The representation of solar cycle signals in stratospheric ozone –  Part 2: Analysis of global models

Maycock, Amanda C.; Matthes, Katja; Tegtmeier, Susann; Schmidt, Hauke; Thiéblemont, Rémi; Hood, Lon; Akiyoshi, Hideharu; Bekki, Slimane; Deushi, Makoto; Jöckel, Patrick; Kirner, Oliver; Kunze, Markus; Marchand, Marion; Marsh, Daniel R.; Michou, Martine; Plummer, David; Revell, Laura E.; Rozanov, Eugene; Stenke, Andrea; Yamashita, Yousuke; Yoshida, Kohei

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11323-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 15

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11323-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Chemistry–Climate Modelling Initiative (CCMI) (ACP/AMT/ESSD/GMD...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11323-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 15

Research article

|

13 Aug 2018

Research article |

| 13 Aug 2018

The representation of solar cycle signals in stratospheric ozone – Part 2: Analysis of global models

Amanda C. Maycock, Katja Matthes, Susann Tegtmeier, Hauke Schmidt, Rémi Thiéblemont, Lon Hood, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Slimane Bekki, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Oliver Kirner, Markus Kunze, Marion Marchand, Daniel R. Marsh, Martine Michou, David Plummer, Laura E. Revell, Eugene Rozanov, Andrea Stenke, Yousuke Yamashita, and Kohei Yoshida

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Aug 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 31 May 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Comment on Maycock et al.', Michaela I. Hegglin, 31 May 2017
- SC2: 'Reply to Michaela I. Hegglin', Amanda Maycock, 05 Jun 2017
RC1: 'acp-2017-477', Joanna D. Haigh, 13 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Author response to review by Joanna D. Haigh', Amanda Maycock, 04 Dec 2017
RC2: 'Review of Maycock et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Author response to review by Anonymous Referee 2', Amanda Maycock, 04 Dec 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Amanda Maycock on behalf of the Authors (04 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Dec 2017) by Peter Hess

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second review of Maycock et al.

Overall the Authors have done many corrections on their paper, and have addressed most of my minor concerns satisfactorily. Some of the responses to major concerns are not satisfactory, especially regarding the novelty of the analysis. My overall conclusion is that while I do not necessarily agree with some of the implementations of methods, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the analysis either (it is just not as rigorous as it could be). But, the paper provides only a small incremental advance to the field, and is not what I would call novel. As such, I do not believe it warrants publication in this journal.

I will not go through all the major point responses from the author, only the one regarding novelty, which the authors state is summarised in the introductory section with 4 points. I will take the 4 points separately, and explain why I believe the paper is only an incremental advance

1. To provide an update to previous CCM studies by analysing the SOR in CCMI-1 models.

Hardly ground breaking science. All that has been done here is using very similar methods to very similar data, and unsurprisingly getting very similar results. The previous similar studies were only a couple of years ago – models haven’t advanced that much in two years.

2. To evaluate the SOR in three pre-calculated ozone databases for climate models from CMIP5, CMIP6 and Bodecker et al.

Yes, but this analysis has already been performed for two out of these three datasets, so this is wildly overstating the novelty. It is new for CMIP6, but again, see my response to point 1….

3. To compare CCMs and ozone databases with satellite observations from Part 1.

But this is exactly what Hood et al, 2015 did. They compared satellites with CCMs, and with non-chemistry models. Clearly seen in their figures and analysis. As Hood is an author on this paper, perhaps Maycock and Hood can discuss this and present an answer. At the moment, I see very little novelty (other than, yet again, the application to slightly different data sets, but you’ve already covered that in points 1 and 2).

4. To perform atmospheric model experiments….

This is certainly the most novel aspect of the paper, and in my view by far the most useful part. Model responses to the simulated atmospheric response (even with the same ozone prescribed) are widely different though, so for this to be a robust analysis, the experiments should be performed in at least one other model.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (03 Feb 2018) by Peter Hess

AR by Amanda Maycock on behalf of the Authors (22 Mar 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (05 Apr 2018) by Peter Hess

AR by Amanda Maycock on behalf of the Authors (06 Apr 2018) Manuscript

Short summary

The 11-year solar cycle is an important driver of climate variability. Changes in incoming solar ultraviolet radiation affect atmospheric ozone, which in turn influences atmospheric temperatures. Constraining the impact of the solar cycle on ozone is therefore important for understanding climate variability. This study examines the representation of the solar influence on ozone in numerical models used to simulate past and future climate. We highlight important differences among model datasets.