ACP
Articles | Volume 16, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9149-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9149-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
|
26 Jul 2016
Research article | | 26 Jul 2016

Large XCH4 anomaly in summer 2013 over northeast Asia observed by GOSAT

Misa Ishizawa , Osamu Uchino, Isamu Morino, Makoto Inoue, Yukio Yoshida, Kazuo Mabuchi, Tomoko Shirai, Yasunori Tohjima, Shamil Maksyutov, Hirofumi Ohyama, Shuji Kawakami, Atsushi Takizawa, and Dmitry Belikov

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Misa Ishizawa on behalf of the Authors (18 Feb 2016) Author's response
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Mar 2016) by Manvendra Krishna Dubey
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 Mar 2016)
Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection
I am impressed by the seriousness the authors revision of their paper, particularly the improved meteorological analysis. There are still a few pending issues that I am listing hereafter.

Major issues:
- Topography correction. My question about the biases due to topography are still present. I feel it is important to remove any potential sampling biases due to variations in topography before comparing regional XCH4. In my original review I showed how there could be non-trivial biases over Japan (albeit using a different retrieval product).
- Real vs. Noise. Figure 9 raises some other questions about the XCH4 anomaly. In particular, the model seems to agree very well in August/September 2013 with GOSAT observations over China/Korea (panel a), TCCON at Saga (panel c), and TCCON at Tsukuba (panel d). However GOSAT observations over Japan are about 20ppb higher than the model in August/September 2013. Why does the model agree with everything except for GOSAT over Japan? This also seems contrary to Fig. 5 where the authors show agreement between GOSAT and TCCON at Saga and Tsukuba. Why would the model be able to capture XCH4 at Tsukuba and Saga but not GOSAT observations over Japan?
Hide
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Apr 2016)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (11 May 2016) by Manvendra Krishna Dubey
Dear Authors, The paper has addressed many of the concerns raised by the editors and is much improved. However, one of the editors raises important concerns about the topography correction and signal versus noise that may result in some inconsistencies. Kindly address these in your revision. Dubey
Hide
AR by Misa Ishizawa on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2016) Author's response Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (22 Jun 2016) by Manvendra Krishna Dubey
Review concerns have been addressed in detail by authors. I recommend the paper be published as is. Thank you.
Hide
AR by Misa Ishizawa on behalf of the Authors (28 Jun 2016)
Download
Short summary
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) was launched to monitor CO2 and CH4 concentrations from the space. This paper analyses an extremely high XCH4 event over Northeast Asia observed by GOSAT in the summer of 2013. Results indicate that the high XCH4 event was caused by fast transport of CH4-rich air from East China to Japan due to anomalies of north Pacific high-pressure system over East Asia. This study demonstrates the capability of GOSAT to detect an XCH4 event on a synoptic scale.
Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) was launched to monitor CO2 and CH4 concentrations...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /