the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jul 2021
Convection-Aerosol Interactions in the United Arab Emirates: A Sensitivity Study
Abstract. The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model is used to investigate convection-aerosol interactions in the United Arab Emirates for a summertime convective event. Both an idealised and scaled versions of a 7-year climatological aerosol distribution are considered. The convection on 14 August 2013 was triggered by the low-level convergence of the circulation associated with the Arabian Heat Low (AHL) and the daytime sea-breeze circulation. The cold pools associated with the convective events, as well as the low-level wind convergence along the Intertropical Discontinuity (ITD) earlier in the day, explain the dustier environment, with Aerosol Optical Depths (AODs) in excess of two.
Due to a colder surface and air temperature, the AHL is incorrectly represented in WRF, which leads to a mismatch between the observed and modelled clouds and precipitation. Employing interior nudging in the outermost grids of the three-nested simulation has a small but positive impact on the model predictions of the innermost nest. This is because the higher temperatures from more accurate boundary conditions are offset by colder temperatures from locally enhanced precipitation, the latter arising from a shift in the position of the AHL. Numerical experiments revealed a high sensitivity to the aerosol properties. In particular, replacing 20 % of the rural aerosols by carbonaceous particles has an impact on the surface radiative fluxes comparable to increasing the aerosol loading by a factor of 10, with a daily-averaged reduction in the UAE-averaged net shortwave radiation flux of ~90 W m−2 and an increase in the net longwave radiation flux of ~51 W m−2. However, in the former, WRF generates 20 % more precipitation than in the latter, due to a broader and weaker AHL.
The surface downward and upward shortwave and upward longwave radiation fluxes are found to scale linearly with the aerosol loading, while the downward longwave radiation flux varies by less than ±12 W m−2 when the aerosol amount and/or properties are changed. An increase in the aerosol loading also leads to drier conditions due to a shift in the position of the AHL and rainfall occurring in a drier region, with a domain-wise decrease in the daily accumulated rainfall of 16 % when the aerosol loading is increased by a factor of 10. In addition, the onset of convection is also delayed.
- Preprint
(6782 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-597', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Aug 2021
Comments on the manuscript entitled “Convection-Aerosol Interactions in the United Arab Emirates: A Sensitivity Study” by Ricardo Fonseca, et al.
Recommendation: Major Revisions
General comments:
This manuscript ‘Convection-Aerosol Interactions in the United Arab Emirates: A Sensitivity Study’ mainly investigate the impacts of aerosol loading and properties on the atmospheric circulation, convective activity, surface/air temperature, and local precipitation by Weather Research and Forecasting (model) in UAE on 14 August 2013. The authors carried out ten different scenarios for WRF simulations and compared the different results of circulation, radiative effect, convective, and rainfall.
In general, the paper presents in a logical way, but the English writing need to be greatly improved. Some interesting results of this manuscript will be helpful to understanding the interactions between the convection and aerosol. I therefore recommend publication of this paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after major revisions. My comments are listed as follows.
Major Comments:
- Compared with the previous published papers, what are the main innovations of this manuscript? Please elucidate clearly in the context.
Many conclusions of this manuscript are consistent with the previous publications. For instance,
(Page 1, Abstract, lines 13-15) ‘The convection on 14 August 2013 was triggered by the low-level convergence of the circulation associated with the Arabian Heat Low (AHL) and the daytime sea-breeze circulation.’ This conclusion is the same as the previous publications in (Page 3, 1. Introduction, Lines 113-116.) ‘As discussed in Schwitalla et al. (2020) and Branch et al. (2020), it is normally triggered by the convergence of the low-level circulation associated with the Arabian Heat Low (AHL; Fonseca et al., 2021), the sea-breeze circulation from the Arabian Gulf and Sea of Oman, and the upslope flows on the mountains.’
(Page 6, 1. Introduction, Lines 123-124.) ‘Here, they are commonly triggered by the low-level convergence of the AHL and sea-breeze circulations (Steinhoff et al., 2018)’.
(Page 2, Abstract, lines 31-32 and the Conclusions) ‘The surface downward and upward shortwave and upward longwave radiation fluxes are found to scale linearly with the aerosol loading, ….’ This conclusion is consistent with (Page 4, 1. Introduction, Lines 80-84.) ‘Liu et al. (2020) used the WRF model with Chemistry (WRF-Chem; Grell et al., 2005) to investigate the effects of biomass burning aerosol on radiation, clouds and precipitation in the Amazon basin. The authors found that ACI effects prevail at lower emission rates and low values of aerosol optical depth (AOD), while the ARI plays the largest role at high emission rates and high AODs.’
- (Page 11, 2.2 WRF Experiments and the whole context): The authors implemented 10 different scenarios for WRF simulations based on two aerosol distributions (an idealized aerosol distribution profile and a climatological profile) and compared the different impacts of aerosol loading and optical properties on the atmospheric circulation, radiative effect, convective, and rainfall. The authors carried out a lot of simulations for sensitivity experiments and acquired many conclusions, but it is not clear for the readers, which conclusion is important and which one is close to the observed results for this manuscript.
For instance, (1) Page 56, 5. Discussion and Conclusions, Lines 855-856, ‘The best agreement with that observed is obtained when the climatological values multiplied by a factor of 5, in line with the dustier atmosphere during this event’. (2) Pages 57-58, Lines 879-882, ‘The downward and upward shortwave and the upward longwave radiation fluxes are found to decrease linearly as the as aerosol loading is increased, with a 10-fold increase in the amount of aerosols leading to a daily-averaged drop of the surface net shortwave flux of about 91 Wm-2, and …….’. (3) Page 58, Lines 887-889, ‘When 20% of the aerosols are replaced with more absorbing (carbonaceous) particles, the roughly 87 Wm-2 decrease in the surface net shortwave radiation flux…when the aerosol loading is augmented by a factor of 10’. (4) Page 58, Lines 897-899, ‘The sensitivity to the maritime aerosol model, for which 20% of the rural aerosols are replaced by sea-salt and the larger particles removed, on the other hand, is much reduced.’
Whether the changes of aerosol loading and optical properties in the WRF sensitivity simulations could reflect the true observations or not?
In this manuscript, the authors indicated that ‘The 14 August 201 was also a rather dusty day in the UAE, with Aerosol Optical Depths (AODs) in excess of two’, and I suggest the authors should implement the sensitivity of the potential effects of dust aerosols’ loadings and optical properties on the circulation, convection, radiative forcing, and precipitation.
- In WRF simulations of this manuscript, how to consider the potential influences of environmental field (e.g. wind speed field, air humidity field), and vertical convection on the ARI, ACI, circulation, convection activity, and precipitation, etc?
- The English written of this whole manuscript need to be greatly improved.
Minor comments:
- Page 3, lines 58-60: ‘Dust has been shown to have an important impact on the climate system, in particular on the atmosphere (e.g. Min et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2019; Francis et al., 2020), ocean (e.g. Evan et al., 2012) and cryosphere (e.g. Francis et al., 2018) dynamics.’
⇒ Please delete all the ‘e.g.’ in the cited literatures, and modify the other places in the context.
- When talking about the direct and semi-direct radiative effects of aerosols, the authors could cite other references,
[1] Li Z., Y. Wang, J. Guo, et al. 2019: East Asian study of tropospheric aerosols and their impact on regional clouds, precipitation, and climate (EAST-AIR(CPC)). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 124 (23), 13026-13054. DOI: 10.1029/2019JD030758.
[2] Wang W., J. Huang, P. Minnis, et al. 2010: Dusty cloud properties and radiative forcing over dust source and downwind regions derived from A-Train data during the Pacific Dust Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 115 . DOI:10.1029/2010JD014109.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-597/acp-2021-597-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-597', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2021
This manuscript attempts to use the WRF model to assess the convection-aerosol interactions over the UAE in summer. Unfortuantely, there are some major flaws with the manuscript in its present form, and I have to recommend that the manuscript be rejected.
There are three critical issues with the paper. The first is a lack of clear scientific question and focus. The title states that the topic of the paper is convection-aerosol interaction, but which part of that interaction is the key scientific question here? The introduction very broadly touched upon the impacts of ARI and ACI on the lifetimes and precipitations of MCS, but no key scientific question is brought forth. The abstract even mentions the impacts of nudging in the outer model domains, which further confuses the reader. Also, there are way too many sensitivity experiments. What is the purpose of testing (very) different aerosol composition assumptions in the model, if the point was to assess ACI in a particular case?
Secondly, the methodology used in this study is not appropriate for the question it appears to want to addess. If the purpose is to investigate the 'interaction of convection and aerosol', then in the model, aerosols and cloud microphysics and dynamics should be allowed to 'interact' in a physically-realistic or reasonable way. Instead, the authors used a WRF model and implemented an 'aerosol-aware' cloud microphysics, which really does not allow aerosol and convection to 'interact' with each other. The use of assumed aerosol loading as initial condition and then allow them to be advected in no way physically represent the locations and strengths of the aerosols relative to the convective systems, as evidenced in Figs 2 and 5. Many of the assumptions (e.g., 30% dust in the radiation calculation; conversion of Ns to PM10; etc) are simply wrong.
Thirdly, because the manuscript is lacking focus, it is also extremely long, without apparent need to be that way. For example, the verification diagnostics presented in section 2.4 are fairly standard; there is probably no need to elaborate. The discussion on the effects of nudging and the effects of assuming much of the aerosols to be carbonaceous is very confusing and not related to the topic at hand.
Specific coments:
Lines 12-13: "Both an idealised and ... are considered": This sentence is unclear. Please revise.
Lines 24-28: "In particular, ... 51 W/m2.": This sentence is extremely long and unclear. Please revise.
Line 28: Not sure what "the former" and "the latter" refer to.
Lines 51-52: The increased number of smaller cloud droplets mostly lead to more scattering (hence higher albedo and optical depth). This is not the same as 'reducing the radiative window'. Also, this statement is missing reference.
Line 54: Albrecht effect: missing reference.
Line 248: "Nwfa and Nifa ... evolve during the course of the model integration": How is this achieved? Do you simulate the emission/transport/deposition of the Ns? Or do you prescribe how N changes with time? If the latter, how do you ensure that this correctly represents the response of N to meteorology. More importantly, how do you know that you are not forcing the cloud microphysics to do things that you wish to see?
Lines 249-250: "...dataset on a monthly time-scale ... downloaded from the model's website": What is this dataset based on? Is it based on a model calculation or some kind of satellite data inversion?
Line 252: So Nwfa and Nifa are first set with initial conditions and then allowed to advect and diffuse? How do you ensure that the transported Ns are realistic? Also, the scavenging of Ns (both hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic) by precipitation are not considered?
Lines 249-255: The description of the aerosol settings in the sensitivity experiments is unclear. I have a hard time following what assumptions are made. Please consider revising.
Line 257: Does the number of non-hygroscopic aerosol affect the number of ice nuclei? This is not a default option in WRF. What parameterization is used to describe this sensitivity?
Lines 264-265: "...assumes a mixture of 70% water soluble and 30% dust-like aerosols": Is this a reasonable assumption for this case, where most of the aerosols were dust? More importantly, is this assumption consistent with the prescribed hygroscopic/non-hygroscopic aerosol numbers?
Lines 278-281: Is the effect of nudging in the outer domains one of the scientific questions you want to address in this study? If not, and if nuding is necessary to capture the large-scale atmospheric dynamics, then it should be included in all the key experiments. Otherwise there are simply too many experiments without a clear, key scientific question.
Lines 312-314: Why use MERRA-2 aerosol product for this study? Has the AOD in MERRA-2 been evaluated over this part of the world, particular since the surface is bright?
Lines 351-358: In fig2a-c, it appears that the dusts are mostly in the Northeastern part of the domain, but the MERRA-2 AODs are mostly in the central/southern part of the domain. Which one is more accurate and how do you reconcile the discrepancy? More importantly, which one is more consistent with the assumed Ns in the simulation?
Fig 2a-c: How are these figures colored? If this is indeed 'RGB' (i.e., real color) images, why would the dust be pink and the clouds orange/brown/black? Clearly, some other type of of processing has been applied.
Section 4.1: The aerosol loading simulated here are neither consistent with the RGB plots or the MERRA-2 AOD shown in Fig 2.
Figure 5: The labeling is extremely confusing. Some subplots are not labeled, and which ones are (c) and (d)? The caption says: "The aerosol concentration in panels (c) and (d) is scaled as in panels (a) and (b)", which I do not understand.
Section 4.1: The conversion of WRF 'simulated' aerosol loading to PM10 is inappropriate. The Ns here are not realistic aerosol loading. They are first prescribed as initial condition and then allowed to be transported. In no way were the Ns physically related to dust in the model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-597-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-597/acp-2021-597-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2021-597', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Aug 2021
Comments on the manuscript entitled “Convection-Aerosol Interactions in the United Arab Emirates: A Sensitivity Study” by Ricardo Fonseca, et al.
Recommendation: Major Revisions
General comments:
This manuscript ‘Convection-Aerosol Interactions in the United Arab Emirates: A Sensitivity Study’ mainly investigate the impacts of aerosol loading and properties on the atmospheric circulation, convective activity, surface/air temperature, and local precipitation by Weather Research and Forecasting (model) in UAE on 14 August 2013. The authors carried out ten different scenarios for WRF simulations and compared the different results of circulation, radiative effect, convective, and rainfall.
In general, the paper presents in a logical way, but the English writing need to be greatly improved. Some interesting results of this manuscript will be helpful to understanding the interactions between the convection and aerosol. I therefore recommend publication of this paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after major revisions. My comments are listed as follows.
Major Comments:
- Compared with the previous published papers, what are the main innovations of this manuscript? Please elucidate clearly in the context.
Many conclusions of this manuscript are consistent with the previous publications. For instance,
(Page 1, Abstract, lines 13-15) ‘The convection on 14 August 2013 was triggered by the low-level convergence of the circulation associated with the Arabian Heat Low (AHL) and the daytime sea-breeze circulation.’ This conclusion is the same as the previous publications in (Page 3, 1. Introduction, Lines 113-116.) ‘As discussed in Schwitalla et al. (2020) and Branch et al. (2020), it is normally triggered by the convergence of the low-level circulation associated with the Arabian Heat Low (AHL; Fonseca et al., 2021), the sea-breeze circulation from the Arabian Gulf and Sea of Oman, and the upslope flows on the mountains.’
(Page 6, 1. Introduction, Lines 123-124.) ‘Here, they are commonly triggered by the low-level convergence of the AHL and sea-breeze circulations (Steinhoff et al., 2018)’.
(Page 2, Abstract, lines 31-32 and the Conclusions) ‘The surface downward and upward shortwave and upward longwave radiation fluxes are found to scale linearly with the aerosol loading, ….’ This conclusion is consistent with (Page 4, 1. Introduction, Lines 80-84.) ‘Liu et al. (2020) used the WRF model with Chemistry (WRF-Chem; Grell et al., 2005) to investigate the effects of biomass burning aerosol on radiation, clouds and precipitation in the Amazon basin. The authors found that ACI effects prevail at lower emission rates and low values of aerosol optical depth (AOD), while the ARI plays the largest role at high emission rates and high AODs.’
- (Page 11, 2.2 WRF Experiments and the whole context): The authors implemented 10 different scenarios for WRF simulations based on two aerosol distributions (an idealized aerosol distribution profile and a climatological profile) and compared the different impacts of aerosol loading and optical properties on the atmospheric circulation, radiative effect, convective, and rainfall. The authors carried out a lot of simulations for sensitivity experiments and acquired many conclusions, but it is not clear for the readers, which conclusion is important and which one is close to the observed results for this manuscript.
For instance, (1) Page 56, 5. Discussion and Conclusions, Lines 855-856, ‘The best agreement with that observed is obtained when the climatological values multiplied by a factor of 5, in line with the dustier atmosphere during this event’. (2) Pages 57-58, Lines 879-882, ‘The downward and upward shortwave and the upward longwave radiation fluxes are found to decrease linearly as the as aerosol loading is increased, with a 10-fold increase in the amount of aerosols leading to a daily-averaged drop of the surface net shortwave flux of about 91 Wm-2, and …….’. (3) Page 58, Lines 887-889, ‘When 20% of the aerosols are replaced with more absorbing (carbonaceous) particles, the roughly 87 Wm-2 decrease in the surface net shortwave radiation flux…when the aerosol loading is augmented by a factor of 10’. (4) Page 58, Lines 897-899, ‘The sensitivity to the maritime aerosol model, for which 20% of the rural aerosols are replaced by sea-salt and the larger particles removed, on the other hand, is much reduced.’
Whether the changes of aerosol loading and optical properties in the WRF sensitivity simulations could reflect the true observations or not?
In this manuscript, the authors indicated that ‘The 14 August 201 was also a rather dusty day in the UAE, with Aerosol Optical Depths (AODs) in excess of two’, and I suggest the authors should implement the sensitivity of the potential effects of dust aerosols’ loadings and optical properties on the circulation, convection, radiative forcing, and precipitation.
- In WRF simulations of this manuscript, how to consider the potential influences of environmental field (e.g. wind speed field, air humidity field), and vertical convection on the ARI, ACI, circulation, convection activity, and precipitation, etc?
- The English written of this whole manuscript need to be greatly improved.
Minor comments:
- Page 3, lines 58-60: ‘Dust has been shown to have an important impact on the climate system, in particular on the atmosphere (e.g. Min et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2019; Francis et al., 2020), ocean (e.g. Evan et al., 2012) and cryosphere (e.g. Francis et al., 2018) dynamics.’
⇒ Please delete all the ‘e.g.’ in the cited literatures, and modify the other places in the context.
- When talking about the direct and semi-direct radiative effects of aerosols, the authors could cite other references,
[1] Li Z., Y. Wang, J. Guo, et al. 2019: East Asian study of tropospheric aerosols and their impact on regional clouds, precipitation, and climate (EAST-AIR(CPC)). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 124 (23), 13026-13054. DOI: 10.1029/2019JD030758.
[2] Wang W., J. Huang, P. Minnis, et al. 2010: Dusty cloud properties and radiative forcing over dust source and downwind regions derived from A-Train data during the Pacific Dust Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 115 . DOI:10.1029/2010JD014109.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-597/acp-2021-597-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2021-597', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2021
This manuscript attempts to use the WRF model to assess the convection-aerosol interactions over the UAE in summer. Unfortuantely, there are some major flaws with the manuscript in its present form, and I have to recommend that the manuscript be rejected.
There are three critical issues with the paper. The first is a lack of clear scientific question and focus. The title states that the topic of the paper is convection-aerosol interaction, but which part of that interaction is the key scientific question here? The introduction very broadly touched upon the impacts of ARI and ACI on the lifetimes and precipitations of MCS, but no key scientific question is brought forth. The abstract even mentions the impacts of nudging in the outer model domains, which further confuses the reader. Also, there are way too many sensitivity experiments. What is the purpose of testing (very) different aerosol composition assumptions in the model, if the point was to assess ACI in a particular case?
Secondly, the methodology used in this study is not appropriate for the question it appears to want to addess. If the purpose is to investigate the 'interaction of convection and aerosol', then in the model, aerosols and cloud microphysics and dynamics should be allowed to 'interact' in a physically-realistic or reasonable way. Instead, the authors used a WRF model and implemented an 'aerosol-aware' cloud microphysics, which really does not allow aerosol and convection to 'interact' with each other. The use of assumed aerosol loading as initial condition and then allow them to be advected in no way physically represent the locations and strengths of the aerosols relative to the convective systems, as evidenced in Figs 2 and 5. Many of the assumptions (e.g., 30% dust in the radiation calculation; conversion of Ns to PM10; etc) are simply wrong.
Thirdly, because the manuscript is lacking focus, it is also extremely long, without apparent need to be that way. For example, the verification diagnostics presented in section 2.4 are fairly standard; there is probably no need to elaborate. The discussion on the effects of nudging and the effects of assuming much of the aerosols to be carbonaceous is very confusing and not related to the topic at hand.
Specific coments:
Lines 12-13: "Both an idealised and ... are considered": This sentence is unclear. Please revise.
Lines 24-28: "In particular, ... 51 W/m2.": This sentence is extremely long and unclear. Please revise.
Line 28: Not sure what "the former" and "the latter" refer to.
Lines 51-52: The increased number of smaller cloud droplets mostly lead to more scattering (hence higher albedo and optical depth). This is not the same as 'reducing the radiative window'. Also, this statement is missing reference.
Line 54: Albrecht effect: missing reference.
Line 248: "Nwfa and Nifa ... evolve during the course of the model integration": How is this achieved? Do you simulate the emission/transport/deposition of the Ns? Or do you prescribe how N changes with time? If the latter, how do you ensure that this correctly represents the response of N to meteorology. More importantly, how do you know that you are not forcing the cloud microphysics to do things that you wish to see?
Lines 249-250: "...dataset on a monthly time-scale ... downloaded from the model's website": What is this dataset based on? Is it based on a model calculation or some kind of satellite data inversion?
Line 252: So Nwfa and Nifa are first set with initial conditions and then allowed to advect and diffuse? How do you ensure that the transported Ns are realistic? Also, the scavenging of Ns (both hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic) by precipitation are not considered?
Lines 249-255: The description of the aerosol settings in the sensitivity experiments is unclear. I have a hard time following what assumptions are made. Please consider revising.
Line 257: Does the number of non-hygroscopic aerosol affect the number of ice nuclei? This is not a default option in WRF. What parameterization is used to describe this sensitivity?
Lines 264-265: "...assumes a mixture of 70% water soluble and 30% dust-like aerosols": Is this a reasonable assumption for this case, where most of the aerosols were dust? More importantly, is this assumption consistent with the prescribed hygroscopic/non-hygroscopic aerosol numbers?
Lines 278-281: Is the effect of nudging in the outer domains one of the scientific questions you want to address in this study? If not, and if nuding is necessary to capture the large-scale atmospheric dynamics, then it should be included in all the key experiments. Otherwise there are simply too many experiments without a clear, key scientific question.
Lines 312-314: Why use MERRA-2 aerosol product for this study? Has the AOD in MERRA-2 been evaluated over this part of the world, particular since the surface is bright?
Lines 351-358: In fig2a-c, it appears that the dusts are mostly in the Northeastern part of the domain, but the MERRA-2 AODs are mostly in the central/southern part of the domain. Which one is more accurate and how do you reconcile the discrepancy? More importantly, which one is more consistent with the assumed Ns in the simulation?
Fig 2a-c: How are these figures colored? If this is indeed 'RGB' (i.e., real color) images, why would the dust be pink and the clouds orange/brown/black? Clearly, some other type of of processing has been applied.
Section 4.1: The aerosol loading simulated here are neither consistent with the RGB plots or the MERRA-2 AOD shown in Fig 2.
Figure 5: The labeling is extremely confusing. Some subplots are not labeled, and which ones are (c) and (d)? The caption says: "The aerosol concentration in panels (c) and (d) is scaled as in panels (a) and (b)", which I do not understand.
Section 4.1: The conversion of WRF 'simulated' aerosol loading to PM10 is inappropriate. The Ns here are not realistic aerosol loading. They are first prescribed as initial condition and then allowed to be transported. In no way were the Ns physically related to dust in the model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-597-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2021-597/acp-2021-597-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Diana Francis, 08 Sep 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,118 | 365 | 56 | 1,539 | 42 | 41 |
- HTML: 1,118
- PDF: 365
- XML: 56
- Total: 1,539
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
