Notice: Wiley Online Library will be unavailable on Saturday 27th February from 09:00-14:00 GMT / 04:00-09:00 EST / 17:00-22:00 SGT for essential maintenance. Apologies for the inconvenience.
If you can't find a tool you're looking for, please click the link at the top of the page to "Go to old article view". Alternatively, view our Knowledge Base articles for additional help. Your feedback is important to us, so please let us know if you have comments or ideas for improvement.
 The scaling of CRISM (Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars) retrieved O2(1Δg) 1.27 µm volume emission rate (VER) profiles, as plotted in Figures 7-17 and 21 of Clancy et al. , includes a calibration error specific to the profile matrix inversion. Hence, all of the presented CRISM O2(1Δg) VER values should be decreased by a factor of 2.1. This error does not affect limb radiance values, such as presented in Figures 3–7, but significantly affects reported values for volume and vertically integrated emission rates. Vertically (46–75 km) integrated, latitudinally (70–90 NS) averaged O2(1Δg) emission rates of 250–300 kR are correctly calculated from CRISM winter polar nightglow observations. This error also impacts the conclusion that Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique general circulation/photochemical model [e.g., Lefèvre et al., 2004] simulations of polar winter O2(1Δg) 1.27 µm VER are 40% lower, on average, than CRISM retrieved values. With the corrected profile scaling, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique model O2(1Δg) VER are 25% higher than CRISM retrieved values, on average. Hence, the model-data disagreement is less than originally reported, and the model simulations appear to slightly overpredict, rather than under-predict, poleward upper level transport into the polar winter regions. All other conclusions associated with the presented O2(1Δg) model-data comparisons regard variations (vertical, seasonal, latitudinal, local time, temperature dependence), and are generally unaffected by this correction. Corrected Figures 7-17 and 21 are provided below. The incorrect scaling of VER in Clancy et al.  was strictly the fault of the lead author.