Interactive comment on “Spatial-temporal variations of surface ozone and ozone control strategy for Northern China”

Question 1: The analysis is based on data from a 1-year field campaign conducted in June 2009September 2010. My main concern is how representative the meteorological conditions during this time period are in comparison to the long-term climatology. The authors state multiple times in the manuscript (e.g. P26080, L13) that meteorological conditions during summer are very similar from year to year. I think a quantitative proof for this argument would be valuable. Therefore, I suggest that the authors in-


Interactive Comment
Full Screen / Esc

Printer-friendly Version
Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper clude a comparison of the meteorological conditions of the campaign period with the long-term climatology in the paper. Especially, as some confusion occurs as in the later sections the authors state that July and June had specific meteorological conditions in 2010.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we accepted and revised it as follows. We used ten weather stations in the last manuscript. In order to better compare simulated data with measured data, we get more meteorological data from China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System (http://new-cdc.cma.gov.cn:8081/home.do) . The period of this data is from 1951 to 2010 include 27 sites over Northern China. We added the quantitative proof though comparison between the long-term and one-year data in our revised manuscript.
Question 2: The authors suggest possible control strategies for air pollution in Northern China based on the findings of their study. Following the points raised above, the proposed measures might just be effective if the meteorological conditions of 2009-10 are representative. In addition did the authors perform any sensitivity analysis on how changing emissions would affect the effectiveness of the proposed control strategies and/or performed or intend to perform any scenario analysis to which extent such measures would help to improve local/regional air quality? This might be an important issue considering the increasing trends reported in section 4.
Response: We definitely agreed your suggestions and we have prepared another manuscript named "Sources and sinks of regional ozone over northern China and responses to meteorology and emissions using MM5-CMAQ modeling system" and will submit it to ACP after a while. In this paper, I will do some sensitivity analysis on how changing emission would affect the effectiveness of the proposed control strategies and will give you some results about which emission sources most important for ozone formation.
Question 3: How did the authors determine statistical skills on regional basis? Is it the C13631 Interactive Comment Full Screen / Esc

Printer-friendly Version
Interactive Discussion Discussion Paper mean over all n stations for each individual region or was any area weighted calculation performed? How did the authors deal with spatial dependence among the individual sites -or was this not considered in the analysis?
Response: We are sorry for these confusions. As to meteorological evaluations, we used all 27 weather stations for each individual region to determine statistical results. However, as to NOx and ozone concentrations, R, CV and COD are calculated in each category to exhibit the homogenous characteristic of ozone and O3_max for each group. We will revise these sections for easy understanding.
Question 4: Although the minor and technical comments below include several suggestions to enhance readability, I would kindly ask the authors to check tense, grammar and spelling again for the revised version of the manuscript. P26075, L1: reword to "The results showed that a larger cloud fraction is directly correlated with more precipitation'. C13633 Interactive Comment  Table 1: provide explanation for ME, MBE, RMSE and R in Table caption Table 2: see several comments provided above Table 3: provide explanation for R, CV and COD in Table caption Response: We accepted your suggestions and revised them in the manuscript.       Response: We accepted your suggestions and revised them in the manuscript. C13636