Reply to comment by Poole et al. on a tropical NAT-like belt observed from space

TL;DR

This paper defends the interpretation that observed tropical NAT-like belts are likely caused by Nitric Acid Trihydrate particles, arguing against the claim that such observations are improbable to be NAT-related.

Contribution

It provides a reasoned defense of NAT particle interpretation in tropical belts, challenging prior dismissals based on limited evidence.

Findings

Insufficient evidence to dismiss NAT interpretation

Supports NAT particles as a plausible explanation for tropical belts

Highlights need for further observational data

Abstract

In their comment, Poole et al. (2009) aim to show it is highly improbable that the observations described in Chepfer and Noel (2009), and described as "NAT-like" therein, are produced by Nitric Acid Trihydrate (NAT) particles. In this reply, we attempt to show why there is, in our opinion, too little evidence to reject this interpretation right away.