Overview of the Chemistry-Aerosol Mediterranean Experiment/Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing on the Mediterranean Climate (ChArMEx/ADRIMED) summer 2013 campaign

Mallet, M.; Dulac, F.; Formenti, P.; Nabat, P.; Sciare, J.; Roberts, G.; Pelon, J.; Ancellet, G.; Tanré, D.; Parol, F.; Denjean, C.; Brogniez, G.; di Sarra, A.; Alados-Arboledas, L.; Arndt, J.; Auriol, F.; Blarel, L.; Bourrianne, T.; Chazette, P.; Chevaillier, S.; Claeys, M.; D'Anna, B.; Derimian, Y.; Desboeufs, K.; Di Iorio, T.; Doussin, J.-F.; Durand, P.; Féron, A.; Freney, E.; Gaimoz, C.; Goloub, P.; Gómez-Amo, J. L.; Granados-Muñoz, M. J.; Grand, N.; Hamonou, E.; Jankowiak, I.; Jeannot, M.; Léon, J.-F.; Maillé, M.; Mailler, S.; Meloni, D.; Menut, L.; Momboisse, G.; Nicolas, J.; Podvin, T.; Pont, V.; Rea, G.; Renard, J.-B.; Roblou, L.; Schepanski, K.; Schwarzenboeck, A.; Sellegri, K.; Sicard, M.; Solmon, F.; Somot, S.; Torres, B; Totems, J.; Triquet, S.; Verdier, N.; Verwaerde, C.; Waquet, F.; Wenger, J.; Zapf, P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-455-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-455-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

CHemistry and AeRosols Mediterranean EXperiments (ChArMEx)...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-455-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 2

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

19 Jan 2016

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 19 Jan 2016

Overview of the Chemistry-Aerosol Mediterranean Experiment/Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing on the Mediterranean Climate (ChArMEx/ADRIMED) summer 2013 campaign

M. Mallet, F. Dulac, P. Formenti, P. Nabat, J. Sciare, G. Roberts, J. Pelon, G. Ancellet, D. Tanré, F. Parol, C. Denjean, G. Brogniez, A. di Sarra, L. Alados-Arboledas, J. Arndt, F. Auriol, L. Blarel, T. Bourrianne, P. Chazette, S. Chevaillier, M. Claeys, B. D'Anna, Y. Derimian, K. Desboeufs, T. Di Iorio, J.-F. Doussin, P. Durand, A. Féron, E. Freney, C. Gaimoz, P. Goloub, J. L. Gómez-Amo, M. J. Granados-Muñoz, N. Grand, E. Hamonou, I. Jankowiak, M. Jeannot, J.-F. Léon, M. Maillé, S. Mailler, D. Meloni, L. Menut, G. Momboisse, J. Nicolas, T. Podvin, V. Pont, G. Rea, J.-B. Renard, L. Roblou, K. Schepanski, A. Schwarzenboeck, K. Sellegri, M. Sicard, F. Solmon, S. Somot, B Torres, J. Totems, S. Triquet, N. Verdier, C. Verwaerde, F. Waquet, J. Wenger, and P. Zapf

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Jan 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Jul 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C6829: 'Review of the manuscript acp-2015-454', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2015
- AC C8882: 'Answer_Referee#1', Marc Mallet, 03 Nov 2015
RC C6846: 'Review of the submitted paper to acp-2015-454', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2015
- AC C8883: 'Answer_Referee#2', Marc Mallet, 03 Nov 2015

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Marc Mallet on behalf of the Authors (03 Nov 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Nov 2015) by Oleg Dubovik

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Nov 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of the revised paper to ACP “Overview of the Chemistry-Aerosol Mediterranean Experiment/Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing on the Mediterranean Climate (ChArMEx/ADRIMED) summer 2013 campaign” by Mallet et al.

In general, I am happy with the author’s replies to my comments. However, there are some technical points that need further attention. Thus, I suggest the publication of the paper in ACP. Below there are my comments to some of the authors’ replies.
Referee#2
Minor comments
4. Page 19626, Line 2: “... an innovative database ...” I agree that the database is rich, but what is the innovation about it?
Referee’s reply: The author’s reply is fine just they should replace the word “huge” in the sentence ‘... for creating a huge 3-D database of physical ...’ by something more moderate, e.g. rich, important. I do not think that we should stop taking aerosol observations in the Mediterranean after ADRIMED.

7. Page 19634, Lines 11-25: What’s the point of the EARLINET/ACTRIS network section as the 4 stations operated only for 1-2 days during the campaign and none of their data is presented in the manuscript. I suggest either to eliminate or to reduce significantly.
If the reviewer agrees, we prefer keeping this part in the article as a study is ongoing to compare aircraft observations with lidar retrievals. However, we agree that the part was too long and in that sense, we have now reduced it in the new version.
Referee’s reply: I was very astonished to realize that the authors have not reduced almost at all the text in the new version. To my view they can do better than that.

9. Page 19639, Line 26: Add references for the satellite retrievals.
All the references; Tanré et al. (1997), Tanré et al. (2011), Khan et al. (2010) and Thieleux et al. (2005) have now been cited for the MODIS, PARASOL, MISR and SEVIRI sensors, respectively.
Referee’s reply: Replace “Khan” by “Kahn” in the text.

21. Page 19652, Lines 8-10: The following AERONET stations Ouijda, Cagliari, Cap d’En Font,Ouarzazate, Frioul and Majorque while appear in Figs. 18 and 25, there are missing from Tab. 2.
This is effectively true and we have now completed the Table 2.
Referee’s reply: Replace “Oujda” by “Ouijda” in Table 2.

23. Page 19656, Lines 15-18: Certainly the wavelength dependence is lower than below the 2 km, but it is not very small, as someone can see just above and below the peak at about 3 km. Why this happens?
The reviewer correctly remarks that there is a relatively large variability in the backscattering coefficient wavelength dependence at the altitudes where desert dust is expected. This is apparent in figure 22 b), with layers characterized by high values of backscattering coefficient displaying a small wavelength dependence, and intermediate layers with a moderate dependence. This suggests a variability in the aerosol size distribution and/or refractive index/shape. We do not have additional information that allows us to interpret this variability. In any case, all the particles below approximately 2 km display a significantly larger wavelength dependence, suggesting markedly different optical properties. A similar vertical variability of the wavelength dependence is observed, for instance, in figure 20 for the scattering coefficient profile measured over Lampedusa on 22 June; as discussed in section 5.2.3, particles of different origin and optical properties may be identified at the various altitudes.
Referee’s reply: Delete the word “very” from the sentence ‘...above 2 km shows very small wavelength dependence, ...’. This is in line with your reply.

24. Page 19657, Lines 6-8: Is the LNG cross section in Fig. 23 correct? It seems from the text and the AOD figure below that the latitude axis is inverted.
There was effectively a mistake and the Figure 23 corresponds to the flight from Sardinia to the Gulf of Genoa. This is now changed in the text.
Referee’s reply: As I wrote the inconsistency is not only between the figure and the text, but also between the LNG cross section and the optical depth figure. For example looking at the LNG cross section at 41oN the extinction coefficient is ~ 0.015 km-1 x 6 km = 0.09, while at 44oN the extinction coefficient seems to be ~0.06 km-1 x 6 km = 0.36. While from the optical depth figure below at these latitudes, the values are ~0.45 and ~0.1 at 41oN and 44oN, respectively. Thus, either in the LNG cross section or in the optical depth figure, the latitude axis is inverted.

29. Homogenize the boundaries of the maps in Figs. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27 and 29. The same for Figs. 2, 3 and 4.
This is unfortunately quite difficult to homogenize all the figures as they have been prepared by using different products (models, satellites) with different horizontal resolutions and domains (for instance TRMM is limited to 50°N). For every figure, we have tried to represent as most as possible a similar domain, integrating the entire Mediterranean basin. If this is acceptable, we propose to keep the different figures in the present configuration.
Referee’s reply: I do not consider this answer as valid, for example how many times in the paper there is reference to latitudes above 50oN? However, as this comment is not related to the scientific quality of the paper, if the authors feel happy with their figures, they can keep them as they are.

Technical comments
1. Page 19621, Line 20: Crete is a Greek island, please modify accordingly.
This is now modified in the introduction.
Referee’s reply: Change the ‘the Crete Greece island’ to the ‘Greek island of Crete’.

5. Page 19624, Line 15, Page 19661, Line 6: Nabat et al. (2015), which of the three?
This is now indicated: Nabat et al. (2015a).
Referee’s reply: Not in the first occurrence.

Additional comments
Please find below some additional comments related to revised version. The numbers are for the revised paper.
1) Check the number of Figures and Tables when they are cited in the text, as after the introduction of new figures/tables not all of them are referring to the respective figure/table.
2) Lines 929 (Abstract) and 2342 (Conclusions): Delete the word “climatic”, as this is referred to only 7 years (2003-2009).
3) Line 2049: Delete “s” from ‘estimates’.
4) Line 2064: In the specify D in the text?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (02 Dec 2015)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (03 Dec 2015) by Oleg Dubovik

AR by Marc Mallet on behalf of the Authors (11 Dec 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Dec 2015) by Oleg Dubovik

AR by Marc Mallet on behalf of the Authors (14 Dec 2015)

Short summary

The aim of this article is to present an experimental campaign over the Mediterranean focused on aerosol-radiation measurements and modeling. Results indicate an important atmospheric loading associated with a moderate absorbing ability of mineral dust. Observations suggest a complex vertical structure and size distributions characterized by large aerosols within dust plumes. The radiative effect is highly variable, with negative forcing over the Mediterranean and positive over northern Africa.