
variability (10 % to 20 %). Here, we found a persistent 68 % drop in loss
of MCF to the stratosphere. Potentially, this loss rate can recover if MCF
emissions stop decreasing. Similarly, we find variations in transport of MCF
of up to 20 % that persist for multiple years, compared to a conventional
uncertainty in IH exchange of 10 %. In the 1994–1998 period, during a
period of strong redistribution of MCF, the individual impact of each of the
four biases was quite high, though when combined in one inversion the biases
partly cancelled. During the 1998–2007 period, derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was less sensitive
to the derived biases, likely due to a<?pagebreak page420?> combination of a small role of
uncertain emissions in the MCF budget <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.133"/> and a period of
relatively small redistribution of MCF. After this period, as MCF abundance
continued to decline, we saw a growing impact from the IH exchange bias, as
MCF emissions were increasingly constrained from the IH gradient, rather than
from the emission inventory.</p>
      <p id="d1e5660">Another crucial parameter in the two-box inversion is the uncertainty in the
global mean mixing ratios and in the IH gradient, as these uncertainties
quantify the information content of the observational records. We provided an
independent estimate of the uncertainty using 3-D model output in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS2"/>, summarized in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>.
We can compare the uncertainties we find to observational uncertainties as
derived from bootstrapping by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.134"/>. They find uncertainties in
hemispheric means of 6–8 ppb for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and of 5 %–6 % for MCF.
Clearly, this is much higher than what we find, and their uncertainties seem
to be an overestimate considering the limited sensitivity of our result to a
different source–sink distribution. In their most likely solution, derived
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variations were such that the observed post-2007 renewed growth of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> coincides with a decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions. This solution
does not fall within the uncertainty envelope we derived here (right panel in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). The difference in observational uncertainties is
likely an important reason for this; their solution corresponds to a
statistical inversion framework where less weight is given to the
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5714">In the end, conclusions from our study and those drawn by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.135"/>
and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.136"/> remain qualitatively similar. The post-2007 renewed
growth of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> need not be caused by a sudden increase in emissions in
2007. Rather, emissions could have increased more gradually over the
1994–2007 period, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth was suppressed temporarily by
elevated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> levels. The lack of sensitivity of the inversion to the bias
corrections and the large remaining uncertainty envelope in the final
inversion both indicate that there are other parameters that result in
significant uncertainties. Examples are the emission fraction in the NH,
observational uncertainties, and uncertainty in the emission timing of MCF. Thus,
while a first step can be made through the incorporation of 3-D model
information, we confirm the conclusion drawn in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.137"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.138"/> that the current state of the problem is still strongly
underdetermined.</p>
      <p id="d1e5760">In another recent study, an effort was made to find tracer alternatives to
MCF <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.139"/>. For this, their suggested method was to use 3-D model
output to improve the results of a two-box model through intelligent
parametrizations. Clearly, this is similar to the work described here. For
example, similar to us, they found different IH exchange timescales for
different tracers. However, we explicitly resolved the two-box model in the
3-D framework, while their study focused mostly on fitting parameters
empirically to find a match between two-box and 3-D model results.
Additionally, for the parametrization, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.140"/> used hemispheric
mean mixing ratios derived from the surface network, whereas we based mixing
ratios on the full (hemispheric) troposphere in TM5. We identified a trend
and strong, persistent variations in IH transport (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCF) and
in the surface sampling bias (MCF) which were not identified in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="text.141"/>. Additionally, they described a two-box strategy in which
two tracers are used to derive the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio, which can then also be used
for other tracers. Our work suggests that there should be careful
consideration of different IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratios seen by different tracers and
potential trends therein. A two-box inversion is sensitive to the IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio, and we have shown that the effective IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio a tracer is exposed
to depends strongly on that tracer's source–sink distribution. Some of the
differences between their findings and ours may be explained by the
definition of a hemispheric mean mixing ratio (surface-based versus full
troposphere), but further reconciliation of the two approaches in future
research is necessary.</p>
      <?pagebreak page421?><p id="d1e5816">It is worth noting that the TM5 model, on which the two-box parametrization
is based, has its own limitations, and so has treating TM5 as “the truth”.
For example, our simulations were done on the coarse horizontal resolution of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This would have impacted how well NOAA
background sites were actually situated in the background. We checked that
the TM5-derived observational time series were not systematically more
polluted than the real-world NOAA-GMD observations. For this, we detrended
and deseasonalized the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and MCF time series per surface site and
quantified the spread in the residuals. At most sites, we found no offset
between residual spread in the TM5-derived versus the real-world time series.
At a small number of sites, TM5-derived time series showed more spread in
residuals, while at others the spread was less. Therefore, we found no
evidence for systematic biases in TM5-sampled observations. Additionally, any
transport model is susceptible to some form of transport errors, and using a
different 3-D model for the two-box parametrization will likely result in
different parameters. Therefore, we are careful in suggesting quantitative
interpretation of our results. Certain aspects of the biases, such as a
slowdown of MCF loss to the stratosphere and the strong variations in IH
transport of MCF, are likely to also be found in other 3-D transport models,
as they are a direct consequence of the MCF emissions drop. Other aspects,
such as the exact interannual variations of IH transport of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or
the 7 % offset between the physical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio and the effective <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio,
should be interpreted with more care, as these more strongly depend on the
input emission and loss fields and on the exact treatment of transport in
the 3-D model. Additional sensitivity tests done in multiple transport models
can help in identifying sensitivities of the derived bias corrections.
However, our analysis does show a potential for these biases to arise, and TM5
is a good starting point for exploring them, as TM5 has provided a strong
basis for a wide variety of studies in the past (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1" id="altparen.142"/>;
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="altparen.143"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="altparen.144"/>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5893">In this study, we investigated variations in the global atmospheric oxidizing
capacity in conjunction with variations in the global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> budget. We
specifically revisited the use of two-box models to infer information about
these quantities using global observations of MCF and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5918">We identified four two-box model parameters that can benefit from 3-D
model-derived information. Two of these are known and obvious (IH transport
and surface sampling bias), while the other two are less so (stratospheric
loss and IH <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ratio). Two-box model
parameters for these processes that were quantified from full 3-D model
output showed strong temporal trends mainly for MCF, which have not been
identified in any previous research. In general, the biases resulted from a
combination of variations in transport and in the spatio-temporal
source–sink distributions of each tracer.</p>
      <p id="d1e5929">We tested the impact of each of the biases in a two-box model inversion. As
expected, we found that absolute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and thus absolute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions
show large deviations between the different inversions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). Given
that large parts of these deviations were constant through time, they do not
necessarily impact conclusions of past two-box modelling studies that focused
on interannual variations.</p>
      <p id="d1e5961">Compared to the absolute differences, we found only small differences in OH
anomalies (up to 1.3 %, averaged over 1994–2015) relative to the full
uncertainty envelope found here (3 %–4 %) or in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.145"/> (8 %).
This indicates that significant uncertainties in parameters unrelated to the
identified biases remain. As such, we confirm in large part the conclusions
drawn by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.146"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.147"/> regarding the
underdetermined state of the problem. In the end, we did find that the
conclusions one can draw from each individual inversion could be strongly
affected by the bias corrections; in the standard inversion only 43 % of
our Monte Carlo ensemble showed a positive trend in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the 1994–2015
period, compared to 88 % in the four-bias inversion.</p>
      <p id="d1e5982">The identified two-box model biases contribute to the already significant
uncertainty in derived OH, and properly accounting for them can be a piece in
the puzzle of improving constraints on OH. Moving forward, a likely next step
is to incorporate more tracers in an effort to further tighten constraints on
OH. In such a scenario, the tracer-dependent nature of the biases will likely
increase the bias impact, and a proper 3-D model analysis for each tracer
becomes even more important. Already, efforts have been made to do so
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.148"/>, and in this study we provide further suggestions for such
an approach. A distinct advantage in this approach is that information from
multiple 3-D transport models can be used to tune the two-box inversion,
making the inversion outcome less reliant on transport parametrizations of
any single 3-D transport model. Additionally, computational efficiency of
simple models allows for complex statistical inversion frameworks,
incorporating, for example, hierarchical uncertainties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="paren.149"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e5991">On the other hand, the biases are often dependent on the sources and sinks
used in the 3-D model simulation. As such, a feedback loop between the
two-box inversion and the 3-D transport models might be necessary to
correctly derive bias corrections, which makes such an analysis cumbersome.
Additionally, a bias such as that in IH exchange of MCF might be difficult to
resolve at all, because IH exchange of MCF is ill-defined in a two-box model
(see Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1.SSS1"/> and S4). Therefore, we
deem it important that a multi-tracer inversion in a full 3-D model should
also be performed, similar to the 3-D inversion of MCF performed by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="text.150"/> but extended to more recent years. As an added
advantage, a 3-D model inversion would increase the pool of potential tracers
that can be implemented to constrain OH. For example, the short-lived tracer
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been identified as a potential tracer to constrain OH
(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="altparen.151"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="altparen.152"/>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="altparen.153"/>) but would
not be implementable in a two-box model.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e6025">For access
to any of the data presented in this study, but not included in the
supplements, please contact Stijn Naus (stijn.naus@wur.nl). All data are
available on request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e6028">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-407-2019-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-407-2019-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e6037">MK, SN and SM designed the research.
SN wrote the manuscript with major input from MK, and further contributions
from all co-authors. SN performed the two-box simulations. SN and SP
performed the TM5 simulations. MK supervised the research. All authors
discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e6043">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e6049">This work was carried out on the Dutch National e-Infrastructure with the
support of SURF Cooperative. This work was funded through the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), project number
824.15.002.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: Rolf
Müller<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Alexe et al.(2015)Alexe, Bergamaschi, Segers, Detmers, Butz,
Hasekamp, Guerlet, Parker, Boesch, Frankenberg et al.</label><mixed-citation>Alexe, M., Bergamaschi, P., Segers, A., Detmers, R., Butz, A., Hasekamp, O.,
Guerlet, S., Parker, R., Boesch, H., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A.,
Dlugokencky, E., Sweeney, C., Wofsy, S. C., and Kort, E. A.: Inverse
modelling of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions for 2010–2011 using different satellite
retrieval products from GOSAT and SCIAMACHY, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
113–133, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-113-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-113-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{B{\^{a}}nd{\u{a}} et~al.(2015)B{\^{a}}nd{\u{a}}, Krol, Noije, Weele,
Williams, Sager, Niemeier, Thomason, and R{\"{o}}ckmann}}?><label>Bândă et al.(2015)Bândă, Krol, Noije, Weele,
Williams, Sager, Niemeier, Thomason, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>
Bândă, N., Krol, M., Noije, T., Weele, M., Williams, J. E., Sager,
P. L., Niemeier, U., Thomason, L., and Röckmann, T.: The effect of
stratospheric sulfur from Mount Pinatubo on tropospheric oxidizing capacity
and methane, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 1202–1220,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{B{\^{a}}nd{\u{a}} et~al.(2016)B{\^{a}}nd{\u{a}}, Krol, Van~Weele,
Van~Noije, Le~Sager, and R{\"{o}}ckmann}}?><label>Bândă et al.(2016)Bândă, Krol, Van Weele,
Van Noije, Le Sager, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>Bândă, N., Krol, M., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Le Sager, P., and
Röckmann, T.: Can we explain the observed methane variability after the
Mount Pinatubo eruption?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 195–214,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-195-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-195-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bousquet et al.(2005)Bousquet, Hauglustaine, Peylin, Carouge, and
Ciais</label><mixed-citation>Bousquet, P., Hauglustaine, D. A., Peylin, P., Carouge, C., and Ciais, P.:
Two decades of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variability as inferred by an inversion of
atmospheric transport and chemistry of methyl chloroform, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
5, 2635–2656, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2635-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-2635-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Bousquet et al.(2006)Bousquet, Ciais, Miller, Dlugokencky,
Hauglustaine, Prigent, Van der Werf, Peylin, Brunke, Carouge
et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Miller, J., Dlugokencky, E., Hauglustaine, D.,
Prigent, C., Van der Werf, G., Peylin, P., Brunke, E.-G., Carouge, C., Langenfelds, R. L., Lathière, J., Papa, F.,
Ramonet, M., Schmidt, M., Steele, L. P., Tyler, S. C., and White, J.: Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric
methane variability, Nature, 443, 439–443, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Brenninkmeijer et al.(1992)Brenninkmeijer, Manning, Lowe, Wallace,
Sparks, and Volz-Thomas</label><mixed-citation>Brenninkmeijer, C. A., Manning, M. R., Lowe, D. C., Wallace, G., Sparks,
R. J.,
and Volz-Thomas, A.: Interhemispheric asymmetry in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> abundance inferred
from measurements of atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Nature, 356, 50–52, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Br{\"{u}}hl and Crutzen(1993)}}?><label>Brühl and Crutzen(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Brühl, C. and Crutzen, P. J.: MPIC two-dimensional model, NASA Ref.
Publ, Washington D.C., 1292, 103–104, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Butchart(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Butchart, N.: The Brewer-Dobson circulation, Rev. Geophys., 52,
157–184, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Chipperfield and Liang(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Chipperfield, M. P., Liang, Q., Abraham, L., Bekki, S., Braesicke, P.,
Dhomse, S., Di Genova, G., Fleming E. L., Hardiman, S., Iachetti, D.,
Jackman, C. H., Kinnison, D. E., Marchand, M., Pitari, G., Rozanov, E.,
Stenke, A., and Tummon, F. (authors); Burgalat, J., Cugnet, D., Frith, S. M.,
Pascoe, C., and Rigby, M. (contributors): Model estimates of lifetimes, in:
SPARC, 2013: SPARC Report on the Lifetimes of Stratospheric Ozone-Deleting
Substances, Their Replacements, and Related Species, edited by: Reimann, S.,
Ko, M. K. W., Newman, P. A., and Strahan, S. E., chap. 5, WCRP-15/2013, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Dee et al.(2011)Dee, Uppala, Simmons, Berrisford, Poli, Kobayashi,
Andrae, Balmaseda, Balsamo, Bauer et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart,
F.: The
ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Dlugokencky et al.(1994)Dlugokencky, Steele, Lang, and
Masarie</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Steele, L. P., Lang, P. M., and Masarie, K. A.: The
growth
rate and distribution of atmospheric methane, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99,
17021–17043, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Dlugokencky et al.(2009)Dlugokencky, Bruhwiler, White, Emmons,
Novelli, Montzka, Masarie, Lang, Crotwell, Miller et al.</label><mixed-citation>Dlugokencky, E. J., Bruhwiler, L., White, J. W. C., Emmons, L. K., Novelli,
P. C., Montzka, S. A., Masarie, K. A., Lang, P. M., Crotwell, A. M., Miller,
J. B., and Gatti, L. V.: Observational constraints on recent increases in the
atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> burden, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039780" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL039780</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Fisher(1995)</label><mixed-citation>Fisher, M.: Estimating the covariance matrices of analysis and forecast error
in variational data assimilation, ECMWF Tech. Mem., 220, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21957/1dxrasjit" ext-link-type="DOI">10.21957/1dxrasjit</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Francey and Frederiksen(2016)</label><mixed-citation>Francey, R. J. and Frederiksen, J. S.: The 2009–2010 step in atmospheric
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> interhemispheric difference, Biogeosciences, 13, 873–885,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-873-2016, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Huijnen et al.(2010)Huijnen, Williams, Weele, Noije, Krol, Dentener,
Segers, Houweling, Peters, Laat et al.</label><mixed-citation>Huijnen, V., Williams, J., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Krol, M., Dentener,
F., Segers, A., Houweling, S., Peters, W., de Laat, J., Boersma, F.,
Bergamaschi, P., van Velthoven, P., Le Sager, P., Eskes, H., Alkemade, F.,
Scheele, R., Nédélec, P., and Pätz, H.-W.: The global chemistry
transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric chemistry
version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445–473,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Kirschke et al.(2013)Kirschke, Bousquet, Ciais, Saunois, Canadell,
Dlugokencky, Bergamaschi, Bergmann, Blake, Bruhwiler et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Kirschke, S., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Saunois, M., Canadell, J. G.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Bergamaschi, P., Bergmann, D., Blake, D. R., Bruhwiler,
L., et al.: Three decades of global methane sources
and sinks, Nat. Geosci., 6, 813–823, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Krol et al.(2005)Krol, Houweling, Bregman, Broek, Segers, Velthoven,
Peters, Dentener, and Bergamaschi</label><mixed-citation>Krol, M., Houweling, S., Bregman, B., van den Broek, M., Segers, A., van
Velthoven, P., Peters, W., Dentener, F., and Bergamaschi, P.: The two-way
nested global chemistry-transport zoom model TM5: algorithm and applications,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 417–432, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-417-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-417-2005</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Krol et al.(2018)Krol, de Bruine, Killaars, Ouwersloot, Pozzer, Yin,
Chevallier, Bousquet, Patra, Belikov et al.</label><mixed-citation>Krol, M., de Bruine, M., Killaars, L., Ouwersloot, H., Pozzer, A., Yin, Y.,
Chevallier, F., Bousquet, P., Patra, P., Belikov, D., Maksyutov, S., Dhomse,
S., Feng, W., and Chipperfield, M. P.: Age of air as a diagnostic for
transport timescales in global models, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3109–3130,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3109-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-3109-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Krol and Lelieveld(2003)</label><mixed-citation>Krol, M. C. and Lelieveld, J.: Can the variability in tropospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> be
deduced from measurements of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)?,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002423" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002423</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Krol et al.(2003)Krol, Lelieveld, Oram, Sturrock, Penkett,
Brenninkmeijer, Gros, Williams, and Scheeren</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M. C., Lelieveld, J., Oram, D. E., Sturrock, G. A., Penkett, S. A.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Gros, V., Williams, J., and Scheeren, H. A.:
Continuing emissions of methyl chloroform from Europe, Nature, 421,
131–135, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Krol et~al.(2008)Krol, Meirink, Bergamaschi, Mak, Lowe, J{\"{o}}ckel,
Houweling, and R{\"{o}}ckmann}}?><label>Krol et al.(2008)Krol, Meirink, Bergamaschi, Mak, Lowe, Jöckel,
Houweling, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>Krol, M. C., Meirink, J. F., Bergamaschi, P., Mak, J. E., Lowe, D., Jöckel,
P., Houweling, S., and Röckmann, T.: What can <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements
tell us about OH?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 5033–5044,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5033-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-5033-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Laan-Luijkx et al.(2015)Laan-Luijkx, Velde, Krol, Gatti, Domingues,
Correia, Miller, Gloor, Leeuwen, Kaiser et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Laan-Luijkx, I. T., Velde, I. R., Krol, M. C., Gatti, L. V., Domingues,
L. G.,
Correia, C. S. C., Miller, J. B., Gloor, M., Leeuwen, T. T., Kaiser, J. W., Wiedinmyer, C., Basu, S., Clerbaux, C., and Peters, W.: Response of the Amazon
carbon balance to the 2010 drought derived
with CarbonTracker South America, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 29,
1092–1108, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Lawrence et~al.(2001)Lawrence, J{\"{o}}ckel, and
Kuhlmann}}?><label>Lawrence et al.(2001)Lawrence, Jöckel, and
Kuhlmann</label><mixed-citation>Lawrence, M. G., Jöckel, P., and von Kuhlmann, R.: What does the global
mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration tell us?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 1, 37–49,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-1-37-2001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-1-37-2001</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page423?><ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Liang et al.(2017)Liang, Chipperfield, Fleming, Abraham, Braesicke,
Burkholder, Daniel, Dhomse, Fraser, Hardiman et al.</label><mixed-citation>Liang, Q., Chipperfield, M. P., Fleming, E. L., Abraham, N. L., Braesicke,
P.,
Burkholder, J. B., Daniel, J. S., Dhomse, S., Fraser, P. J., Hardiman, S. C., Jackman, C. H., Kinnison, D. E., Krummel, P. B., Montzka, S. A., Morgenstern,
O., McCulloch, A., Mühle, J., Newman, P. A., Orkin, V. L., Pitari, G.,
Prinn, R. G., Rigby, M., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Tummon, F., Velders, G. J.
M., Visioni, D., and Weiss, R. F.: Deriving Global <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Abundance and
Atmospheric Lifetimes for
Long-Lived Gases: A Search for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CCl</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Alternatives, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026926" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JD026926</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Lovelock(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Lovelock, J. E.: Methyl chloroform in the troposphere as an indicator of OH
radical abundance, Nature, 267, 32–32, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>McCulloch and Midgley(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
McCulloch, A. and Midgley, P. M.: The history of methyl chloroform
emissions:
1951–2000, Atmos. Environ., 35, 5311–5319, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>McNorton et al.(2016)McNorton, Chipperfield, Gloor, Wilson, Feng,
Hayman, Rigby, Krummel, O'Doherty, Prinn et al.</label><mixed-citation>McNorton, J., Chipperfield, M. P., Gloor, M., Wilson, C., Feng, W., Hayman,
G. D., Rigby, M., Krummel, P. B., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Weiss, R. F.,
Young, D., Dlugokencky, E., and Montzka, S. A.: Role of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variability
in the stalling of the global atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> growth rate from 1999
to 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7943–7956,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7943-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-7943-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Meirink et al.(2008)Meirink, Bergamaschi, and Krol</label><mixed-citation>Meirink, J. F., Bergamaschi, P., and Krol, M. C.: Four-dimensional
variational data assimilation for inverse modelling of atmospheric methane
emissions: method and comparison with synthesis inversion, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 6341–6353, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6341-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-6341-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Millet and Goldstein(2004)</label><mixed-citation>Millet, D. B. and Goldstein, A. H.: Evidence of continuing methylchloroform
emissions from the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 4026, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020166" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL020166</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Montzka et al.(2000)Montzka, Spivakovsky, Butler, Elkins, Lock, and
Mondeel</label><mixed-citation>
Montzka, S. A., Spivakovsky, C. M., Butler, J. H., Elkins, J. W., Lock,
L. T.,
and Mondeel, D. J.: New observational constraints for atmospheric hydroxyl
on global and hemispheric scales, Science, 288, 500–503, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Montzka et~al.(2011)Montzka, Krol, Dlugokencky, Hall, J{\"{o}}ckel, and
Lelieveld}}?><label>Montzka et al.(2011)Montzka, Krol, Dlugokencky, Hall, Jöckel, and
Lelieveld</label><mixed-citation>
Montzka, S. A., Krol, M., Dlugokencky, E. J., Hall, B., Jöckel, P., and
Lelieveld, J.: Small interannual variability of global atmospheric
hydroxyl, Science, 331, 67–69, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Montzka et al.(2018)Montzka, Dutton, Yu, Ray, Portmann, Daniel,
Kuijpers, Hall, Mondeel, Siso et al.</label><mixed-citation>Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel,
J. S.,
Kuijpers, L., Hall, B. D., Mondeel, D., Siso, C., Nance, J. D., Rigby, M., Manning, A. J., Hu, L., Moore, F., Miller, B. R.,
and Elkins, J. W: An unexpected and
persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11, Nature,
557, 413–417, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Naik et al.(2000)Naik, Jain, Patten, and Wuebbles</label><mixed-citation>
Naik, V., Jain, A. K., Patten, K. O., and Wuebbles, D. J.: Consistent sets of
atmospheric lifetimes and radiative forcings on climate for CFC
replacements: HCFCs and HFCs, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
105, 6903–6914, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Naik et al.(2013)Naik, Voulgarakis, Fiore, Horowitz, Lamarque, Lin,
Prather, Young, Bergmann, Cameron-Smith et al.</label><mixed-citation>Naik, V., Voulgarakis, A., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Lin, M., Prather, M. J., Young, P. J., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P. J.,
Cionni, I., Collins, W. J., Dalsøren, S. B., Doherty, R., Eyring, V.,
Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G. A., Josse, B., Lee, Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A.,
Nagashima, T., van Noije, T. P. C., Plummer, D. A., Righi, M., Rumbold, S.
T., Skeie, R., Shindell, D. T., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo, K.,
Szopa, S., and Zeng, G.: Preindustrial to present-day changes in tropospheric
hydroxyl radical and methane lifetime from the Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
5277–5298, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Pandey et al.(2016)Pandey, Houweling, Krol, Aben, Chevallier,
Dlugokencky, Gatti, Gloor, Miller, Detmers et al.</label><mixed-citation>Pandey, S., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Aben, I., Chevallier, F., Dlugokencky,
E. J., Gatti, L. V., Gloor, E., Miller, J. B., Detmers, R., Machida, T., and
Röckmann, T.: Inverse modeling of GOSAT-retrieved ratios of total column
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for 2009 and 2010, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16,
5043–5062, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5043-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-5043-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Pandey et al.(2017)Pandey, Houweling, Krol, Aben, Monteil,
Nechita-Banda, Dlugokencky, Detmers, Hasekamp, Xu et al.</label><mixed-citation>Pandey, S., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Aben, I., Monteil, G., Nechita-Banda,
N.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Detmers, R., Hasekamp, O., Xu, X., Riley, W. J., Poulter, B., Zhang, Z., McDonald, K. C., White, J. W. C., Bousquet, P., and Röckmann,
T.: Enhanced
methane emissions from tropical wetlands during the 2011 La Niña,
Sci. Rep., 7, 45759, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45759" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep45759</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Patra et al.(2011)Patra, Houweling, Krol, Bousquet, Belikov,
Bergmann, Bian, Cameron-Smith, Chipperfield, Corbin et al.</label><mixed-citation>Patra, P. K., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Bousquet, P., Belikov, D., Bergmann,
D., Bian, H., Cameron-Smith, P., Chipperfield, M. P., Corbin, K.,
Fortems-Cheiney, A., Fraser, A., Gloor, E., Hess, P., Ito, A., Kawa, S. R.,
Law, R. M., Loh, Z., Maksyutov, S., Meng, L., Palmer, P. I., Prinn, R. G.,
Rigby, M., Saito, R., and Wilson, C.: TransCom model simulations of CH4 and
related species: linking transport, surface flux and chemical loss with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> variability in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 12813–12837, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12813-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-12813-2011</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Patra et al.(2014)Patra, Krol, Montzka, Arnold, Atlas, Lintner,
Stephens, Xiang, Elkins, Fraser et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Patra, P. K., Krol, M. C., Montzka, S. A., Arnold, T., Atlas, E. L., Lintner,
B. R., Stephens, B. B., Xiang, B., Elkins, J. W., Fraser, P. J., Ghosh, A., Hintsa, E. J., Hurst, D. F., Ishijima, K., Krummel, P. B., Miller, B. R.,
Miyazaki, K., Moore, F. L., Mühle, J., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Steele, L. P., Takigawa, M., Wang, H. J., Weiss, R. F., Wofsy, S. C., and Young, D.:
Observational evidence for interhemispheric hydroxyl-radical parity,
Nature, 513, 219–223, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Prinn et al.(1987)Prinn, Cunnold, Rasmussen, Simmonds, Alyea,
Crawford, Fraser, and Rosen</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R., Cunnold, D., Rasmussen, R., Simmonds, P., Alyea, F., Crawford, A.,
Fraser, P., and Rosen, R.: Atmospheric trends in methylchloroform and the
global average for the hydroxyl radical, Science, 238, 945–950, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Prinn et al.(1992)Prinn, Cunnold, Simmonds, Alyea, Boldi, Crawford,
Fraser, Gutzler, Hartley, Rosen et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R., Cunnold, D., Simmonds, P., Alyea, F., Boldi, R., Crawford, A.,
Fraser, P., Gutzler, D., Hartley, D., Rosen, R., and Rasmussen, R.: Global average
concentration and trend for hydroxyl radicals deduced from ALE/GAGE
trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) data for 1978–1990, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 97, 2445–2461, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Prinn et al.(2005)Prinn, Huang, Weiss, Cunnold, Fraser, Simmonds,
McCulloch, Harth, Reimann, Salameh et al.</label><mixed-citation>Prinn, R. G., Huang, J., Weiss, R. F., Cunnold, D. M., Fraser, P. J.,
Simmonds,
P. G., McCulloch, A., Harth, C., Reimann, S., Salameh, P., O'Doherty, S., Wang, R. H. J., Porter, L. W., Miller, B. R.,
and Krummel, P. B.: Evidence
for variability of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals over the past quarter
century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07809, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL022228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL022228</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Prinn et al.(2018)Prinn, Weiss, Arduini, Arnold, DeWitt, Fraser,
Ganesan, Gasore, Harth, Hermansen et al.</label><mixed-citation>Prinn, R. G., Weiss, R. F., Arduini, J., Arnold, T., DeWitt, H. L., Fraser,
P. J., Ganesan, A. L., Gasore, J., Harth, C. M., Hermansen, O., Kim, J.,
Krummel, P. B., Li, S., Loh, Z. M., Lunder, C. R., Maione, M., Manning, A.
J., Miller, B. R., Mitrevski, B., Mühle, J., O'Doherty, S., Park, S.,
Reimann, S., Rigby, M., Saito, T., Salameh, P. K., Schmidt, R., Simmonds, P.
G., Steele, L. P., Vollmer, M. K., Wang, R. H., Yao, B., Yokouchi, Y., Young,
D., and Zhou, L.: History of chemically and radiatively important atmospheric
gases from the Advanced Global Atmospheric<?pagebreak page424?> Gases Experiment (AGAGE), Earth
Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 985–1018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-985-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-985-2018</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Quay et al.(1999)Quay, Stutsman, Wilbur, Snover, Dlugokencky, and
Brown</label><mixed-citation>
Quay, P., Stutsman, J., Wilbur, D., Snover, A., Dlugokencky, E. J., and
Brown,
T.: The isotopic composition of atmospheric methane, Global Biogeochm. Cy., 13, 445–461, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Quay et al.(2000)Quay, King, White, Brockington, Plotkin, Gammon,
Gerst, and Stutsman</label><mixed-citation>Quay, P., King, S., White, D., Brockington, M., Plotkin, B., Gammon, R.,
Gerst,
S., and Stutsman, J.: Atmospheric <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: A tracer of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">OH</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration
and mixing rates, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105,
15147–15166, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Reimann et al.(2005)Reimann, Manning, Simmonds, Cunnold, Wang, Li,
McCulloch, Prinn, Huang, Weiss et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Reimann, S., Manning, A. J., Simmonds, P. G., Cunnold, D. M., Wang, R. H. J.,
Li, J., McCulloch, A., Prinn, R. G., Huang, J., Weiss, R. F., Fraser, P. J., O'Doherty, S., Greally, B. R., Stemmler, K., Hill, M., and Folini,
D.: Low
European methyl chloroform emissions inferred from long-term atmospheric
measurements, Nature, 433, 506–508, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Rigby et~al.(2013)Rigby, Prinn, O'Doherty, Montzka, McCulloch, Harth,
M{\"{u}}hle, Salameh, Weiss, Young et~al.}}?><label>Rigby et al.(2013)Rigby, Prinn, O'Doherty, Montzka, McCulloch, Harth,
Mühle, Salameh, Weiss, Young et al.</label><mixed-citation>Rigby, M., Prinn, R. G., O'Doherty, S., Montzka, S. A., McCulloch, A., Harth,
C. M., Mühle, J., Salameh, P. K., Weiss, R. F., Young, D., Simmonds, P. G.,
Hall, B. D., Dutton, G. S., Nance, D., Mondeel, D. J., Elkins, J. W.,
Krummel, P. B., Steele, L. P., and Fraser, P. J.: Re-evaluation of the
lifetimes of the major CFCs and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CCl</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using atmospheric trends,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2691–2702, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2691-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2691-2013</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Rigby et al.(2017)Rigby, Montzka, Prinn, White, Young, O'Doherty,
Lunt, Ganesan, Manning, Simmonds et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Rigby, M., Montzka, S. A., Prinn, R. G., White, J. W. C., Young, D.,
O'Doherty, S., Lunt, M. F., Ganesan, A. L., Manning, A. J., Simmonds,
P. G., Salameh, P. K., Harth, C. M., Mühle, J., Weiss, R. F., Fraser, P. J., Steele, L. P., Krummel, P. B., McCulloch, A.,
and Park, S.: Role of atmospheric oxidation in recent methane growth,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 5373–5377, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Saunois et al.(2016)Saunois, Bousquet, Poulter, Peregon, Ciais,
Canadell, Dlugokencky, Etiope, Bastviken, Houweling et al.</label><mixed-citation>Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J.
G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Etiope, G., Bastviken, D., Houweling, S.,
Janssens-Maenhout, G., Tubiello, F. N., Castaldi, S., Jackson, R. B., Alexe,
M., Arora, V. K., Beerling, D. J., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford,
G., Brovkin, V., Bruhwiler, L., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P., Covey, K., Curry,
C., Frankenberg, C., Gedney, N., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Ishizawa, M., Ito,
A., Joos, F., Kim, H.-S., Kleinen, T., Krummel, P., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Langenfelds, R., Locatelli, R., Machida, T., Maksyutov, S., McDonald, K. C.,
Marshall, J., Melton, J. R., Morino, I., Naik, V., O'Doherty, S., Parmentier,
F.-J. W., Patra, P. K., Peng, C., Peng, S., Peters, G. P., Pison, I.,
Prigent, C., Prinn, R., Ramonet, M., Riley, W. J., Saito, M., Santini, M.,
Schroeder, R., Simpson, I. J., Spahni, R., Steele, P., Takizawa, A.,
Thornton, B. F., Tian, H., Tohjima, Y., Viovy, N., Voulgarakis, A., van
Weele, M., van der Werf, G. R., Weiss, R., Wiedinmyer, C., Wilton, D. J.,
Wiltshire, A., Worthy, D., Wunch, D., Xu, X., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang,
Z., and Zhu, Q.: The global methane budget 2000–2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data,
8, 697–751, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-8-697-2016</ext-link>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Schaefer et al.(2016)Schaefer, Fletcher, Veidt, Lassey, Brailsford,
Bromley, Dlugokencky, Michel, Miller, Levin et al.</label><mixed-citation>Schaefer, H., Fletcher, S. E. M., Veidt, C., Lassey, K. R., Brailsford,
G. W.,
Bromley, T. M., Dlugokencky, E. J., Michel, S. E., Miller, J. B., Levin, I., Lowe, D. C., Martin, R. J., Vaughn, B. H., and White, J. W. C.:
A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions
indicated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Science, 352, 80–84, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Schwietzke et al.(2016)Schwietzke, Sherwood, Bruhwiler, Miller,
Etiope, Dlugokencky, Michel, Arling, Vaughn, White et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Schwietzke, S., Sherwood, O. A., Bruhwiler, L. M. P., Miller, J. B., Etiope,
G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Michel, S. E., Arling, V. A., Vaughn, B. H., White,
J. W. C., and Tans, P. P. : Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions
based on isotope database, Nature, 538, 88–91, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Spivakovsky et al.(2000)Spivakovsky, Logan, Montzka, Balkanski,
Foreman-Fowler, Jones, Horowitz, Fusco, Brenninkmeijer, Prather
et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Spivakovsky, C. M., Logan, J. A., Montzka, S. A., Balkanski, Y. J.,
Foreman-Fowler, M., Jones, D. B. A., Horowitz, L. W., Fusco, A. C.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Prather, M. J., Wofsy, S. C., and McElroy, M. B.: Three-dimensional
climatological distribution of tropospheric OH: Update and evaluation,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 8931–8980, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Tsuruta et al.(2017)Tsuruta, Aalto, Backman, Hakkarainen, van der
Laan-Luijkx, Krol, Spahni, Houweling, Gomez-Pelaez, van der Schoot
et al.</label><mixed-citation>Tsuruta, A., Aalto, T., Backman, L., Hakkarainen, J., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.
T., Krol, M. C., Spahni, R., Houweling, S., Laine, M., Dlugokencky, E.,
Gomez-Pelaez, A. J., van der Schoot, M., Langenfelds, R., Ellul, R., Arduini,
J., Apadula, F., Gerbig, C., Feist, D. G., Kivi, R., Yoshida, Y., and Peters,
W.: Global methane emission estimates for 2000-2012 from CarbonTracker
Europe-CH4 v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1261-1289,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1261-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-1261-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Turner et al.(2017)Turner, Frankenberg, Wennberg, and
Jacob</label><mixed-citation>Turner, A. J., Frankenberg, C., Wennberg, P. O., and Jacob, D. J.: Ambiguity
in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 114, 5367–5372, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616020114" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1616020114</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Walker et al.(2000)Walker, Weiss, and Salameh</label><mixed-citation>
Walker, S. J., Weiss, R. F., and Salameh, P. K.: Reconstructed histories of
the annual mean atmospheric mole fractions for the halocarbons CFC-11 CFC-12,
CFC-113, and carbon tetrachloride, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
105, 14285–14296, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Wennberg et al.(2004)Wennberg, Peacock, Randerson, and
Bleck</label><mixed-citation>Wennberg, P. O., Peacock, S., Randerson, J. T., and Bleck, R.: Recent changes
in the air-sea gas exchange of methyl chloroform, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020476" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL020476</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The hydroxyl radical (OH) is the main atmospheric oxidant and the primary sink of
the greenhouse gas CH<sub>4</sub>. In an attempt to constrain atmospheric levels
of OH, two recent studies combined a tropospheric two-box model with
hemispheric-mean observations of methyl chloroform (MCF) and CH<sub>4</sub>.
These studies reached different conclusions concerning the most likely
explanation of the renewed CH<sub>4</sub> growth rate, which reflects the
uncertain and underdetermined nature of the problem. Here, we investigated
how the use of a tropospheric two-box model can affect the derived
constraints on OH due to simplifying assumptions inherent to a two-box
model. To this end, we derived species- and time-dependent quantities from a
full 3-D transport model to drive two-box model simulations. Furthermore, we
quantified differences between the 3-D simulated tropospheric burden and the
burden seen by the surface measurement network of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Compared to commonly used parameters in
two-box models, we found significant deviations in the magnitude and
time-dependence of the interhemispheric exchange rate, exposure to OH, and
stratospheric loss rate. For MCF these deviations can be large due to changes
in the balance of its sources and sinks over time. We also found that changes
in the yearly averaged tropospheric burden of CH<sub>4</sub> and MCF can be
obtained within 0.96&thinsp;ppb&thinsp;yr<sup>−1</sup> and
0.14&thinsp;%&thinsp;yr<sup>−1</sup> by the NOAA surface network, but that substantial
systematic biases exist in the interhemispheric mixing ratio gradients that
are input to two-box model inversions.</p><p>To investigate the impact of the identified biases on constraints on OH, we
accounted for these biases in a two-box model inversion of MCF and
CH<sub>4</sub>. We found that the sensitivity of interannual OH anomalies
to the biases is modest (1&thinsp;%–2&thinsp;%), relative to the uncertainties on
derived OH (3&thinsp;%–4&thinsp;%). However, in an inversion where we implemented all
four bias corrections simultaneously, we found a shift to a positive trend in
OH concentrations over the 1994–2015 period, compared to the standard
inversion. Moreover, the absolute magnitude of derived global mean OH,
and by extent, that of global CH<sub>4</sub> emissions, was affected much more strongly
by the bias corrections than their anomalies ( ∼ 10&thinsp;%). Through our
analysis, we identified and quantified limitations in the two-box model
approach as well as an opportunity for full 3-D simulations to address these
limitations. However, we also found that this derivation is an extensive and
species-dependent exercise and that the biases were not always entirely
resolvable. In future attempts to improve constraints on the atmospheric
oxidative capacity through the use of simple models, a crucial first step is
to consider and account for biases similar to those we have identified for
the two-box model.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Alexe et al.(2015)Alexe, Bergamaschi, Segers, Detmers, Butz,
Hasekamp, Guerlet, Parker, Boesch, Frankenberg et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Alexe, M., Bergamaschi, P., Segers, A., Detmers, R., Butz, A., Hasekamp, O.,
Guerlet, S., Parker, R., Boesch, H., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A.,
Dlugokencky, E., Sweeney, C., Wofsy, S. C., and Kort, E. A.: Inverse
modelling of CH<sub>4</sub> emissions for 2010–2011 using different satellite
retrieval products from GOSAT and SCIAMACHY, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15,
113–133, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-113-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-113-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Bândă et al.(2015)Bândă, Krol, Noije, Weele,
Williams, Sager, Niemeier, Thomason, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>
Bândă, N., Krol, M., Noije, T., Weele, M., Williams, J. E., Sager,
P. L., Niemeier, U., Thomason, L., and Röckmann, T.: The effect of
stratospheric sulfur from Mount Pinatubo on tropospheric oxidizing capacity
and methane, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 1202–1220,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Bândă et al.(2016)Bândă, Krol, Van Weele,
Van Noije, Le Sager, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>
Bândă, N., Krol, M., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Le Sager, P., and
Röckmann, T.: Can we explain the observed methane variability after the
Mount Pinatubo eruption?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 195–214,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-195-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-195-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Bousquet et al.(2005)Bousquet, Hauglustaine, Peylin, Carouge, and
Ciais</label><mixed-citation>
Bousquet, P., Hauglustaine, D. A., Peylin, P., Carouge, C., and Ciais, P.:
Two decades of OH variability as inferred by an inversion of
atmospheric transport and chemistry of methyl chloroform, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
5, 2635–2656, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2635-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2635-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Bousquet et al.(2006)Bousquet, Ciais, Miller, Dlugokencky,
Hauglustaine, Prigent, Van der Werf, Peylin, Brunke, Carouge
et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Miller, J., Dlugokencky, E., Hauglustaine, D.,
Prigent, C., Van der Werf, G., Peylin, P., Brunke, E.-G., Carouge, C., Langenfelds, R. L., Lathière, J., Papa, F.,
Ramonet, M., Schmidt, M., Steele, L. P., Tyler, S. C., and White, J.: Contribution of anthropogenic and natural sources to atmospheric
methane variability, Nature, 443, 439–443, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Brenninkmeijer et al.(1992)Brenninkmeijer, Manning, Lowe, Wallace,
Sparks, and Volz-Thomas</label><mixed-citation>
Brenninkmeijer, C. A., Manning, M. R., Lowe, D. C., Wallace, G., Sparks,
R. J.,
and Volz-Thomas, A.: Interhemispheric asymmetry in OH abundance inferred
from measurements of atmospheric <sup>14</sup>CO, Nature, 356, 50–52, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Brühl and Crutzen(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Brühl, C. and Crutzen, P. J.: MPIC two-dimensional model, NASA Ref.
Publ, Washington D.C., 1292, 103–104, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Butchart(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Butchart, N.: The Brewer-Dobson circulation, Rev. Geophys., 52,
157–184, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Chipperfield and Liang(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Chipperfield, M. P., Liang, Q., Abraham, L., Bekki, S., Braesicke, P.,
Dhomse, S., Di Genova, G., Fleming E. L., Hardiman, S., Iachetti, D.,
Jackman, C. H., Kinnison, D. E., Marchand, M., Pitari, G., Rozanov, E.,
Stenke, A., and Tummon, F. (authors); Burgalat, J., Cugnet, D., Frith, S. M.,
Pascoe, C., and Rigby, M. (contributors): Model estimates of lifetimes, in:
SPARC, 2013: SPARC Report on the Lifetimes of Stratospheric Ozone-Deleting
Substances, Their Replacements, and Related Species, edited by: Reimann, S.,
Ko, M. K. W., Newman, P. A., and Strahan, S. E., chap. 5, WCRP-15/2013, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Dee et al.(2011)Dee, Uppala, Simmons, Berrisford, Poli, Kobayashi,
Andrae, Balmaseda, Balsamo, Bauer et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park,
B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart,
F.: The
ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Dlugokencky et al.(1994)Dlugokencky, Steele, Lang, and
Masarie</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Steele, L. P., Lang, P. M., and Masarie, K. A.: The
growth
rate and distribution of atmospheric methane, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99,
17021–17043, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Dlugokencky et al.(2009)Dlugokencky, Bruhwiler, White, Emmons,
Novelli, Montzka, Masarie, Lang, Crotwell, Miller et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Bruhwiler, L., White, J. W. C., Emmons, L. K., Novelli,
P. C., Montzka, S. A., Masarie, K. A., Lang, P. M., Crotwell, A. M., Miller,
J. B., and Gatti, L. V.: Observational constraints on recent increases in the
atmospheric CH<sub>4</sub> burden, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039780" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039780</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Fisher(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Fisher, M.: Estimating the covariance matrices of analysis and forecast error
in variational data assimilation, ECMWF Tech. Mem., 220, <a href="https://doi.org/10.21957/1dxrasjit" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.21957/1dxrasjit</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Francey and Frederiksen(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Francey, R. J. and Frederiksen, J. S.: The 2009–2010 step in atmospheric
CO<sub>2</sub> interhemispheric difference, Biogeosciences, 13, 873–885,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-873-2016, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Huijnen et al.(2010)Huijnen, Williams, Weele, Noije, Krol, Dentener,
Segers, Houweling, Peters, Laat et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Huijnen, V., Williams, J., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Krol, M., Dentener,
F., Segers, A., Houweling, S., Peters, W., de Laat, J., Boersma, F.,
Bergamaschi, P., van Velthoven, P., Le Sager, P., Eskes, H., Alkemade, F.,
Scheele, R., Nédélec, P., and Pätz, H.-W.: The global chemistry
transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric chemistry
version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445–473,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Kirschke et al.(2013)Kirschke, Bousquet, Ciais, Saunois, Canadell,
Dlugokencky, Bergamaschi, Bergmann, Blake, Bruhwiler et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Kirschke, S., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Saunois, M., Canadell, J. G.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Bergamaschi, P., Bergmann, D., Blake, D. R., Bruhwiler,
L., et al.: Three decades of global methane sources
and sinks, Nat. Geosci., 6, 813–823, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Krol et al.(2005)Krol, Houweling, Bregman, Broek, Segers, Velthoven,
Peters, Dentener, and Bergamaschi</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M., Houweling, S., Bregman, B., van den Broek, M., Segers, A., van
Velthoven, P., Peters, W., Dentener, F., and Bergamaschi, P.: The two-way
nested global chemistry-transport zoom model TM5: algorithm and applications,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 417–432, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-417-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-417-2005</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Krol et al.(2018)Krol, de Bruine, Killaars, Ouwersloot, Pozzer, Yin,
Chevallier, Bousquet, Patra, Belikov et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M., de Bruine, M., Killaars, L., Ouwersloot, H., Pozzer, A., Yin, Y.,
Chevallier, F., Bousquet, P., Patra, P., Belikov, D., Maksyutov, S., Dhomse,
S., Feng, W., and Chipperfield, M. P.: Age of air as a diagnostic for
transport timescales in global models, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3109–3130,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3109-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3109-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Krol and Lelieveld(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M. C. and Lelieveld, J.: Can the variability in tropospheric OH be
deduced from measurements of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)?,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002423" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002423</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Krol et al.(2003)Krol, Lelieveld, Oram, Sturrock, Penkett,
Brenninkmeijer, Gros, Williams, and Scheeren</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M. C., Lelieveld, J., Oram, D. E., Sturrock, G. A., Penkett, S. A.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Gros, V., Williams, J., and Scheeren, H. A.:
Continuing emissions of methyl chloroform from Europe, Nature, 421,
131–135, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Krol et al.(2008)Krol, Meirink, Bergamaschi, Mak, Lowe, Jöckel,
Houweling, and Röckmann</label><mixed-citation>
Krol, M. C., Meirink, J. F., Bergamaschi, P., Mak, J. E., Lowe, D., Jöckel,
P., Houweling, S., and Röckmann, T.: What can <sup>14</sup>CO measurements
tell us about OH?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 5033–5044,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5033-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-5033-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Laan-Luijkx et al.(2015)Laan-Luijkx, Velde, Krol, Gatti, Domingues,
Correia, Miller, Gloor, Leeuwen, Kaiser et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Laan-Luijkx, I. T., Velde, I. R., Krol, M. C., Gatti, L. V., Domingues,
L. G.,
Correia, C. S. C., Miller, J. B., Gloor, M., Leeuwen, T. T., Kaiser, J. W., Wiedinmyer, C., Basu, S., Clerbaux, C., and Peters, W.: Response of the Amazon
carbon balance to the 2010 drought derived
with CarbonTracker South America, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 29,
1092–1108, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Lawrence et al.(2001)Lawrence, Jöckel, and
Kuhlmann</label><mixed-citation>
Lawrence, M. G., Jöckel, P., and von Kuhlmann, R.: What does the global
mean OH concentration tell us?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 1, 37–49,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-1-37-2001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-1-37-2001</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Liang et al.(2017)Liang, Chipperfield, Fleming, Abraham, Braesicke,
Burkholder, Daniel, Dhomse, Fraser, Hardiman et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Liang, Q., Chipperfield, M. P., Fleming, E. L., Abraham, N. L., Braesicke,
P.,
Burkholder, J. B., Daniel, J. S., Dhomse, S., Fraser, P. J., Hardiman, S. C., Jackman, C. H., Kinnison, D. E., Krummel, P. B., Montzka, S. A., Morgenstern,
O., McCulloch, A., Mühle, J., Newman, P. A., Orkin, V. L., Pitari, G.,
Prinn, R. G., Rigby, M., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Tummon, F., Velders, G. J.
M., Visioni, D., and Weiss, R. F.: Deriving Global OH Abundance and
Atmospheric Lifetimes for
Long-Lived Gases: A Search for CH<sub>3</sub>CCl<sub>3</sub> Alternatives, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026926" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026926</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Lovelock(1977)</label><mixed-citation>
Lovelock, J. E.: Methyl chloroform in the troposphere as an indicator of OH
radical abundance, Nature, 267, 32–32, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>McCulloch and Midgley(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
McCulloch, A. and Midgley, P. M.: The history of methyl chloroform
emissions:
1951–2000, Atmos. Environ., 35, 5311–5319, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>McNorton et al.(2016)McNorton, Chipperfield, Gloor, Wilson, Feng,
Hayman, Rigby, Krummel, O'Doherty, Prinn et al.</label><mixed-citation>
McNorton, J., Chipperfield, M. P., Gloor, M., Wilson, C., Feng, W., Hayman,
G. D., Rigby, M., Krummel, P. B., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Weiss, R. F.,
Young, D., Dlugokencky, E., and Montzka, S. A.: Role of OH variability
in the stalling of the global atmospheric CH<sub>4</sub> growth rate from 1999
to 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 7943–7956,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7943-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-7943-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Meirink et al.(2008)Meirink, Bergamaschi, and Krol</label><mixed-citation>
Meirink, J. F., Bergamaschi, P., and Krol, M. C.: Four-dimensional
variational data assimilation for inverse modelling of atmospheric methane
emissions: method and comparison with synthesis inversion, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 8, 6341–6353, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6341-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6341-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Millet and Goldstein(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Millet, D. B. and Goldstein, A. H.: Evidence of continuing methylchloroform
emissions from the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 4026, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020166" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020166</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Montzka et al.(2000)Montzka, Spivakovsky, Butler, Elkins, Lock, and
Mondeel</label><mixed-citation>
Montzka, S. A., Spivakovsky, C. M., Butler, J. H., Elkins, J. W., Lock,
L. T.,
and Mondeel, D. J.: New observational constraints for atmospheric hydroxyl
on global and hemispheric scales, Science, 288, 500–503, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Montzka et al.(2011)Montzka, Krol, Dlugokencky, Hall, Jöckel, and
Lelieveld</label><mixed-citation>
Montzka, S. A., Krol, M., Dlugokencky, E. J., Hall, B., Jöckel, P., and
Lelieveld, J.: Small interannual variability of global atmospheric
hydroxyl, Science, 331, 67–69, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Montzka et al.(2018)Montzka, Dutton, Yu, Ray, Portmann, Daniel,
Kuijpers, Hall, Mondeel, Siso et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel,
J. S.,
Kuijpers, L., Hall, B. D., Mondeel, D., Siso, C., Nance, J. D., Rigby, M., Manning, A. J., Hu, L., Moore, F., Miller, B. R.,
and Elkins, J. W: An unexpected and
persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11, Nature,
557, 413–417, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Naik et al.(2000)Naik, Jain, Patten, and Wuebbles</label><mixed-citation>
Naik, V., Jain, A. K., Patten, K. O., and Wuebbles, D. J.: Consistent sets of
atmospheric lifetimes and radiative forcings on climate for CFC
replacements: HCFCs and HFCs, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
105, 6903–6914, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Naik et al.(2013)Naik, Voulgarakis, Fiore, Horowitz, Lamarque, Lin,
Prather, Young, Bergmann, Cameron-Smith et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Naik, V., Voulgarakis, A., Fiore, A. M., Horowitz, L. W., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Lin, M., Prather, M. J., Young, P. J., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P. J.,
Cionni, I., Collins, W. J., Dalsøren, S. B., Doherty, R., Eyring, V.,
Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G. A., Josse, B., Lee, Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A.,
Nagashima, T., van Noije, T. P. C., Plummer, D. A., Righi, M., Rumbold, S.
T., Skeie, R., Shindell, D. T., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Sudo, K.,
Szopa, S., and Zeng, G.: Preindustrial to present-day changes in tropospheric
hydroxyl radical and methane lifetime from the Atmospheric Chemistry and
Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13,
5277–5298, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-5277-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Pandey et al.(2016)Pandey, Houweling, Krol, Aben, Chevallier,
Dlugokencky, Gatti, Gloor, Miller, Detmers et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Pandey, S., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Aben, I., Chevallier, F., Dlugokencky,
E. J., Gatti, L. V., Gloor, E., Miller, J. B., Detmers, R., Machida, T., and
Röckmann, T.: Inverse modeling of GOSAT-retrieved ratios of total column
CH<sub>4</sub> and CO<sub>2</sub> for 2009 and 2010, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16,
5043–5062, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5043-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5043-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Pandey et al.(2017)Pandey, Houweling, Krol, Aben, Monteil,
Nechita-Banda, Dlugokencky, Detmers, Hasekamp, Xu et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Pandey, S., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Aben, I., Monteil, G., Nechita-Banda,
N.,
Dlugokencky, E. J., Detmers, R., Hasekamp, O., Xu, X., Riley, W. J., Poulter, B., Zhang, Z., McDonald, K. C., White, J. W. C., Bousquet, P., and Röckmann,
T.: Enhanced
methane emissions from tropical wetlands during the 2011 La Niña,
Sci. Rep., 7, 45759, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45759" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45759</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Patra et al.(2011)Patra, Houweling, Krol, Bousquet, Belikov,
Bergmann, Bian, Cameron-Smith, Chipperfield, Corbin et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Patra, P. K., Houweling, S., Krol, M., Bousquet, P., Belikov, D., Bergmann,
D., Bian, H., Cameron-Smith, P., Chipperfield, M. P., Corbin, K.,
Fortems-Cheiney, A., Fraser, A., Gloor, E., Hess, P., Ito, A., Kawa, S. R.,
Law, R. M., Loh, Z., Maksyutov, S., Meng, L., Palmer, P. I., Prinn, R. G.,
Rigby, M., Saito, R., and Wilson, C.: TransCom model simulations of CH4 and
related species: linking transport, surface flux and chemical loss with
CH<sub>4</sub> variability in the troposphere and lower stratosphere, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 11, 12813–12837, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12813-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12813-2011</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Patra et al.(2014)Patra, Krol, Montzka, Arnold, Atlas, Lintner,
Stephens, Xiang, Elkins, Fraser et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Patra, P. K., Krol, M. C., Montzka, S. A., Arnold, T., Atlas, E. L., Lintner,
B. R., Stephens, B. B., Xiang, B., Elkins, J. W., Fraser, P. J., Ghosh, A., Hintsa, E. J., Hurst, D. F., Ishijima, K., Krummel, P. B., Miller, B. R.,
Miyazaki, K., Moore, F. L., Mühle, J., O'Doherty, S., Prinn, R. G., Steele, L. P., Takigawa, M., Wang, H. J., Weiss, R. F., Wofsy, S. C., and Young, D.:
Observational evidence for interhemispheric hydroxyl-radical parity,
Nature, 513, 219–223, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Prinn et al.(1987)Prinn, Cunnold, Rasmussen, Simmonds, Alyea,
Crawford, Fraser, and Rosen</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R., Cunnold, D., Rasmussen, R., Simmonds, P., Alyea, F., Crawford, A.,
Fraser, P., and Rosen, R.: Atmospheric trends in methylchloroform and the
global average for the hydroxyl radical, Science, 238, 945–950, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Prinn et al.(1992)Prinn, Cunnold, Simmonds, Alyea, Boldi, Crawford,
Fraser, Gutzler, Hartley, Rosen et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R., Cunnold, D., Simmonds, P., Alyea, F., Boldi, R., Crawford, A.,
Fraser, P., Gutzler, D., Hartley, D., Rosen, R., and Rasmussen, R.: Global average
concentration and trend for hydroxyl radicals deduced from ALE/GAGE
trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) data for 1978–1990, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 97, 2445–2461, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Prinn et al.(2005)Prinn, Huang, Weiss, Cunnold, Fraser, Simmonds,
McCulloch, Harth, Reimann, Salameh et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R. G., Huang, J., Weiss, R. F., Cunnold, D. M., Fraser, P. J.,
Simmonds,
P. G., McCulloch, A., Harth, C., Reimann, S., Salameh, P., O'Doherty, S., Wang, R. H. J., Porter, L. W., Miller, B. R.,
and Krummel, P. B.: Evidence
for variability of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals over the past quarter
century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L07809, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL022228" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL022228</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Prinn et al.(2018)Prinn, Weiss, Arduini, Arnold, DeWitt, Fraser,
Ganesan, Gasore, Harth, Hermansen et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Prinn, R. G., Weiss, R. F., Arduini, J., Arnold, T., DeWitt, H. L., Fraser,
P. J., Ganesan, A. L., Gasore, J., Harth, C. M., Hermansen, O., Kim, J.,
Krummel, P. B., Li, S., Loh, Z. M., Lunder, C. R., Maione, M., Manning, A.
J., Miller, B. R., Mitrevski, B., Mühle, J., O'Doherty, S., Park, S.,
Reimann, S., Rigby, M., Saito, T., Salameh, P. K., Schmidt, R., Simmonds, P.
G., Steele, L. P., Vollmer, M. K., Wang, R. H., Yao, B., Yokouchi, Y., Young,
D., and Zhou, L.: History of chemically and radiatively important atmospheric
gases from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), Earth
Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 985–1018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-985-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-985-2018</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Quay et al.(1999)Quay, Stutsman, Wilbur, Snover, Dlugokencky, and
Brown</label><mixed-citation>
Quay, P., Stutsman, J., Wilbur, D., Snover, A., Dlugokencky, E. J., and
Brown,
T.: The isotopic composition of atmospheric methane, Global Biogeochm. Cy., 13, 445–461, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Quay et al.(2000)Quay, King, White, Brockington, Plotkin, Gammon,
Gerst, and Stutsman</label><mixed-citation>
Quay, P., King, S., White, D., Brockington, M., Plotkin, B., Gammon, R.,
Gerst,
S., and Stutsman, J.: Atmospheric <sup>14</sup>CO: A tracer of OH concentration
and mixing rates, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105,
15147–15166, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Reimann et al.(2005)Reimann, Manning, Simmonds, Cunnold, Wang, Li,
McCulloch, Prinn, Huang, Weiss et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Reimann, S., Manning, A. J., Simmonds, P. G., Cunnold, D. M., Wang, R. H. J.,
Li, J., McCulloch, A., Prinn, R. G., Huang, J., Weiss, R. F., Fraser, P. J., O'Doherty, S., Greally, B. R., Stemmler, K., Hill, M., and Folini,
D.: Low
European methyl chloroform emissions inferred from long-term atmospheric
measurements, Nature, 433, 506–508, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Rigby et al.(2013)Rigby, Prinn, O'Doherty, Montzka, McCulloch, Harth,
Mühle, Salameh, Weiss, Young et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Rigby, M., Prinn, R. G., O'Doherty, S., Montzka, S. A., McCulloch, A., Harth,
C. M., Mühle, J., Salameh, P. K., Weiss, R. F., Young, D., Simmonds, P. G.,
Hall, B. D., Dutton, G. S., Nance, D., Mondeel, D. J., Elkins, J. W.,
Krummel, P. B., Steele, L. P., and Fraser, P. J.: Re-evaluation of the
lifetimes of the major CFCs and CH<sub>3</sub>CCl<sub>3</sub> using atmospheric trends,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2691–2702, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2691-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2691-2013</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Rigby et al.(2017)Rigby, Montzka, Prinn, White, Young, O'Doherty,
Lunt, Ganesan, Manning, Simmonds et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Rigby, M., Montzka, S. A., Prinn, R. G., White, J. W. C., Young, D.,
O'Doherty, S., Lunt, M. F., Ganesan, A. L., Manning, A. J., Simmonds,
P. G., Salameh, P. K., Harth, C. M., Mühle, J., Weiss, R. F., Fraser, P. J., Steele, L. P., Krummel, P. B., McCulloch, A.,
and Park, S.: Role of atmospheric oxidation in recent methane growth,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 5373–5377, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Saunois et al.(2016)Saunois, Bousquet, Poulter, Peregon, Ciais,
Canadell, Dlugokencky, Etiope, Bastviken, Houweling et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Poulter, B., Peregon, A., Ciais, P., Canadell, J.
G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Etiope, G., Bastviken, D., Houweling, S.,
Janssens-Maenhout, G., Tubiello, F. N., Castaldi, S., Jackson, R. B., Alexe,
M., Arora, V. K., Beerling, D. J., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D. R., Brailsford,
G., Brovkin, V., Bruhwiler, L., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P., Covey, K., Curry,
C., Frankenberg, C., Gedney, N., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Ishizawa, M., Ito,
A., Joos, F., Kim, H.-S., Kleinen, T., Krummel, P., Lamarque, J.-F.,
Langenfelds, R., Locatelli, R., Machida, T., Maksyutov, S., McDonald, K. C.,
Marshall, J., Melton, J. R., Morino, I., Naik, V., O'Doherty, S., Parmentier,
F.-J. W., Patra, P. K., Peng, C., Peng, S., Peters, G. P., Pison, I.,
Prigent, C., Prinn, R., Ramonet, M., Riley, W. J., Saito, M., Santini, M.,
Schroeder, R., Simpson, I. J., Spahni, R., Steele, P., Takizawa, A.,
Thornton, B. F., Tian, H., Tohjima, Y., Viovy, N., Voulgarakis, A., van
Weele, M., van der Werf, G. R., Weiss, R., Wiedinmyer, C., Wilton, D. J.,
Wiltshire, A., Worthy, D., Wunch, D., Xu, X., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang,
Z., and Zhu, Q.: The global methane budget 2000–2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data,
8, 697–751, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016</a>, 2016.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Schaefer et al.(2016)Schaefer, Fletcher, Veidt, Lassey, Brailsford,
Bromley, Dlugokencky, Michel, Miller, Levin et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Schaefer, H., Fletcher, S. E. M., Veidt, C., Lassey, K. R., Brailsford,
G. W.,
Bromley, T. M., Dlugokencky, E. J., Michel, S. E., Miller, J. B., Levin, I., Lowe, D. C., Martin, R. J., Vaughn, B. H., and White, J. W. C.:
A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions
indicated by <sup>13</sup>CH<sub>4</sub>, Science, 352, 80–84, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Schwietzke et al.(2016)Schwietzke, Sherwood, Bruhwiler, Miller,
Etiope, Dlugokencky, Michel, Arling, Vaughn, White et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Schwietzke, S., Sherwood, O. A., Bruhwiler, L. M. P., Miller, J. B., Etiope,
G., Dlugokencky, E. J., Michel, S. E., Arling, V. A., Vaughn, B. H., White,
J. W. C., and Tans, P. P. : Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions
based on isotope database, Nature, 538, 88–91, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Spivakovsky et al.(2000)Spivakovsky, Logan, Montzka, Balkanski,
Foreman-Fowler, Jones, Horowitz, Fusco, Brenninkmeijer, Prather
et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Spivakovsky, C. M., Logan, J. A., Montzka, S. A., Balkanski, Y. J.,
Foreman-Fowler, M., Jones, D. B. A., Horowitz, L. W., Fusco, A. C.,
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., Prather, M. J., Wofsy, S. C., and McElroy, M. B.: Three-dimensional
climatological distribution of tropospheric OH: Update and evaluation,
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 8931–8980, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Tsuruta et al.(2017)Tsuruta, Aalto, Backman, Hakkarainen, van der
Laan-Luijkx, Krol, Spahni, Houweling, Gomez-Pelaez, van der Schoot
et al.</label><mixed-citation>
Tsuruta, A., Aalto, T., Backman, L., Hakkarainen, J., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.
T., Krol, M. C., Spahni, R., Houweling, S., Laine, M., Dlugokencky, E.,
Gomez-Pelaez, A. J., van der Schoot, M., Langenfelds, R., Ellul, R., Arduini,
J., Apadula, F., Gerbig, C., Feist, D. G., Kivi, R., Yoshida, Y., and Peters,
W.: Global methane emission estimates for 2000-2012 from CarbonTracker
Europe-CH4 v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1261-1289,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1261-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1261-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Turner et al.(2017)Turner, Frankenberg, Wennberg, and
Jacob</label><mixed-citation>
Turner, A. J., Frankenberg, C., Wennberg, P. O., and Jacob, D. J.: Ambiguity
in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 114, 5367–5372, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616020114" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616020114</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Walker et al.(2000)Walker, Weiss, and Salameh</label><mixed-citation>
Walker, S. J., Weiss, R. F., and Salameh, P. K.: Reconstructed histories of
the annual mean atmospheric mole fractions for the halocarbons CFC-11 CFC-12,
CFC-113, and carbon tetrachloride, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
105, 14285–14296, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Wennberg et al.(2004)Wennberg, Peacock, Randerson, and
Bleck</label><mixed-citation>
Wennberg, P. O., Peacock, S., Randerson, J. T., and Bleck, R.: Recent changes
in the air-sea gas exchange of methyl chloroform, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020476" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020476</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
