Role of oceanic ozone deposition in explaining temporal variability in surface ozone at High Arctic sites

Barten, Johannes G. M.; Ganzeveld, Laurens N.; Steeneveld, Gert-Jan; Krol, Maarten C.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10229-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 13

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10229-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10229-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 13

Research article

|

07 Jul 2021

Research article |

| 07 Jul 2021

Role of oceanic ozone deposition in explaining temporal variability in surface ozone at High Arctic sites

Johannes G. M. Barten, Laurens N. Ganzeveld, Gert-Jan Steeneveld, and Maarten C. Krol

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Jul 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Oct 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Role of oceanic ozone deposition in explaining short-term variability of Arctic surface ozone. Barten et al. 2020', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Nov 2020
SC1: 'updated ozone trends at Arctic sites', Owen Cooper, 23 Nov 2020
SC2: 'Comment on the paper by Barten et al.', Ashok Luhar, 08 Dec 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Dec 2020
RC3: 'Need to discuss the influence of land deposition at the ozone observation sites', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Dec 2020
AC1: 'Authors response to referee comments', Sjoerd Barten, 15 Mar 2021

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Sjoerd Barten on behalf of the Authors (15 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Mar 2021) by Leiming Zhang

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (24 Mar 2021)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 Apr 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I started making line-by-line comments again but then turned my focus to what the authors addressed in terms of my major comments last time. I said: “I think for this paper to have sufficient novelty for publication in ACP the authors need to expand on their analysis of short-term variability at high Arctic sites.” For example, I asked “what’s driving the variability in deposition velocity, in particular in periods of better agreement or disagreement with surface ozone? Is it that day-night differences are better captured? Day-to-day variability? Synoptic scale variability?” I don’t see any new substantive analysis on the short-term variability, only speculation. Given this, and that I still wouldn’t classify the comparison of the base to the nudging as any new science [and think the authors should cut this (and just refer to NUDGED as ‘base’).], and the same goes for the CAMS analysis (the comparison seems extraneous; please cut), I still recommend major revisions. There are just not enough new scientific results.
Below are the line-by-line comments that I managed. In general, the paper is excessively wordy and could be a lot more focused in terms of what the authors are analyzing and learning here.

The introduction is excessively long. First, I disagree with the other reviewer who insisted on discussion of tropospheric ozone trends over land. The discussion really does not fit. Second, the discussion of DOM and the history of oceanic parameterization in the intro is too long, and the details on the parameterization are repeated in the methods. Third, there should be a focus on ozone. There is no need to explain nitric acid uptake or planned analyses of DMS. Fourth, there is too much discussion of halogen chemistry, especially given that the authors chose a time when halogen chem should not be important. I understand it’s important to mention, but I ask the authors to be more concise.

Line 35 – can the authors be clearer as to what they mean by ‘excellent indicators’ for global trend analysis? I find this argument unconvincing as is
Line 40 – current trend is not driven by heatwaves and droughts; Lin et al 2020 only show the impact on interannual variability
Line 46-7 – Kavassalis & Murphy and Lin et al. references here seem extraneous. This is a sentence that does not need a reference (it is ‘textbook’).
Line 59 – what is “it”?
Line 65—can the authors be clearer here? Do they mean that the wind speed dependence should be due to turbulence in addition to mean wind?
Line 98—"This evaluation of Arctic spatiotemporal o3 concentrations aims to better understand sinks, processes, feedbacks and impacts of Arctic air pollution (Arnold et al., 2016) and the role of long-range transport (e.g. Thomas et al., 2013; Marelle et al., 2018) versus local sources (e.g. Marelle et al., 100 2016; Law et al., 2017; Schmale et al., 2018).” This is a huge goal and one that the authors do not achieve with this work.
Line 180 – why does Sherwen et al. (2018) being most accurate on the global scale matter here? The authors are only looking at the Arctic. It feels like the authors are just saying this as an excuse to reduce the Arctic deposition velocities and get the model ozone bias better. I think they need to develop a stronger argument for their hypothesis or reframe.
Line 193 -- where did Helmig et al. look? This is a rather general statement. Based on the range given by Clifton, the new snow deposition velocities might be overestimated, and the old ones might be better.
Line 207 – is a citation necessary to say that ozone dep to terrestrial surfaces has a diurnal cycle? Generally, I don’t think speculating as to why there is a diel cycle in ozone is a good idea. Can the authors just leave it as there is one?
Line 210 – criterion for what?
Line 231 – total ozone deposition budget of what? The arctic?

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (13 Apr 2021) by Leiming Zhang

AR by Sjoerd Barten on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (02 Jun 2021) by Leiming Zhang

Short summary

We present an evaluation of ocean and snow/ice O₃ deposition in explaining observed hourly surface O₃ at 25 pan-Arctic sites using an atmospheric meteorology/chemistry model. The model includes a mechanistic representation of ocean O₃ deposition as a function of ocean biogeochemical and mixing conditions. The mechanistic representation agrees better with O₃ observations in terms of magnitude and temporal variability especially in the High Arctic (> 70° N).