Copernicus stratospheric ozone service, 2009–2012:  validation, system intercomparison and roles of input data sets

Lefever, K.; van der A, R.; Baier, F.; Christophe, Y.; Errera, Q.; Eskes, H.; Flemming, J.; Inness, A.; Jones, L.; Lambert, J.-C.; Langerock, B.; Schultz, M. G.; Stein, O.; Wagner, A.; Chabrillat, S.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

Monitoring atmospheric composition and climate, research in...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-2269-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 5

Research article

|

03 Mar 2015

Research article |

| 03 Mar 2015

Copernicus stratospheric ozone service, 2009–2012: validation, system intercomparison and roles of input data sets

K. Lefever, R. van der A, F. Baier, Y. Christophe, Q. Errera, H. Eskes, J. Flemming, A. Inness, L. Jones, J.-C. Lambert, B. Langerock, M. G. Schultz, O. Stein, A. Wagner, and S. Chabrillat

Download

Final revised paper (published on 03 Mar 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 15 May 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2703: 'Referee Comments on the paper 'Copernicus Atmospheric Service for stratospheric ozone: Validation and intercomparison of four near real-time analyses, 2009-2012'', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 May 2014
- AC C9036: 'Author Response to Referee 1', Simon Chabrillat, 12 Nov 2014
RC C4506: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jul 2014
- AC C9045: 'Author response to Referee 2', Simon Chabrillat, 12 Nov 2014

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Simon Chabrillat on behalf of the Authors (15 Dec 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Dec 2014) by William Lahoz (deceased)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Dec 2014)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Jan 2015)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (29 Jan 2015) by William Lahoz (deceased)

Please address the comments from the referees as well as the following comments:

L. 5: Introduce acronym for ECMWF and other institutions (BIRA-IASB, DLR/RIU, KNMI)

L. 45: I suggest the use “e.g.,”. Please do this elsewhere. Same for “i.e.,”.

L. 49: Elsewhere you have, e.g., 1920s (here it is 1980’s). Be consistent.

L. 76: Introduce acronym for “NRT”.

L. 78: “…NOX, i.e., …”.

L. 94: If you are going to use UK spelling (spelling of “modelling” suggests so), this is “centres”.

L. 98: documents; allows.

L. 100: were -> are (to preserve the verbal structure of the paragraph).

L. 106-109: This sentence has words missing and/or superfluous words. Please correct.

L. 109-110: What is used as a reference?

L. 115: Introduce acronym for ASSET.

L. 118: Should “they” be “we”?

L. 126: Refer to Manney et al. (2011) here (you cite this paper elsewhere).

L. 146: Introduce acronym for MLS.

L. 153: Here and elsewhere consider not starting a sentence with an acronym.

L. 167: Remove superfluous “the”.

L. 226: Introduce acronym for CTM.

L. 271: comprising.

L. 306: retrieval.

L. 315: I think you do not need the second “assimilation”.

L. 330: I think the reference is Kalnay (2003) – please check.

L. 342: “…in a first approximation…”.

L. 348: Elsewhere you have “parameterization”. Please be consistent.

L. 351: I suggest “…a specified…”.

L. 384: Missing “)”.

L. 396: Perhaps “polar” - >”Arctic”?

L. 429: Wegener.

L. 437: “…Boone et al. (2005)…”.

L.473: For a common style, I suggest “…at Syowa…”.

L. 483: I suggest using “DU” here and elsewhere.

L. 491: sunlight (for consistency with text elsewhere).

L. 501: You mean they have negative biases? Please clarify.

L. 511-512: I suggest using “…before the loss of Envisat…”.

L. 536: was -> were.

L. 539: in general - > generally.

L. 545: Elsewhere you use “setup”. Please be consistent (see also L. 829, 830).

L. 549: Should be “Ny-Ålesund”, as in the title for sect. 4.1.

L. 563: behaviour (if you use UK English). Same for L. 630, 631, 708.

L. 565: no -> none.

L. 592: assimilation.

L. 609: Should be “50 hPa”.

L. 611: I suggest “…BASCOE do not differ much in their analyses”.

L. 618: “…the station at Nairobi…”.

L. 626: over-and -> over- and.

L. 636: I suggest: probably -> likely.

L. 638: I suggest: worse -> poorer.

L. 644: “…lower down in height…”.

L. 651: I suggest: “…many of these biases…”.

L. 667: its -> their.

L. 674: “…a lower horizontal resolution may also lead…”.

L. 677: is -> are.

L. 687: Introduce UARS acronym.

L. 708: Do you need “excellent”?

L. 709: alternating.

L. 753: Elsewhere you use “midlatitudes”. Please be consistent.

L. 760: “…on 26 March…”.

L. 761: Northwest Russia.

L. 812: usage -> use.

L. 816: What is “MLS SCI”?

L. 822: Remove superfluous “nal”.

L. 825: Do you need “indeed”?

L. 829: I suggest you identify the years.

L. 848: Do you need “correctly”?

L. 856: section 6.2.

L. 860: This -> These.

L. 862: by -> from.

L. 871: What last sensitivity test? Please identify.

L. 876: “…in WMO (2011)”.

L. 896: Wegener.

L. 954: Dethof.

L. 1032: I think the year is 2003. Please check.

Table 1 caption, L. 3: Use either “used” or “uses” in both cases.

Table 2: Lagrangian mis-spelt at least once. Please correct.

Fig. 2 caption, L. 3: “…interpolated to…”. Last line: is the observational uncertainty 4% in all cases?

Fig. 4 caption, L. 3: th -> the.

Fig. 5 caption: I suggest: left out -> omitted.

Fig. 8 caption: I suggest you remind the reader of the approximate height and pressure of the 485 K level (same for Fig. 11). Elsewhere you have
“Spitsbergen” – please be consistent.

Fig. 10 caption (and similar figures): Please indicate the units of the quantity plotted.

Hide

Short summary

We validate and discuss the analyses of stratospheric ozone delivered in near-real time between 2009 and 2012 by four different data assimilation systems: IFS-MOZART, BASCOE, SACADA and TM3DAM. It is shown that the characteristics of the assimilation systems are much less important than those of the assimilated data sets. A correct representation of the vertical distribution of ozone requires satellite observations which are well resolved vertically and extend into the lowermost stratosphere.