Comparison of ECHAM5/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) simulations of the Arctic winter 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 with Envisat/MIPAS and Aura/MLS observations

Khosrawi, Farahnaz; Kirner, Oliver; Stiller, Gabriele; Höpfner, Michael; Santee, Michelle L.; Kellmann, Sylvia; Braesicke, Peter

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8873-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8873-2018

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

Special issue:

The Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) (ACP/GMD inter-journal...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8873-2018

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

Articles | Volume 18, issue 12

Research article

|

25 Jun 2018

Research article |

| 25 Jun 2018

Comparison of ECHAM5/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) simulations of the Arctic winter 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 with Envisat/MIPAS and Aura/MLS observations

Farahnaz Khosrawi, Oliver Kirner, Gabriele Stiller, Michael Höpfner, Michelle L. Santee, Sylvia Kellmann, and Peter Braesicke

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Jun 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Jan 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee~1 Comments', Farahnaz Khosrawi, 02 May 2018
RC2: 'Review of Khosrawi et.al. 'Comparison of ECHAM5/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) Simulations of the Arctic winter 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 with Envisat/MIPAS and Aura/MLS Observations'', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Mar 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to Referee 2 Comments', Farahnaz Khosrawi, 02 May 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Farahnaz Khosrawi on behalf of the Authors (02 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 May 2018) by Jayanarayanan Kuttippurath

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 May 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 May 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Jun 2018) by Jayanarayanan Kuttippurath

AR by Farahnaz Khosrawi on behalf of the Authors (04 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Jun 2018) by Jayanarayanan Kuttippurath

AR by Farahnaz Khosrawi on behalf of the Authors (19 Jun 2018) Manuscript

Short summary

An extensive assessment of the performance of the chemistry–climate model EMAC is given for Arctic winters 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. The EMAC simulations are compared to satellite observations. The comparisons between EMAC simulations and satellite observations show that model and measurements compare well for these two Arctic winters. However, differences between model and observations are found that need improvements in the model in the future.