Review of Paper: Potential impact of carbonaceous aerosols on the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere (UTLS) and precipitation during Asian summer monsoon in a global model simulation by Fadnavis et al. 2017, submitted to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
In general the paper is improved. However there are some issues that needed to be addressed before publication, especially Major concern #1.
Major concerns:
1. In the previous paper version, the increased heating rate due to BC/OC near the tropopause in the ASM region was 0.003-0.005 K/day; however in the revised the version, the heating rate is 0.02-0.03 K/day, which is a factor of 6 larger. The heating rate of CTRL run remains the same between two versions of the paper. The BC/OC amount in UTLS remains similar (about 2 ng/m3). I wonder what happened? What have you changed? Also I noticed your TOA radiative forcing changed from strong negative to positive…Please explain.
2. The authors added more model experiments: add “double OC only run” and double “BC only run”. Line 366-369: the radiative forcing for each case do not add up (compared with “double OC and BC run”). I can imagine the system is non-linear, but please provide more discussions on what cause the non-linearity.
3. Line 363-369: I am not convinced by the discussion on the temperature anomaly core in figure 4f. It is good to see in FigureS3a, the temp anomaly core is in the “double BC only run”. I am still wondering which leads to the warming core, note the core in the figure extends to mid-high latitudes. The discussions in the paper are not enough, and seems the authors are somehow guessing. Please justify.
Line 348: ASM region, not ASM
Line 216-217: re-write the sentence. I assume you meant the values range from surface to 10 km in model, while 6 km in observations.
Line 366: Figure 8 instead of Figure 7?
Please clarify the confidence level used for multiple figures. Are they 99% or 95%? In the response, you mentioned 95% while 99% in the figure captions. |