The update of the line positions and intensities in the line list of carbon dioxide for the HITRAN2020 spectroscopic database

Ames-2021 CO2 Dipole Moment Surface and IR Line Lists: Toward 0.1% Uncertainty for CO2 IR Intensities

“…27,31 The S Ames2016 and S CDSD2019 have similar P and R intensities for middle Js, but S Ame-2016 has much smaller δ% deviations for the P3−P21 and R1 transitions. The HITRAN2020 update 41 chose S CDSD2019 over S Ames2016 for this band, but the S Ames2021 surely has the best agreement with Toth et al (2008). 70 Compared to S CDSD2019 and S Ames2016 , now the δ% at high J and low J ends are reduced by two-thirds (P and R).…”

“…They are linked to the sharp intensity variations caused by the strong Coriolis coupling with the antisymmetric stretching fundamental band 00011− 00001. 41 Figure 11 uses Tanaka 2006 et al 75 as experimental reference. Compared to S Ames-2016 , the δ% of S Ames-2021 shows small increases for the 11101−00001 band but rises by nearly 50% (R branch) or about 1 / 3 (P branch) for the 11102−00001 band.…”

“…The HITRAN 2020 update has fully replaced the S UCL-296 by S CDSD2019 values. 41 In the HITRAN2020 update, the S HITRAN2016 intensity of the 20003−01101 and 12202−01101 hot bands near 1900 cm −1 were scaled by 1.05 to match the JPL ATM 76,77 values. These two bands are also affected by Coriolis Coupling.…”

“…These two bands are also affected by Coriolis Coupling. Karlovets et al 41 cited the 20003−01101 intensity source as UCL ab initio. But to our knowledge, the S UCL-296 and S HITRAN2016 R1−R11 intensity of the 20003−01101 band were also taken from CDSD2015 due to 2 orders of magnitude deviation around R5, 16 just like the R9−R20 intensity of the 12202−01101 band.…”

“…Karlovets 28 slightly underestimated the R branch intensity. Therefore, S Ames2016 was adopted by HI-TRAN2020 33,41 for the better agreement. Our comparison in Figure 18 does not include HITRAN2016 32 or CDSD2015.…”