Comment [on “Production of odd nitrogen in the stratosphere and mesosphere: An intercomparison of source strengths” by C. H. Jackman et al.]

lating N20 profiles over Panama and of computing solar intensities. They did cite Crutzen's [1971, 1974] original model estimates of 0.29 - 1.5 x 10/cm 2 s with the sole comment 'subsequent one-dimensional models have usually fallen within this range.' Since Ackerman [1975], only in Hudson and Reed [1979] have I found acknowledgment of the apparent discrepancy between stratospheric ON production rates computed by stratospheric models and those based on observational data, and they dismissed the two fold discrepancy which they found with the comment, 'Given the uncertainties in both models, it is not clear that the discrepancy is significant.' The model computed rate given by Hudson and Reed [1979] was supplied by my colleague D. J. Wuebbles who also calculated the downward flux of nitrogen containing species through the model tropopause. He found that HNO3 accounted for only 42% of this flux, which implies that Ackertradiction is frequently the first step toward the discovery of man's [1975] numbers should be multiplied by 2.38. new knowledge. Accordingly, I have been completely baffled Changes in stratospheric chemistry since Hudson and Reed by the failure of stratospheric scientists in general to consider [1979] seem to imply that model computed rates of stratoor even discuss the apparent discrepancy between estimates of spheric ON production should have declined again, but I have stratospheric ON production rates determined from models found no recent model results to check this. and from observational data, since this discrepancy was first Here is a statistic which provides an annual global in