Update and evaluation of the ozone dry deposition in Oslo CTM3 v1.0

Falk, Stefanie; Søvde Haslerud, Amund

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4705-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4705-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4705-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 11

Development and technical paper

|

08 Nov 2019

Development and technical paper |

| 08 Nov 2019

Update and evaluation of the ozone dry deposition in Oslo CTM3 v1.0

Stefanie Falk and Amund Søvde Haslerud

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Nov 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Mar 2019)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review report', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Apr 2019
- AC1: 'Response to anonymous referee #1', Stefanie Falk, 23 Apr 2019
  - RC3: 'Comment on authors' response', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 May 2019
    - AC2: 'Response to anonymous referee #1', Stefanie Falk, 13 May 2019
RC2: 'Review attached as pdf', David Simpson, 10 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Stefanie Falk on behalf of the Authors (11 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (04 Oct 2019) by Fiona O'Connor

Dear co-authors,

First of all, I would like to apologise for the delay in reading your revised manuscript and your responses to the original reviewer comments, and providing you with a decision.

Having read your updated manuscript, I think you have responded very comprehensively to the constructive comments of the reviewers, and have extensively updated your manuscript, including running new simulations. I am happy with the extensive set of revisions and recommend that your revised paper be accepted for publication.

I would also like to thank the reviewers for their detailed reviews, which have led to substantial improvements to the manuscript.

Finally, there are a number of specific comments, which are mainly grammatical but I would ask that you implement them before publication to improve the readability. I list them below.

Regards,
Fiona O’Connor

Specific comments:
1. Page 1, Abstract, line 19: Change “associated to” to “associated with” and change “resistance the ocean” to “resistance over the ocean”
2. Page 2, Introduction, line 15: Replace “else” with “otherwise”
3. Page 2, Introduction, line 34: Replace “observation” with “observations”
4. Page 3, Introduction, line 2: Change “sides” to “sites”
5. Page 3, Introduction, line 15: Worth noting that those early observations were subject to interference by other species e.g. SO2
6. Page 3, Introduction, line 27: Worth saying at this stage why the Luhar study gives lower estimates
7. Page 4, Introduction, line 5: Change to “as the beginning and duration of the greening season”
8. Page 4, Section 2, line 15/16: Change to “publication focussing on this is planned”
9. Page 4, Section 2, line 17: Change “is given in a” to “is given at a”
10. Page 7, Section 2.1.3, line 2: Remove “,” after both
11. Page 7, Section 2.1.3, equation 12: I’m not clear what the index m is referring to – can you explain or exclude if not necessary?
12. Page 7, Section 2.1.3, line 27: Change to “start of the greening”
13. Page 9, Section 2.1.3, line 3: Change “land surface types k” to “land surface type k”
14. Page 9, Section 2.1.3, line 4: Change “others” to “other”
15. Page 10, Section 2.2, line 28: Change “planed” to “planned”
16. Page 11, Section 2.2.1, line 10: Give web address
17. Page 12, Section 2.2.1, line 5: Change “planed” to “planned” – Check for other examples
18. Page 12, Section 2.2.2, line 13: Change to “spectrally”
19. Page 13, Section 3, line 14: Give reference for CEDS here
20. Page 13, Section 3, line 17: Can you provide global annual total?
21. Page 14, Section 3.1, line 13: Change to “we show global distributions of the relative difference between mosaic and wesely_type for surface ozone, dry deposition velocity and total ozone dry deposition”
22. Page 14, Section 3.1, line 14: Change “ozone burden” to “surface ozone”
23. Page 14, Section 3.1, line 16: Change “then” to “than”
24. Page 15, Section 3.2, line 5: Change to “the multi-model mean of the Task …. models”
25. Page 16, Section 3.2, line 5: Change to “available”
26. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 7: Change “in consistency with” to “consistent with”
27. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 10: Change to “hemispheres”
28. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 11: Change to “focussing”
29. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 28: Change to “as the new”
30. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 29: Change to “Arctic”
31. Page 16, Section 3.2.1, line 30: Change to “strong sensitivity to”
32. Page 17, Section 3.2.1, line 11: Change to “account”
33. Page 17, Section 3.2.1, line 11: Change to “but do not”
34. Page 17, Section 3.2.1, line 15: Change to “matches better”
35. Page 17, Section 3.2.1, line 21: Change to “as a reference” – Also, in section 3.2.2
36. Page 19, Section 3.2.2, line 12: Remove “both”
37. Page 19, Section 3.2.2, line 21: Change “regarding” to “for”
38. Page 19, Section 3.2.2, line 23: Change “In the case of”
39. Page 20, Section 3.2.2, line 19: Change to “in the Oslo”
40. Page 22, Section 3.2.2, line 6: Change “responses” to “responds”
41. Page 22, Section 3.3, line 16: It is unclear what you mean by “While on global average much more concise with the MACC….”
42. Page 23, Section 3.4, line 8: Change to “At 4 of the 6 sites” – and again, later on in the same section
43. Page 25, Section 4, line 4: Correct spelling i.e. “mosaic”
44. Page 25, Section 4, line 6: Change to “(with the latter”
45. Page 25, Section 4, line 22: Change to “the operational”
46. Page 25, Section 4, line 30: Change to “In the case of”
47. Page 25, Section 4, line 30: Change “is in the order of 1 magnitude” to “is an order of magnitude”
48. Page 26, Section 4, line 3: Change to “breaking”
49. Page 26, Section 4, line 6: Change to “Arctic”
50. Page 26, Section 4, line 11: Remove “total”
51. Page 26, Section 4, line 14: Change to “to changes of the order of”
52. Page 27: Section 4: Change all references of “arctic” to “Arctic”
53. Page 27, Section 4, line 3: Change to “affect stratospheric”
54. Page 27, Section 4, line 7/8: Change to “at higher”
55. Author contributions: Replace reference to EMEP scheme!

Hide

AR by Stefanie Falk on behalf of the Authors (04 Oct 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

High concentrations of ozone in ambient air are hazardous to the whole ecosystem. The impact of ozone-induced damage on vegetation and agricultural plants in combination with advancing climate change may affect food security in the future. The process of dry deposition is important for predicting and understanding the observed surface ozone concentrations. We have updated the dry deposition scheme in Oslo CTM3 to a more process-based parameterization and assess the effect on modeled ozone.