deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_textbf_Analysis_Profiles_of__.tex b/section_textbf_Analysis_Profiles_of__.tex  index 864b909..2215591 100644  --- a/section_textbf_Analysis_Profiles_of__.tex  +++ b/section_textbf_Analysis_Profiles_of__.tex 
...
For the rayleigh models, any reduction in water vapour with height was assumed to follow either an open or closed rayleigh model. Rewetting with height, is assummed to just move back along the rayleigh model (which contradicts the open rayleigh model). For the closed rayleigh model, below 263K, an open rayleigh model is assumed along the lines of ice condensation (reverse sublimation - deposition).  \\  \\  Two mixing models are applied, both have the wet end member equivalent to the surface $\delta^2$H and the CFSv2 mixing ratio. The two models deviate in their dry air mass mixing with the surface. The first uses the minimum mixing ratio and $\delta^2$H at the top of the troposphere determined suing the open rayleigh model, the second uses the closed rayleigh model minimum. \\  \\  Figure \ref{fig:TimeSeries} \ref{fig:WetProfiles}  shows profiles during Cyclone Carlos, and figure \ref{fig:DryProfiles} during the dry season. During cyclone Carlos very depleted $\delta$^2H isotope signatures were observed near the surface and much higher water vapour high up in the atmosphere. There is no evidence of a planetary boundary layer. During the dry season profiles shown, a clear bolundary layer is shown. In this case, the rayeligh models are unlikely to be very accurate as  the time series surface and the free troposphere are disconnected - a mixing model probably provides a better representation  of the columns modeled calculated from isotope profile (assumming the dry end member associated with the free troposphere can be defined).  \\  \\  Figure \ref