MIPAS observations of volcanic sulfate aerosol and sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere

Günther, Annika; Höpfner, Michael; Sinnhuber, Björn-Martin; Griessbach, Sabine; Deshler, Terry; von Clarmann, Thomas; Stiller, Gabriele

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1217-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1217-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

StratoClim stratospheric and upper tropospheric processes...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1217-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 2

Research article

|

31 Jan 2018

Research article |

| 31 Jan 2018

MIPAS observations of volcanic sulfate aerosol and sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere

Annika Günther, Michael Höpfner, Björn-Martin Sinnhuber, Sabine Griessbach, Terry Deshler, Thomas von Clarmann, and Gabriele Stiller

Download

Final revised paper (published on 31 Jan 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Jun 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "MIPAS observations of volcanic sulphate aerosol ..."', Hugh C. Pumphrey, 27 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Reply referee 1', Annika Günther, 05 Jul 2017
RC2: 'MIPAS observations of volcanic sulphate aerosol and sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere by Guenther et al. 2017', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Aug 2017
- AC2: 'Reply referee 2', Annika Günther, 16 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Annika Günther on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Sep 2017) by Anja Schmidt

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Oct 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 Oct 2017) by Anja Schmidt

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to let you know that I am happy to accept your manuscript subject to some additional minor revisions that have been raised by Referee #2.

*Comment by Referee #2:*

The authors have done a good job in correcting the mistakes and in answering my comments. However, there are a some mistakes (spelling and grammar) remaining and I would encourage the authors to carefully proof read the paper again. Also, maybe they want to give the paper to a native speaker (Terry Deshler who is a co-author on this paper) to find the remaining mistakes as this would improve the paper.

One of the two concerns that remain is that they are not taking any measurement uncertainties into account when calculating mean values and especially the uncertainties on the mean values, which is not correct in my view. They did not convince me with their reply on my comment that this is not needed here or can't be done.

*Editor comment:*

I recommend that you either address that comment or explain in your reply why it currently appears current practice to not take into account measurement uncertainties.

*Comment by Referee #2:*

My second concern, which became only apparent when looking at the revised paper, is that they seem to ignore temporal and spatial bias correction. They mention now that the differences between model and measurements could be caused by biased means, however, they do not explain why they didn't do any spatial bias correction of the data before calculating the mean, although the state that the data are not uniformly distributed. I would encourage the authors to include one/two sentences on why they think that a spatial bias correction is not required and why they think that this wouldn't change the results much (I'm referring to page 26 from line 5 onward).

*Editor comment:*

Please address the comments above and submit a revised version of your paper. If you have any questions then don't hesitate to get in touch with me.

Thank you for your submission to ACP.

Kind regards,
Anja Schmidt (as2737@cam.ac.uk)

Hide

AR by Annika Günther on behalf of the Authors (10 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (16 Nov 2017) by Anja Schmidt

AR by Annika Günther on behalf of the Authors (19 Nov 2017)

Short summary

Satellite-borne data of sulfur dioxide and a new data set of sulfate aerosol volume densities, as retrieved from MIPAS measurements, are studied in the upper-troposphere–lower-stratosphere region. General patterns of enhanced aerosol are in agreement with SO₂. Via chemical transport model simulations for two volcanic eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes, we show that the volcanic enhancements in MIPAS SO₂ and sulfate aerosol are consistent in terms of mass and transport patterns.