Impact of Siberian observations on the optimization of surface CO<sub>2</sub> flux

Kim, Jinwoong; Kim, Hyun Mee; Cho, Chun-Ho; Boo, Kyung-On; Jacobson, Andrew R.; Sasakawa, Motoki; Machida, Toshinobu; Arshinov, Mikhail; Fedoseev, Nikolay

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2881-2017

Articles | Volume 17, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2881-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2881-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 4

Research article

|

24 Feb 2017

Research article |

| 24 Feb 2017

Impact of Siberian observations on the optimization of surface CO₂ flux

Jinwoong Kim, Hyun Mee Kim, Chun-Ho Cho, Kyung-On Boo, Andrew R. Jacobson, Motoki Sasakawa, Toshinobu Machida, Mikhail Arshinov, and Nikolay Fedoseev

Download

Final revised paper (published on 24 Feb 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Feb 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 May 2016
- AC1: 'response to reviewer2', Hyun Mee Kim, 26 Aug 2016
RC2: 'Review of Kim et al. paper', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Jun 2016
- AC2: 'response to reviewer1', Hyun Mee Kim, 26 Aug 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Hyun Mee Kim on behalf of the Authors (26 Aug 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Aug 2016) by William Lahoz (deceased)

RR by Abhishek Chatterjee (23 Oct 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised manuscript is a significant improvement relative to the original version – both in terms of scientific content and overall readability. The authors have done a credible job in addressing most of the reviewers’ concerns, especially with the addition of Section 3.2 and Table 6. I have one major comment, which the authors can address with a short discussion (and/or figure). A few other minor typographical errors need to be corrected. I recommend the manuscript for publication in ACP.

Major Comment
The fact that the posterior CO2 concentrations from the JR experiment shows a larger bias (relative to the CNTL experiment) when compared with the independent aircraft observations is disconcerting. Even though the RMSD and the MAE are lower for the JR experiment, the positive bias indicates that the JR inverse modeling setup generates more CO2 concentrations than the CNTL experiment. Based on mass balance, it is not surprising then that the JR experiment shows a reduced uptake in the region. It is not clear over what time period the statistics have been calculated for (also see Minor Comment #6). Hence a little more detail may be beneficial here. Have the authors investigated this bias issue in more detail? It may also be useful to add an additional figure showing the vertical profiles from the aircraft for one or two specific flights, and the corresponding posterior CO2 concentrations from the two inverse modeling experiments.

Minor comments
1. Page 3, Line 17: Change ‘column-averaged model’ to ‘column-average mole’
2. Page 3, Line 19: The word ‘in situ’ is irrelevant here
3. Page 3, Line 29: Check the spelling of Max Planck Institute
4. Page 4, Line 28: Substitute the phrase ‘dependence on’ with ‘sensitivity to’
5. Page 7, Lines 2 - 3: This sentence should be rephrased to increase its readability.
6. Page 14, Line 10-11: Are the aircraft observations available over the same period as the surface network? At what frequency are the aircraft flights carried out? And over what time period are the statistics calculated?
7. Page 15, Line 18: Check the spelling of ‘uncertainty’
8. Page 17, Line 3: Check the spelling of ‘JR-STATION’
9. Page 17, Line 6: Check the spelling of ‘Dolman et al.’

Hide

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (13 Jan 2017) by William Lahoz (deceased)

AR by Hyun Mee Kim on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (18 Jan 2017) by William Lahoz (deceased)

Short summary

To investigate the effect of CO₂ observations in Siberia on the surface CO₂ flux analyses, two experiments using observation data sets with and without Siberian measurements were performed. While the magnitude of the optimized surface CO₂ flux uptake in Siberia decreased, that in the other regions of the Northern Hemisphere increased for the experiment with Siberian observations. It is expected that the Siberian observations play an important role in estimating surface CO₂ flux in the future.

Impact of Siberian observations on the optimization of surface CO2 flux

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Impact of Siberian observations on the optimization of surface CO₂ flux