Articles | Volume 22, issue 22
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Global seasonal distribution of CH2Br2 and CHBr3 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere
- Final revised paper (published on 25 Nov 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 19 Jul 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-472', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2022
- RC2: 'Review comment on acp-2022-472', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Oct 2022
- AC1: 'Responses to referees', Markus Jesswein, 03 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Markus Jesswein on behalf of the Authors (03 Nov 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (05 Nov 2022) by Aurélien Dommergue
AR by Markus Jesswein on behalf of the Authors (08 Nov 2022)  Author's response Manuscript
This paper discusses the global and seasonal distribution of two short lived brominated compounds based on multiple aircraft measurement campaigns as well as two global models. The data compilation and discussion of the main features are well done and the comparison with the model output reveals some shortcomings in our ability to accurately model these compounds in certain seasons and hemispheres. The data discrepancy between instrument data sets in the fall SH lowermost stratosphere is significant and hampers the ability to make conclusions about transport differences between the SH and NH LMS. But this is important to point out as clearly as is done here since it shows the data are also not perfect and that we need more measurements in data poor regions to help us understand how models perform throughout the atmosphere.
Overall, I find this paper is acceptable for publication in ACP with consideration of the few minor comments listed below. In particular, Section 4.3 is far too heavy on the specific listing of mixing ratio values at various parts of the profiles to the detriment of reader comprehension of the main points of the section.
Line 31: There’s an extra ‘to’ here, maybe remove the first one.
Lines 49-50: Add ‘tropospheric’ after ‘extratropical’ here.
Figure 4: This is important to show the uncertainty that can exist between data from different instruments and how it can defy easy explanation. It’s unfortunate that the discrepancy is so large in the region and time of interest but this makes it even more important to point out as you have done.
Line 261: ‘as’ should be ‘has’
Line 276: ‘tropospheric’ misspelled
Line 380: ‘close’ misspelled
Section 4.3: Starting at about line 370 I really had trouble staying focused while reading this section because there are far too many listing of exact ppt values for each species at various levels and seasons. This is in contrast to Sections 4.1 and 4.2 that were easy to follow and had many interesting features. I would suggest removing nearly all mention of exact mixing ratios in the text, the numbers are in the figures if anybody wants to see them, and stick with describing the main points you want to discuss.