deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Profiles_Using_the_CFSv2__.tex b/subsection_Profiles_Using_the_CFSv2__.tex  index 20f7c41..3faa947 100644  --- a/subsection_Profiles_Using_the_CFSv2__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Profiles_Using_the_CFSv2__.tex 
...
\item hourly resolution  \end{itemize}  \\  Two comparisons between in-situ water vapour isotopes and TES retrievals. The first is by \citet{Worden_2011} using constructed profiles from the in-situ measurements on Mauna Loa. They used the TES H_2O profile and the daily evolution of the $\delta$^2H as the PBL grew and decayed (assuming a constant $\delta$^2H.H_2O relationship). The second paper by \cite{Herman_2014} used aircraft in-situ profiles and extrapolation above the top of the flights (>~4000m). These papers mention the importance of convolving the constructed "true" profiles with the TES operator (averaging kernel and a priori) to provide an accurate comparison. The later paper by \cite{Herman_2014}, also determine the sensitivity of the error budget to the true profile. We may be able to do something similar using the different profile models (Rayeligh's and mixing models).  \\  All code written in python.  \subsubsection{Jobs:}