Quantifying TOLNet ozone lidar accuracy during the 2014 DISCOVER-AQ and FRAPPE campaigns

The Tropospheric Ozone Lidar Network (TOLNet) is a unique network of lidar systems that measure high-resolution atmospheric profiles of ozone. The accurate characterization of these lidars is necessary to determine the uniformity of the network calibration. From July to August 2014, three lidars, the TROPospheric OZone (TROPOZ) lidar, the Tunable Optical Profiler for Aerosol and oZone (TOPAZ) lidar, and the Langley Mobile Ozone Lidar (LMOL), of TOLNet participated in the Deriving Information on Surface conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality (DISCOVER-AQ) mission and the Front Range Air Pollution and Photochemistry Éxperiment (FRAPPÉ) to measure ozone variations from the boundary layer to the top of the troposphere. This study presents the analysis of the intercomparison between the TROPOZ, TOPAZ, and LMOL lidars, along with comparisons between the lidars and other in situ ozone instruments including ozonesondes and a P-3B airborne chemiluminescence sensor. The TOLNet lidars measured vertical ozone structures with an accuracy generally better than ±15 % within the troposphere. Larger differences occur at some individual altitudes in both the near-field and far-field range of the lidar systems, largely as expected. In terms of column average, the TOLNet lidars measured ozone with an accuracy better than ±5 % for both the intercomparison between the lidars and between the lidars and other instruments. These results indicate that these three TOLNet lidars are suitable for use in air quality, satellite validation, and ozone modeling efforts

Between history and values: A study on the nature of interpretation in international law

My thesis discusses the place of evaluative judgements in the interpretation of general international law. It concentrates on two questions. First, whether it is possible to interpret international legal practices without making an evaluative judgement about the point or value that provides the best justification of these practices. Second, whether the use of evaluative judgements in international legal interpretation threatens to undermine the objectivity of international law, the neutrality of international lawyers or the consensual and voluntary basis of the international legal system. I answer both questions in the negative. As regards the first, I argue that international legal practice has an interpretive structure, which combines appeals to the history of international practice with appeals to the principles and values that these practices are best understood as promoting. This interpretive structure is apparent not only in the claims of international lawyers about particular rules of international law (here I use the rule of estoppel as an example) but also in the most basic intuitions of international theorists about the theory and sources of general international law. I then argue that some popular concerns to the effect that the exercise of evaluation in the interpretation of international law will undermine the coherence or the usefulness of the discipline are generally unwarranted. The fact that international legal practice has an interpretive structure does not entail that propositions of international law are only subjectively true, that the interpreter enjoys license to manipulate their meaning for self-serving purposes, or that international law will collapse under the weight of irresolvable disagreements, divisions and conflicts about its proper interpretation