Description and evaluation of a detailed gas-phase chemistry scheme in the TM5-MP global chemistry transport model (r112)

Myriokefalitakis, Stelios; Daskalakis, Nikos; Gkouvousis, Angelos; Hilboll, Andreas; van Noije, Twan; Williams, Jason E.; Le Sager, Philippe; Huijnen, Vincent; Houweling, Sander; Bergman, Tommi; Nüß, Johann Rasmus; Vrekoussis, Mihalis; Kanakidou, Maria; Krol, Maarten C.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5507-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5507-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5507-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

Model description paper

|

12 Nov 2020

Model description paper |

| 12 Nov 2020

Description and evaluation of a detailed gas-phase chemistry scheme in the TM5-MP global chemistry transport model (r112)

Stelios Myriokefalitakis, Nikos Daskalakis, Angelos Gkouvousis, Andreas Hilboll, Twan van Noije, Jason E. Williams, Philippe Le Sager, Vincent Huijnen, Sander Houweling, Tommi Bergman, Johann Rasmus Nüß, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Maria Kanakidou, and Maarten C. Krol

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Nov 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Apr 2020)
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 of: "Description and evaluation of a detailed gas-phase chemistry scheme in the TM5-MP global chemistry transport model (r112)" by Myriokefalitakis et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Stylianos Myriokefalitakis, 17 Jul 2020
RC2: 'Review report gmd-2020-110', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jun 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to RC2', Stylianos Myriokefalitakis, 17 Jul 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Stylianos Myriokefalitakis on behalf of the Authors (20 Jul 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Jul 2020) by Rolf Sander

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Jul 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Aug 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Overall, the manuscript has significantly improved. I thank the authors for the additional effort they performed in order to achieve this. Especially, the additional sensitivity simulations are useful.

Still, some of my major concerns have not been fully addressed. I agree with the authors, when justifying the use of many sources on page 4 line 19-22, that the important sources that report the model development should be cited here. However, some of the listed sources do not fall into this category and, by the authors own definition, should not be cited when presenting the historical development of the model. In particular, Dentener et al., 2003, and van Noije, 2004 do not present any obvious model development and are not cited anywhere else in the manuscript. At a minimum these should be removed from this part of the manuscript and all other citations should be evaluated regarding their contribution to the model development.

I agree with the authors that using the same emission dataset for all simulations (as you clearly state on page 10 line 28) is the right approach. However, there are still some formulations in the manuscript that are misleading and could be misunderstood. For example, page 10, line 20-21: “A list of the global annual emission strengths considered for the MOGUNTIA chemical configuration is presented in Table 3.” could imply that other emissions are used for the non-MOGUNTIA simulations. The caption of Table 3 gives the same impression. Please revise these statements and check if there are other formulations in the manuscript that could be misleading.

You changed/updated some rate constants in Table 2 (Page 44 – 51). In your simulations, did you use the values presented in the first or in the new version of the manuscript? If you didn’t re-simulate all simulations using the new values, what impact do you expect these changes have on your results?

I suggest publication, if the authors address my concerns in addition to the following minor comments:

Page 4, line 30: Correct notation of radon-222. Here, 222 should be in superscript-format.

Page 5, line 13: Please mention that you also present values for the 100 ppb tropopause definition, in order to allow comparability with other studies.

Page 23, line 14: The “with the” should be deleted.

In many instances the degree sign is in subscript-format where it should be clearly superscript-format. Please adapt the manuscript accordingly.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Aug 2020) by Rolf Sander

AR by Stylianos Myriokefalitakis on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Sep 2020) by Rolf Sander

AR by Stylianos Myriokefalitakis on behalf of the Authors (21 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

This work documents and evaluates the detailed tropospheric gas-phase chemical mechanism MOGUNTIA in the three-dimensional chemistry transport model TM5-MP. The Rosenbrock solver, as generated by the KPP software, is implemented in the chemistry code, which can successfully replace the classical Euler backward integration method. The MOGUNTIA scheme satisfactorily simulates a large suite of oxygenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are observed in the atmosphere at significant levels.