Elemental and water-insoluble organic carbon in Svalbard  snow: a synthesis of observations during 2007–2018

Zdanowicz, Christian; Gallet, Jean-Charles; Björkman, Mats P.; Larose, Catherine; Schuler, Thomas; Luks, Bartłomiej; Koziol, Krystyna; Spolaor, Andrea; Barbaro, Elena; Martma, Tõnu; van Pelt, Ward; Wideqvist, Ulla; Ström, Johan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3035-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3035-2021

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3035-2021

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

Articles | Volume 21, issue 4

Research article

|

01 Mar 2021

Research article |

| 01 Mar 2021

Elemental and water-insoluble organic carbon in Svalbard snow: a synthesis of observations during 2007–2018

Christian Zdanowicz, Jean-Charles Gallet, Mats P. Björkman, Catherine Larose, Thomas Schuler, Bartłomiej Luks, Krystyna Koziol, Andrea Spolaor, Elena Barbaro, Tõnu Martma, Ward van Pelt, Ulla Wideqvist, and Johan Ström

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Mar 2021)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Jun 2020)
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: 'Reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Aug 2020
RC2: 'Referee#2_comments_acp_2020_291', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Sep 2020
AC1: 'acp-2020-491 - Author's response', Christian Zdanowicz, 03 Nov 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Christian Zdanowicz on behalf of the Authors (03 Nov 2020) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Nov 2020) by Andreas Petzold

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Dec 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have made substantial revisions to the manuscript. Especially, they have given more detailed descriptions on the error analysis. The data shown in this paper are useful for science communities. However, there are still some issues that need to be clarified before being accepted for publication.

Major comments

# The uncertainties of the present method are described separately in sections 2.2.2. and 4.3.
The uncertainties should be given before the observational results are presented. Otherwise readers need to re-consider or re-interpret results that are shown before section 4.4. These sections should be combined together as much as the logical structure of the text allows.

# Figure 4.
Probably this figure is most important in this paper. It will be useful to show the vertical profiles with linear-scales, at least for the median values, in addition to the log-scale plots.

# Page 14, L409-412
It is stated “of particular interest”. However, explanations of this “interesting” feature are very poor.

a) There are no explanations why this feature is particularly interesting.

b) L411, Is the “gradient in EC and WIOC” in horizontal or vertical directions?

c) There is no interpretation on how localized EC emissions impact EC in snowpack at Ny-Alesund. The effects of in-cloud scavenging, below cloud scavenging, and dry deposition should be discussed with some quantitative analysis.

d) Higher EC at Ny-Alesund is interpreted as due to localized EC emissions and lower EC at ABG is due to the gradient in EC. Then why do EC values vary synchronously? If EC at ABG is relatively free from local emissions, the EC values at these sites should vary quite differently from those at Ny-Alesund.

e) Regarding (d), it may be useful to investigate the relation of EC in snow at ABG with BC in air at Zappelin for understanding the source of EC in snowpack at ABG.

f) As one of possible sources of WIOC, natural source is discussed. Some more discussion on a relative contribution of natural additional source of WIOC is desirable.

g) In the response [15] of the authors, it is claimed that synchronous variations support the reliability of the method to some extent. This is not logically correct. First, the uncertainty of the measurements must be established. Then, it should be judged if the observed variations are larger or smaller than the uncertainties.

Specific comments

# pages 12, L365
“Sihna” should be “Sinha”

# Page 16, L500
“other analytical methods”
The methods should be stated concretely.
And their accuracies need to be compared with that of this work.

# Figure 2.
The colors for S and NE are similar. May be some symbols in the vertical profile can be changes (+ or open circles).

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (29 Dec 2020) by Andreas Petzold

AR by Christian Zdanowicz on behalf of the Authors (04 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (07 Jan 2021) by Andreas Petzold

AR by Christian Zdanowicz on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

Black carbon (BC) aerosols are soot-like particles which, when transported to the Arctic, darken snow surfaces, thus indirectly affecting climate. Information on BC in Arctic snow is needed to measure their impact and monitor the efficacy of pollution-reduction policies. This paper presents a large new set of BC measurements in snow in Svalbard collected between 2007 and 2018. It describes how BC in snow varies across the archipelago and explores some factors controlling these variations.