the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Oct 2024
Measurement report: Greenhouse gas profiles and age of air from the 2021 HEMERA-TWIN balloon launch
Abstract. Within the HEMERA balloon infrastructure project, a stratospheric balloon carrying a multi-instrument payload to a maximum altitude of 31.2 km was launched on 12th August 2021. Aboard the openly constructed TWIN gondola, several types of instruments were used for simultaneous air sampling and in-flight measurements to characterize climate relevant trace gases in the stratosphere and in the troposphere, and to compare and evaluate different instrumental approaches and sampling techniques. For observations of the main greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), sampling with AirCores, flask sampling and in-flight spectrometry were deployed. Overall, results from different methods agree well. While better precision is achieved for the post-flight measurements of AirCores and flask sampling, in-situ spectrometry provides a higher degree of detail on the vertical structure of the CH4 profile. Age of air was derived from mixing ratios of CO2 and SF6. As seen in previous studies, higher values were obtained from SF6 than from CO2. Correcting for chemical losses, maximum values of 4.4–5.1 years were derived from SF6 mixing ratios at altitudes above 20 km compared to 4.2–5.0 years from CO2 mixing ratios. The resulting dataset should be well suited for multi-tracer approaches to derive age of air, in particular in combination with a large suite of halocarbons measured from flask samples and one more AirCore which are reported by a companion publication.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1197 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1197 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3279', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Nov 2024
Review of “Measurement report: Greenhouse gas profiles and age of air from the 2021 HEMERA-TWIN balloon launch” by Schuck et al.
General comment
This manuscript presents vertical profiles of trace gases from the stratosphere over Scandinavia in summer 2021. The successful payload of a variety of instruments onboard the balloon and subsequent analysis data were fruits of great efforts, for which I would like to send congratulations to the authors. In particular, AirCores and the laser spectrometer (Pico) seem to be the new efforts from the recent decade. The team’s long and dedicated efforts deserve the new exciting data. The manuscript is well organized and written. Below I provide some minor comments that might be considered.
I believe that this work has been achieved on the basis of the long history of experimental advances in balloon observations by the European scientific community. I suppose that earlier works such as Schmidt et al. and Fabian et al. have paved the way. It might be interesting if the authors provide readers opportunity to follow the origins of the active techniques and historical development. One additional paragraph in the introduction section could help. Technical advantages over the balloon observation systems from the US and Japan teams might be also interesting.
Age of air calculation should be elaborated so that readers can understand principles of the method better. Although I understand that this study stands on the past technical efforts, needed is more exact explanations about the method, not the software. The package should assume an age spectra formulation to find the best-match mean age of air. It could be more clearly explained why the surface reference time series of CH4 is used for calculation of the mean ages from CO2 and SF6 (were they or stratospheric data used for the CO2 correction?). What kind of assumptions brought the bias correction applied to SF6-derived ages of air might be also more explained with additional sentences, in addition to reference to Garny et al. paper. Although they are complex, the authors should provide essential parts. Since age of air is not uniquely determined from the data, I think the manuscript should provide the method in a way independently understandable.
Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 might be merged into a multi-panel graph. I am interested in comparing vertical profiles of different species particularly for correspondences of gradients among species. The tropopause could be marked, otherwise readers wonder at places like “in the troposphere.” Profiles down to the troposphere are great advantage of this study.
Specific comment
Throughout the manuscript: I’ve been wondering what HEMERA and TWIN stand for.
P2 L51: Though with some difference in methods, use of halocarbons for estimating mean age of air can be further back in time e.g., Daniel et al. (1996) and Harnisch et al. (1999). It might be worth mentioning that the idea existed much earlier than the recent extensive studies like Ray et al. (2017) and Leedham Elvidge et al. (2018).
P3 L63: I could not find the companion paper (Laube et al. 2024) available. It must be made available before considering the decision of this manuscript. Otherwise this manuscript should provide more information without mentioning the reference.
P4 L84: “position data” do they include the GPS altitude? Regarding this, the altitude coordination in this study is unclear. Are the altitudes in Figure 2 and the following figures the GPS altitude recorded by the Pico-SDLA instrument? Or was pressure recorded and converted to altitude?
P4 Section 2.2: It is regrettable that the Pico-STRAT Bi Gaz instrument for CO2 and H2O did not work well. Looking at Figure 2, I hope successful measurement at next opportunity as the present profiles were all from “reconstruction” from subsequent analyses.
P5 Table 1: I think that this table could be somehow merged with Table 3, because I have sometimes confused with which instrument for which species. A merged table might provide a quick look for such correspondences.
P8 L192: Is there a reference that described usefulness of the cotton filter for COS measurements? Does co-existence of ozone and COS deteriorate their stability in the stainless steel flask? Such an explanation is valuable and desirably presented in this manuscript or the companion one.
P8 Section 2.5: I think that it would be valuable to describe how much sample amount (volume) was used for each analysis. This information should be critical when the campaign was planned.
P9 L219: How long does it take to have the instrument output stabilized with the flow rate ~50 sccm. I imagine that those stable data points were taken to calculate the measurement value and the time for stabilization determined the amount of sample used.
P10 Section 2.6: As in my earlier comment, I hope this section be reformulated so that readers can correctly follow principles, assumptions and processes to calculate the age of air.
P10 L265: “in the troposphere” the tropopause should be presented. Otherwise readers cannot be clear about which altitude range is mentioned.
P14 L303: It is interesting to see the ups and downs in CH4 above 20 km observed by the Pico instrument. Is there any possible mechanism that could shape such layers?
Technical Comments
P4 L70: “known” to “considered”
P11 L274: “caused”
P18 L350: “Aircore” to “AirCore”
P18 L356: “altitde" to “altitude”
P18 L358: “Age of Air” to “age of air”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3279-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3279', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3279', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Nov 2024
Review of “Measurement report: Greenhouse gas profiles and age of air from the 2021 HEMERA-TWIN balloon launch” by Schuck et al.
General comment
This manuscript presents vertical profiles of trace gases from the stratosphere over Scandinavia in summer 2021. The successful payload of a variety of instruments onboard the balloon and subsequent analysis data were fruits of great efforts, for which I would like to send congratulations to the authors. In particular, AirCores and the laser spectrometer (Pico) seem to be the new efforts from the recent decade. The team’s long and dedicated efforts deserve the new exciting data. The manuscript is well organized and written. Below I provide some minor comments that might be considered.
I believe that this work has been achieved on the basis of the long history of experimental advances in balloon observations by the European scientific community. I suppose that earlier works such as Schmidt et al. and Fabian et al. have paved the way. It might be interesting if the authors provide readers opportunity to follow the origins of the active techniques and historical development. One additional paragraph in the introduction section could help. Technical advantages over the balloon observation systems from the US and Japan teams might be also interesting.
Age of air calculation should be elaborated so that readers can understand principles of the method better. Although I understand that this study stands on the past technical efforts, needed is more exact explanations about the method, not the software. The package should assume an age spectra formulation to find the best-match mean age of air. It could be more clearly explained why the surface reference time series of CH4 is used for calculation of the mean ages from CO2 and SF6 (were they or stratospheric data used for the CO2 correction?). What kind of assumptions brought the bias correction applied to SF6-derived ages of air might be also more explained with additional sentences, in addition to reference to Garny et al. paper. Although they are complex, the authors should provide essential parts. Since age of air is not uniquely determined from the data, I think the manuscript should provide the method in a way independently understandable.
Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 might be merged into a multi-panel graph. I am interested in comparing vertical profiles of different species particularly for correspondences of gradients among species. The tropopause could be marked, otherwise readers wonder at places like “in the troposphere.” Profiles down to the troposphere are great advantage of this study.
Specific comment
Throughout the manuscript: I’ve been wondering what HEMERA and TWIN stand for.
P2 L51: Though with some difference in methods, use of halocarbons for estimating mean age of air can be further back in time e.g., Daniel et al. (1996) and Harnisch et al. (1999). It might be worth mentioning that the idea existed much earlier than the recent extensive studies like Ray et al. (2017) and Leedham Elvidge et al. (2018).
P3 L63: I could not find the companion paper (Laube et al. 2024) available. It must be made available before considering the decision of this manuscript. Otherwise this manuscript should provide more information without mentioning the reference.
P4 L84: “position data” do they include the GPS altitude? Regarding this, the altitude coordination in this study is unclear. Are the altitudes in Figure 2 and the following figures the GPS altitude recorded by the Pico-SDLA instrument? Or was pressure recorded and converted to altitude?
P4 Section 2.2: It is regrettable that the Pico-STRAT Bi Gaz instrument for CO2 and H2O did not work well. Looking at Figure 2, I hope successful measurement at next opportunity as the present profiles were all from “reconstruction” from subsequent analyses.
P5 Table 1: I think that this table could be somehow merged with Table 3, because I have sometimes confused with which instrument for which species. A merged table might provide a quick look for such correspondences.
P8 L192: Is there a reference that described usefulness of the cotton filter for COS measurements? Does co-existence of ozone and COS deteriorate their stability in the stainless steel flask? Such an explanation is valuable and desirably presented in this manuscript or the companion one.
P8 Section 2.5: I think that it would be valuable to describe how much sample amount (volume) was used for each analysis. This information should be critical when the campaign was planned.
P9 L219: How long does it take to have the instrument output stabilized with the flow rate ~50 sccm. I imagine that those stable data points were taken to calculate the measurement value and the time for stabilization determined the amount of sample used.
P10 Section 2.6: As in my earlier comment, I hope this section be reformulated so that readers can correctly follow principles, assumptions and processes to calculate the age of air.
P10 L265: “in the troposphere” the tropopause should be presented. Otherwise readers cannot be clear about which altitude range is mentioned.
P14 L303: It is interesting to see the ups and downs in CH4 above 20 km observed by the Pico instrument. Is there any possible mechanism that could shape such layers?
Technical Comments
P4 L70: “known” to “considered”
P11 L274: “caused”
P18 L350: “Aircore” to “AirCore”
P18 L356: “altitde" to “altitude”
P18 L358: “Age of Air” to “age of air”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3279-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3279', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3279/egusphere-2024-3279-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tanja Schuck, 24 Jan 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
Draft October 21, 2022 (v1) Dataset Open Greenhouse gas profiles from the 2021 HEMERA-TWIN balloon launch Tanja J. Schuck, Johannes C. Laube, Alessandro Zanchetta, Steven van Heuven, Johannes Degen, and Mélanie Ghysels-Dubois https://zenodo.org/records/13918431
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 301 | 85 | 127 | 513 | 30 | 20 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 85
- XML: 127
- Total: 513
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Tanja J. Schuck
Johannes Degen
Timo Keber
Katharina Meixner
Thomas Wagenhäuser
Mélanie Ghysels
Georges Durry
Nadir Amarouche
Alessandro Zanchetta
Steven van Heuven
Huilin Chen
Johannes C. Laube
Sophie Baartman
Carina van der Veen
Maria Elena Popa
Andreas Engel
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1197 KB) - Metadata XML