Comment on “Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing” by Shen et al. (2018)

Liu, Run; Mao, Lu; Liu, Shaw Chen; Zhang, Yuanhang; Liao, Hong; Chen, Huopo; Wang, Yuhang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8563-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 13

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8563-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-8563-2019

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

Articles | Volume 19, issue 13

Peer-reviewed comment

|

05 Jul 2019

Peer-reviewed comment |

| 05 Jul 2019

Comment on “Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing” by Shen et al. (2018)

Run Liu, Lu Mao, Shaw Chen Liu, Yuanhang Zhang, Hong Liao, Huopo Chen, and Yuhang Wang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Jul 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Mar 2019)
Corresponding article

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Response to Liu et al. (2019)', Lu Shen, 17 Mar 2019
- AC1: 'Response to Shen', Shaw Chen Liu, 21 Mar 2019
  - SC2: 'Response to Liu et al. (2019) (second reply)', Lu Shen, 23 Mar 2019
    - AC2: 'Response to Shen', Shaw Chen Liu, 11 Apr 2019
SC3: 'Comment on the paper "Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze pollution in Beijing” by Shen et al. (2018)', Y.H. Ding, 22 Apr 2019
RC1: 'Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (17 Jun 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (19 Jun 2019) by Bryan N. Duncan

Short summary

The recent paper by Shen et al. (2018; referred to hereafter as SHEN) made a sweeping statement on the winter haze pollution in Beijing by claiming an Insignificant effect of climate change on winter haze in Beijing. We argue that the paper contains three serious flaws. Any one of the three flaws can nullify the claim of SHEN.