Non-Redfieldian carbon model for the Baltic Sea (ERGOM version 1.2) – implementation and budget estimates

Neumann, Thomas; Radtke, Hagen; Cahill, Bronwyn; Schmidt, Martin; Rehder, Gregor

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8473-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 22

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8473-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8473-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 22

Model description paper

|

22 Nov 2022

Model description paper |

| 22 Nov 2022

Non-Redfieldian carbon model for the Baltic Sea (ERGOM version 1.2) – implementation and budget estimates

Thomas Neumann, Hagen Radtke, Bronwyn Cahill, Martin Schmidt, and Gregor Rehder

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Nov 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Jun 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-79', Tatsuro Tanioka, 11 Jun 2022

Please refer to the document attached.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-79-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2022-79', Feifei Liu, 20 Jul 2022

Please refer to the document attached.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-79-RC2
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-79', Andrew Yool, 29 Jul 2022

Dear Authors,
Your manuscript has received two referee reports and the discussions phase has concluded.
Both reports make a number of recommendations for improvements for your manuscript. However, one referee report raises a number of critical points and recommends that, in its current form, the manuscript is rejected.
Before making a decision on the next step, I would like to see your response to the comments and criticisms raised by your referees. Where this requires additional work or extensive revision, you may wish at this stage to outline these changes rather than undertake time-consuming extra work.
Please feel free to contact me should you require any clarification or further guidance.
With best regards,
Andrew Yool.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-79-EC1
AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-79', Thomas Neumann, 08 Sep 2022

We are thankful for the effort and suggestions of the two referees. Our response to the raised concerns and questions of the referees is given in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-79-AC1

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Thomas Neumann on behalf of the Authors (08 Sep 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Sep 2022) by Andrew Yool

RR by Tatsuro Tanioka (11 Oct 2022)

ED: Publish as is (19 Oct 2022) by Andrew Yool

AR by Thomas Neumann on behalf of the Authors (26 Oct 2022) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Marine ecosystem models are usually constrained by the elements nitrogen and phosphorus and consider carbon in organic matter in a fixed ratio. Recent observations show a substantial deviation from the simulated carbon cycle variables. In this study, we present a marine ecosystem model for the Baltic Sea which allows for a flexible uptake ratio for carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. With this extension, the model reflects much more reasonable variables of the marine carbon cycle.