Copernicus stratospheric ozone service, 2009–2012:  validation, system intercomparison and roles of input data sets

Lefever, K.; van der A, R.; Baier, F.; Christophe, Y.; Errera, Q.; Eskes, H.; Flemming, J.; Inness, A.; Jones, L.; Lambert, J.-C.; Langerock, B.; Schultz, M. G.; Stein, O.; Wagner, A.; Chabrillat, S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Monitoring atmospheric composition and climate, research in...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

Research article

|

03 Mar 2015

Research article |

| 03 Mar 2015

Copernicus stratospheric ozone service, 2009–2012: validation, system intercomparison and roles of input data sets

K. Lefever, R. van der A, F. Baier, Y. Christophe, Q. Errera, H. Eskes, J. Flemming, A. Inness, L. Jones, J.-C. Lambert, B. Langerock, M. G. Schultz, O. Stein, A. Wagner, and S. Chabrillat

Download

Final revised paper (published on 03 Mar 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 15 May 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2703: 'Referee Comments on the paper 'Copernicus Atmospheric Service for stratospheric ozone: Validation and intercomparison of four near real-time analyses, 2009-2012'', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 May 2014
- AC C9036: 'Author Response to Referee 1', Simon Chabrillat, 12 Nov 2014
RC C4506: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jul 2014
- AC C9045: 'Author response to Referee 2', Simon Chabrillat, 12 Nov 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Simon Chabrillat on behalf of the Authors (15 Dec 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Dec 2014) by William Lahoz (deceased)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Dec 2014)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Jan 2015)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Jan 2015) by William Lahoz (deceased)

Please address the comments from the referees as well as the following comments:

L. 5: Introduce acronym for ECMWF and other institutions (BIRA-IASB, DLR/RIU, KNMI)

L. 45: I suggest the use “e.g.,”. Please do this elsewhere. Same for “i.e.,”.

L. 49: Elsewhere you have, e.g., 1920s (here it is 1980’s). Be consistent.

L. 76: Introduce acronym for “NRT”.

L. 78: “…NOX, i.e., …”.

L. 94: If you are going to use UK spelling (spelling of “modelling” suggests so), this is “centres”.

L. 98: documents; allows.

L. 100: were -> are (to preserve the verbal structure of the paragraph).

L. 106-109: This sentence has words missing and/or superfluous words. Please correct.

L. 109-110: What is used as a reference?

L. 115: Introduce acronym for ASSET.

L. 118: Should “they” be “we”?

L. 126: Refer to Manney et al. (2011) here (you cite this paper elsewhere).

L. 146: Introduce acronym for MLS.

L. 153: Here and elsewhere consider not starting a sentence with an acronym.

L. 167: Remove superfluous “the”.

L. 226: Introduce acronym for CTM.

L. 271: comprising.

L. 306: retrieval.

L. 315: I think you do not need the second “assimilation”.

L. 330: I think the reference is Kalnay (2003) – please check.

L. 342: “…in a first approximation…”.

L. 348: Elsewhere you have “parameterization”. Please be consistent.

L. 351: I suggest “…a specified…”.

L. 384: Missing “)”.

L. 396: Perhaps “polar” - >”Arctic”?

L. 429: Wegener.

L. 437: “…Boone et al. (2005)…”.

L.473: For a common style, I suggest “…at Syowa…”.

L. 483: I suggest using “DU” here and elsewhere.

L. 491: sunlight (for consistency with text elsewhere).

L. 501: You mean they have negative biases? Please clarify.

L. 511-512: I suggest using “…before the loss of Envisat…”.

L. 536: was -> were.

L. 539: in general - > generally.

L. 545: Elsewhere you use “setup”. Please be consistent (see also L. 829, 830).

L. 549: Should be “Ny-Ålesund”, as in the title for sect. 4.1.

L. 563: behaviour (if you use UK English). Same for L. 630, 631, 708.

L. 565: no -> none.

L. 592: assimilation.

L. 609: Should be “50 hPa”.

L. 611: I suggest “…BASCOE do not differ much in their analyses”.

L. 618: “…the station at Nairobi…”.

L. 626: over-and -> over- and.

L. 636: I suggest: probably -> likely.

L. 638: I suggest: worse -> poorer.

L. 644: “…lower down in height…”.

L. 651: I suggest: “…many of these biases…”.

L. 667: its -> their.

L. 674: “…a lower horizontal resolution may also lead…”.

L. 677: is -> are.

L. 687: Introduce UARS acronym.

L. 708: Do you need “excellent”?

L. 709: alternating.

L. 753: Elsewhere you use “midlatitudes”. Please be consistent.

L. 760: “…on 26 March…”.

L. 761: Northwest Russia.

L. 812: usage -> use.

L. 816: What is “MLS SCI”?

L. 822: Remove superfluous “nal”.

L. 825: Do you need “indeed”?

L. 829: I suggest you identify the years.

L. 848: Do you need “correctly”?

L. 856: section 6.2.

L. 860: This -> These.

L. 862: by -> from.

L. 871: What last sensitivity test? Please identify.

L. 876: “…in WMO (2011)”.

L. 896: Wegener.

L. 954: Dethof.

L. 1032: I think the year is 2003. Please check.

Table 1 caption, L. 3: Use either “used” or “uses” in both cases.

Table 2: Lagrangian mis-spelt at least once. Please correct.

Fig. 2 caption, L. 3: “…interpolated to…”. Last line: is the observational uncertainty 4% in all cases?

Fig. 4 caption, L. 3: th -> the.

Fig. 5 caption: I suggest: left out -> omitted.

Fig. 8 caption: I suggest you remind the reader of the approximate height and pressure of the 485 K level (same for Fig. 11). Elsewhere you have
“Spitsbergen” – please be consistent.

Fig. 10 caption (and similar figures): Please indicate the units of the quantity plotted.

Hide

AR by Simon Chabrillat on behalf of the Authors (09 Feb 2015) Manuscript

Short summary

We validate and discuss the analyses of stratospheric ozone delivered in near-real time between 2009 and 2012 by four different data assimilation systems: IFS-MOZART, BASCOE, SACADA and TM3DAM. It is shown that the characteristics of the assimilation systems are much less important than those of the assimilated data sets. A correct representation of the vertical distribution of ozone requires satellite observations which are well resolved vertically and extend into the lowermost stratosphere.