Vortex-averaged Arctic ozone depletion in the winter 2002/2003
- 1Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
- 2Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research,Potsdam, Germany
- 3Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Prague, Czech Republic
- 4Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway
- 5Deutscher Wetterdienst, Hohenpeißenberg, Germany
- 6Environment Canada, Downsview, Ontario, Canadany
- 7Royal Meteorological Institute, Brussels, Belgium
- 8Deutscher Wetterdienst, Lindenberg, Germany
- 9Central Aerological Observatory, Dolgoprudny, Moscow Region, Russia
- 10Leibniz-Institue of Atmospheric Physics, Kühlungsborn, Germany
- 11Instituto Nacional de Téchnica Aerospacial, Madrid, Spain
- 12MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland
- 13Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands
- 14Finnish Meteorological Institute, Sodankylä, Finland
- 15IMWM, Centre of Aerology, Legionowo, Poland
- 16UK Met Office, Exeter, UK
- 17University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK
Abstract. A total ozone depletion of 68±7 Dobson units between 380 and 525K from 10 December 2002 to 10 March 2003 is derived from ozone sonde data by the vortex-average method, taking into account both diabatic descent of the air masses and transport of air into the vortex. When the vortex is divided into three equal-area regions, the results are 85±9DU for the collar region (closest to the edge), 52±5DU for the vortex centre and 68±7DU for the middle region in between centre and collar.
Our results compare well with other studies: We find good agreement with ozone loss deduced from SAOZ data, with results inferred from POAM III observations and with results from tracer-tracer correlations using HF as the long-lived tracer. We find a higher ozone loss than that deduced by tracer-tracer correlations using CH4.
We have made a careful comparison with Match results: The results were recalculated using a common time period, vortex edge definition and height interval. The two methods generally compare very well, except at the 475K level which exhibits an unexplained discrepancy.