Direct radiative effect of dust–pollution interactions

Klingmüller, Klaus; Lelieveld, Jos; Karydis, Vlassis A.; Stenchikov, Georgiy L.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-7397-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-7397-2019

© Author(s) 2019. 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-19-7397-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 11

Research article

|

04 Jun 2019

Research article |

| 04 Jun 2019

Direct radiative effect of dust–pollution interactions

Klaus Klingmüller, Jos Lelieveld, Vlassis A. Karydis, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Jun 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Dec 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: 'Review of manuscript from Klingmüller et al. entitled: Direct radiative effect of dust-pollution interactions', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Klaus Klingmueller, 27 Mar 2019
RC2: 'Referee comments on "Direct radiative effect of dust-pollution interactions"', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Dec 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to RC2', Klaus Klingmueller, 27 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Klaus Klingmüller on behalf of the Authors (28 Mar 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Apr 2019) by Philip Stier

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Apr 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (18 Apr 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have made substantial improvement to this manuscript. The majority of comments have been well addressed making the article clearer and more thoroughly supported. A number of new figures (Fig 2, S11, S13) and sections of discussion have really helped to explain how and why the aerosols change when pollution-dust interactions are included. In particular it is now much clearer that the global-mean negative forcing is dominated by an increase in accumulation mode dust that wins out over reductions in carbonaceous aerosol and coarse-mode dust. The description of experimental methods has also been improved addressing a number of minor comments made in the reviews.

The only sticking point I have is that the text still refer to the dust-pollution interaction an “anthropogenic forcing associated with mineral dust”. It is clear throughout the manuscript that the dust-pollution interaction is a two way process and that both aerosol types are significantly modified when they co-exist. Therefore, it would seem better to refer to the change in radiative forcing as a dust-pollution interaction. The fact that the dust was there first historically is besides the point. However, perhaps this is a matter of interpretation that will be difficult to agree on. In that case perhaps a few minor edits will rectify this. For instance:
Line 4 of the abstract.
“This results in an anthropogenic radiative forcing associated with mineral dust…”
Can I suggest:
“This results in a change in aerosol direct radiative effect that we interpret as an anthropogenic radiative forcing associated with mineral dust-pollution interactions…
Or:
“This results in a change in aerosol direct radiative effects that we interpret as an anthropogenic radiative forcing associated with mineral dust, although it includes impacts of the dust on the pollution.”

Likewise in the second sentence of the conclusions. Please could the authors add something like: “We interpret this as…”

Other minor suggestions:
1. Thanks for explaining how figures 1 and 2 were calculated (i.e. using equation 1). This helps me but is this now noted this in the text?
2. It is great to see the changes in dust, BC, seasalt, and water in Figure S11. Would it is be possible to include OC? I think this would complete the picture.
3. Figure 6. It would still be interesting to see the bar for the pollution forcing to put the other bars in context.

Otherwise, the manuscript is in good shape and will be an interesting article for ACP and a valuable contribution to understanding the interplay between natural and anthropogenic aerosol within the Climate System.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (29 Apr 2019) by Philip Stier

AR by Klaus Klingmüller on behalf of the Authors (09 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (16 May 2019) by Philip Stier

AR by Klaus Klingmüller on behalf of the Authors (20 May 2019) Manuscript

Download

Article (3950 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Within the atmosphere, desert dust and anthropogenic pollution are mixed and interact, which affects the abundance and optical properties of the particulate matter. This results in an anthropogenic climate forcing associated with mineral dust notwithstanding the natural origin of most aeolian dust. With a global chemistry–climate model, we estimate this forcing to represent a considerable fraction of the total dust forcing.