Reactive nitrogen (NO<sub><i>y</i></sub>) and ozone responses to energetic electron precipitation during Southern Hemisphere winter

Arsenovic, Pavle; Damiani, Alessandro; Rozanov, Eugene; Funke, Bernd; Stenke, Andrea; Peter, Thomas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9485-2019

Articles | Volume 19, issue 14

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9485-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9485-2019

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

Articles | Volume 19, issue 14

Research article

|

26 Jul 2019

Research article |

| 26 Jul 2019

Reactive nitrogen (NO_y) and ozone responses to energetic electron precipitation during Southern Hemisphere winter

Pavle Arsenovic, Alessandro Damiani, Eugene Rozanov, Bernd Funke, Andrea Stenke, and Thomas Peter

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Jul 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 23 Nov 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of P. Arsenovic et al. paper entitled “Reactive nitrogen (NOy) and ozone responses to energetic electron precipitation during Southern Hemisphere winter”', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Dec 2018
- AC1: 'All suggestions have been included', Pavle Arsenovic, 25 Mar 2019
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Dec 2018
- AC2: 'Answers to the reviewer's comments', Pavle Arsenovic, 06 Apr 2019
RC3: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jan 2019
- AC3: 'Answers to the reviewer's comments', Pavle Arsenovic, 06 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Pavle Arsenovic on behalf of the Authors (06 Apr 2019)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 May 2019) by Gabriele Stiller

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am mostly well satisfied with the changes made in the revised version of this paper. I have two comments on the comparison to the EMAC results - I would suggest to change two sentences slightly to make them sound less negative without changing their meaning, and there is one point about the implementation of the Funke et al para into EMAC that Bernd Funke maybe can clarify. See my comments below. I suggest publication with these changes.
I also listed a few typos.

Page 2, lines 26-27: Starting the sentence with "although" makes it sound unnecessarily negative, also it has not been stated before that there are different ways to include the Funke et al para. Here's a suggestion to reword this and the following sentence, hopefully without changing their meaning:
"Sinnhuber et al (2018) showed the impact of one possible implementation of the new Funke et al (2016) LEE NOy parameterization in their EMAC model on NOy and ozone; however, they did not explicitly consider MEE. Here we present results from our state of the art chemistry-climate model employing a different implementation of the same parameterization of LEE together with the previous representations of other energetic particles."

Page 2, line 26: here you state that NO is implemented as mixing ratios in EMAC, earlier you state concentrations (in line 22). I tried to look that up in Sinnhuber et al 2018 and Matthes et al 2017, but did not find a clear statement about whether NOy is implemented as concentration (mass density?) or mixing ratio. However, Bernd Funke must certainly know that, so maybe he can clarify this point.

Page 1, line 16: a parameterization "of NOy" based on ...

Page 2, line 13: into "a" chemistry-climate model

Page 2, line 24: were unavailable due "to" special observation mode campaigns.

Page 5, line 2: "showed similar results" compared to Matthes et al, or compared to your results? Please clarify.

Page 9, line 13: an increase "in the" HOx lifetime

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (19 May 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Jun 2019) by Gabriele Stiller

AR by Pavle Arsenovic on behalf of the Authors (04 Jun 2019)

ED: Publish as is (18 Jun 2019) by Gabriele Stiller

AR by Pavle Arsenovic on behalf of the Authors (25 Jun 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Low-energy electrons (LEE) are the dominant source of odd nitrogen, which destroys ozone, in the mesosphere and stratosphere in polar winter in the geomagnetically active periods. However, the observed stratospheric ozone anomalies can be reproduced only when accounting for both low- and middle-range energy electrons (MEE) in the chemistry-climate model. Ozone changes may induce further dynamical and thermal changes in the atmosphere. We recommend including both LEE and MEE in climate models.

Reactive nitrogen (NOy) and ozone responses to energetic electron precipitation during Southern Hemisphere winter

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Reactive nitrogen (NO_y) and ozone responses to energetic electron precipitation during Southern Hemisphere winter