Representing sub-grid scale variations in nitrogen deposition associated with land use in a global Earth system model: implications for present and future nitrogen deposition fluxes over North America

Paulot, Fabien; Malyshev, Sergey; Nguyen, Tran; Crounse, John D.; Shevliakova, Elena; Horowitz, Larry W.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17963-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 24

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17963-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17963-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 24

Research article

|

18 Dec 2018

Research article |

| 18 Dec 2018

Representing sub-grid scale variations in nitrogen deposition associated with land use in a global Earth system model: implications for present and future nitrogen deposition fluxes over North America

Fabien Paulot, Sergey Malyshev, Tran Nguyen, John D. Crounse, Elena Shevliakova, and Larry W. Horowitz

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Dec 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Jul 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Comments on "Downscaling of nitrogen dry deposition in the GFDL climate model: implications for present and future nitrogen deposition"', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Aug 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to reviewers comments', Fabien Paulot, 03 Nov 2018
RC2: 'Review remarks', Anonymous Referee #3, 14 Aug 2018
RC3: 'Review comments on “Downscaling of nitrogen dry deposition in the GFDL climate model: implications for present and future nitrogen deposition in North America” by Paulot et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Aug 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Fabien Paulot on behalf of the Authors (09 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Nov 2018) by Ronald Cohen

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Nov 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Dec 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General Comments:

This paper describes a new modeling approach to allow for analysis of sub-grid scale variations in deposition predicted by a global atmospheric-chemistry model. The modeling approach is then used to assess the impact of considering deposition to individual land use types within a grid cell. This topic is very relevant to current discussions in the deposition community. The revisions to the paper in response to comments have strengthened the paper and most issues have been resolved. There are still a few areas noted below where some clarification would be beneficial.

Specific Comments:

Line 122-123: I appreciate the revisions to the text made to try to address previous comments on this section. I still feel that the text is not particularly clear. How does the current state of the vegetation determine the vegetation type?

Line 135: Add “is” before “removed”. I appreciate the additional information in the response to comments on this section. Iis there a reference that supports your assumption?

Line 155: I haven’t seen the SAI included in Erisman’s parameterization for Rac. Since the parameterization is based on a fit to data, does the inclusion of SAI violate that relationship?

Line 157: Rac,v is not commonly used in models. It would help to explain this conceptually to clarify what it represents.

Lines 155 – 199: Please specify the units for all parameters.

Line 180: A description of the mesophyll resistance should appear near this section of the manuscript.

Line 192: Consider including the explanation in the response to comments rather than saying “to improve numerical stability” as it would be clearer.

Line 192: Is the 24-hour integrated deposition for the previous 24 hours?

Line 209-210: The description of R2010_no_lu is not clear.

Line 225: I appreciate the authors’ attempt to address concerns about the text in this section by moving it. The text is better, but not quite there yet. Perhaps you are trying to say that there are still many aspects of deposition that are poorly understood which results in uncertainties. By comparing your approach to others, you are not vastly different than the ensemble.

Line 249: I don’t understand how you sample from a diurnal cycle. Rather, I believe that you have paired the data in time and that you have analyzed the data for different parts of the diurnal cycle. Also, were you able to analyze the morning dew period adequately with the time periods you selected. That time period can be particularly important for NH3 and SO2.

Line 297: What do you think is driving the underestimation of Ra?

Line 306: Consider rewording to “The grid-cell average dry deposition represents the area-weighted sum of the deposition fluxes”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (01 Dec 2018) by Ronald Cohen

AR by Fabien Paulot on behalf of the Authors (08 Dec 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (3118 KB)
Full-text XML