Study of the footprints of short-term variation in XCO<sub>2</sub> observed by TCCON sites using NIES and FLEXPART atmospheric transport models

Belikov, Dmitry A.; Maksyutov, Shamil; Ganshin, Alexander; Zhuravlev, Ruslan; Deutscher, Nicholas M.; Wunch, Debra; Feist, Dietrich G.; Morino, Isamu; Parker, Robert J.; Strong, Kimberly; Yoshida, Yukio; Bril, Andrey; Oshchepkov, Sergey; Boesch, Hartmut; Dubey, Manvendra K.; Griffith, David; Hewson, Will; Kivi, Rigel; Mendonca, Joseph; Notholt, Justus; Schneider, Matthias; Sussmann, Ralf; Velazco, Voltaire A.; Aoki, Shuji

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-143-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-143-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-143-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 1

Research article

|

03 Jan 2017

Research article |

| 03 Jan 2017

Study of the footprints of short-term variation in XCO₂ observed by TCCON sites using NIES and FLEXPART atmospheric transport models

Dmitry A. Belikov, Shamil Maksyutov, Alexander Ganshin, Ruslan Zhuravlev, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Debra Wunch, Dietrich G. Feist, Isamu Morino, Robert J. Parker, Kimberly Strong, Yukio Yoshida, Andrey Bril, Sergey Oshchepkov, Hartmut Boesch, Manvendra K. Dubey, David Griffith, Will Hewson, Rigel Kivi, Joseph Mendonca, Justus Notholt, Matthias Schneider, Ralf Sussmann, Voltaire A. Velazco, and Shuji Aoki

Download

Final revised paper (published on 03 Jan 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 04 May 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Belikov et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jun 2016
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer #1', Dmitry Belikov, 14 Oct 2016
RC2: 'Study of the footprints of short-term variation in XCO2 observed by TCCON 2 sites using NIES and FLEXPART atmospheric transport models', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2016
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer #2', Dmitry Belikov, 14 Oct 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Dmitry Belikov on behalf of the Authors (14 Oct 2016) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Oct 2016) by Quentin Errera

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 Nov 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments

Although the authors have revised Section 2, I think more details need to be provided about how the footprints were calculated using FLEXPART. The details provided in the author’s response should go in this section.

The authors consider it outside the scope of this manuscript to compare different retrieval products with the TCCON data (as asked for in my first review), however, I think it would still be important to mention, e.g., in the summary, for what applications the colocation method could be used for. Is it appropriate for example, for determining the uncertainties/errors in retrieval products with respect to TCCON and for using these uncertainties in e.g. inversions?

Specific comments

P3, L23: I suggest that the authors include some explanation here about how uncertainty of satellite data relates to the colocation method.

P9, L24: Here, I think the authors rather mean that less vertical mixing is the reason for lower PBL not vice-versa.

P10, L1: What is the reason for using ± before the dimensions of 5° and upwards? I guess this is to indicate that it is the distance from observation site? If so, I suggest for clarity stating the full dimensions of the grid box and that it is centred on the site. And throughout the paper.

P10, L3: The authors state that observations with differences of >3 ppm were discarded. Was the cause of the larger discrepancy for these observations investigated? Also, the authors should state what percentage of the coincident observations were discarded this way.

P10, L16-17: This sentence doesn’t exactly follow logically from the previous one. That the SD decreases with increasing number of observations is okay, however, it is not clear why this should affect the average bias.

P12, L3: Again, it would be interesting to know the percentage of collocated observations that were discarded according to the 3 ppm criteria for the different colocation methods.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (13 Nov 2016)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (17 Nov 2016) by Quentin Errera

AR by Dmitry Belikov on behalf of the Authors (25 Nov 2016) Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Dec 2016) by Quentin Errera

AR by Dmitry Belikov on behalf of the Authors (02 Dec 2016)

Study of the footprints of short-term variation in XCO2 observed by TCCON sites using NIES and FLEXPART atmospheric transport models

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Study of the footprints of short-term variation in XCO₂ observed by TCCON sites using NIES and FLEXPART atmospheric transport models