Articles | Volume 22, issue 10
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatiotemporal variations of the δ(O2 ∕ N2), CO2 and δ(APO) in the troposphere over the western North Pacific
- Final revised paper (published on 31 May 2022)
- Preprint (discussion started on 12 Oct 2021)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-787', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2021
- AC1: 'Author Responses for Referee1', Shigeyuki Ishidoya, 10 Mar 2022
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-787', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2021
- AC2: 'Author Responses for Referee2', Shigeyuki Ishidoya, 10 Mar 2022
RC3: 'Comment on acp-2021-787', Anonymous Referee #3, 08 Nov 2021
- AC3: 'Author Responses for Referee3', Shigeyuki Ishidoya, 10 Mar 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Shigeyuki Ishidoya on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (31 Mar 2022) by Jan Kaiser
AR by Shigeyuki Ishidoya on behalf of the Authors (22 Apr 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (25 Apr 2022) by Jan Kaiser
Review of “Spatiotemporal variations of the d(O2/N2), CO2 and d(APO) in the troposphere over the Western North Pacific” by S. Ishidoya et al, ACPD.
The manuscript presents new combined d(O2/N2) and CO2 values that allows the author to calculate Atmospheric Potential Oxygen (APO). Measurements of these parameters are obtained from flask samplings on board an aircraft between three different stations and an altitude transect at one of the stations. The measurements are analysed for their seasonality and secular trends and are compared to model results. The interpretation adds very valuable information for the understanding of the carbon-oxygen cycle links and helps to improve the budgeting of the global carbon cycle.
The manuscript is very nicely written with detailed information on how the method works and how it is used and applied to data. The figures and their legends are clear and concise.
It was easy to read the manuscript and I would like to congratulate the authors. I have only a few rather minor comments and suggestions. I suggest publishing it once these comments have been taken into consideration.
Abstract: The corrections that are applied to the raw measurements are significant, how robust are these corrections. It is important that the reader gets already an impression of whether the corrections made are robust. I suggest rewording the sentence about the corrections by adding a corresponding statement about the robustness or adding an additional sentence about it.
Abstract: The altitude dependence of d(O2/N2), CO2 are not consistent percent-wise. This is obviously not the case for other locations. This should be discussed and compared to published studies about the altitude dependence in the corresponding section where the altitude dependence is mentioned. See also lines 2018-2019.
Line 111: Eq. 6 describes how you applied the corrections. Why is the correction based on Ar/N2 and not d15N, because you have excellent correlations with d15N and this parameter is stable in the atmosphere over long time periods?
Line 113: The value for aO2 = (4.57±0.02) is not directly reported in Ishidoya, you may refer here to how you calculated.
Line 116: The overall uncertainty of dcor(O2/N2) was evaluated to be less than 6 per meg, and the effect of the seasonal d(Ar/N2) cycle on of dcor(O2/N2) was not therefore excluded in this study. This sentence is unclear to me.
Line 285: Fig. 11 instead of Fig. 12.
Fig. 1: One could indicate in this graph that at MNM altitude profiles are taken.
Fig. 10: It is not clear how the rate change values on the top panel of Fig. 10 are obtained. The values should be positive and negative. What about uncertainties. The spline functions in Figure 4 have uncertainties associated, could you add shading on the derivatives (e.g. Fig. 10) to illustrate these uncertainties for readability reasons only for one curve.