Investigation of the Vertical Influence of the 11-Year Solar Cycle on Ozone Using SBUV and Antarctic Ground-Based Measurements and CMIP6 Forcing Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a thorough study of the interrelationships between solar activity and vertical ozone profiles relationships. It has also an extensive literature review on the subject. The authors found interesting responses to solar activity cycle at certain ozone layers at different latitudes. The spatial distribution of responses as discussed are quite interesting and particularly the finding of higher amplitudes of the solar signal in the Antarctic peninsula. Therefore, the paper merits publication with minor corrections. Among the minor corrections the authors should change throughout the paper: from solar ozone relationship to solar activity-ozone relationship. This is important because of the strong link of the sun with the ozone layer in other aspects of phenomena relating the sun with atmospheric ozone. Second, their suggestion for the need of further modeling work would need at least a phrase as to what type of mechanisms apart from dynamics the authors consider as being important in the search for solar cycle effects in the ozone profile. Last, but optional suggestion, has to do with the references in the history of that field of Science in the introduction. I would suggest the authors to add two references that improved the sparkling beginning of that field, namely the book by Khrgian “Atmospheric Ozone” and the first modeling of the solar activity ozone relations in the lower stratosphere by Zerefos and Crutzen ("Stratospheric thickness variations over the northern hemisphere and their possible relation to solar activity", J. Geophys. Res., 80, 36, 5041-5043, 1975). Finally, an overall language checking should go throughout the text.

Author Response

atmosphere-896914 MDPI Rev1

Manuscript: "The 11-year solar cycle in altitude ozone profile in the Antarctic Peninsula region from SBUV data" by Grytsai et al.

Reply to Reviewer #1

We thank Reviewer for useful comments and corrections. We corrected the text and included new one (in blue color) according to Reviewer suggestions. Our revisions are given below. Lines numbering corresponds to R1 version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer General Comments: The paper presents a thorough study of the interrelationships between solar activity and vertical ozone profiles relationships. It has also an extensive literature review on the subject. The authors found interesting responses to solar activity cycle at certain ozone layers at different latitudes. The spatial distribution of responses as discussed are quite interesting and particularly the finding of higher amplitudes of the solar signal in the Antarctic Peninsula. Therefore, the paper merits publication with minor corrections.

Reviewer Comment:  Among the minor corrections the authors should change throughout the paper: from solar ozone relationship to solar activity-ozone relationship. This is important because of the strong link of the sun with the ozone layer in other aspects of phenomena relating the sun with atmospheric ozone.

Author Comment: corrected to "solar activity–ozone response" in all relevant places.

RC: Second, their suggestion for the need of further modeling work would need at least a phrase as to what type of mechanisms apart from dynamics the authors consider as being important in the search for solar cycle effects in the ozone profile.

AC: We made corrections in Lines 413-414

"This possibility should be verified in models in further studies considering the altitudinal, latitudinal, regional and seasonal dependencies in the relationship between dynamical, chemical and radiative effects."

and in Lines 532-534

"... variations [75]. This possibility should be further investigated in models, considering the altitudinal, latitudinal, regional and seasonal dependencies in the relationship between dynamical, chemical and radiative effects."

 

RC: Last, but optional suggestion, has to do with the references in the history of that field of Science in the introduction. I would suggest the authors to add two references that improved the sparkling beginning of that field, namely the book by Khrgian “Atmospheric Ozone” and the first modeling of the solar activity ozone relations in the lower stratosphere by Zerefos and Crutzen ("Stratospheric thickness variations over the northern hemisphere and their possible relation to solar activity", J. Geophys. Res., 80, 36, 5041-5043, 1975).

AC: We introduced proposed references in the text

Line 75 "Studies of total ozone dependence on solar activity have a long history [27–32]"

Lines 653-657

"27. Khrgian, A. Kh.; Kuznetsov, G. I.; Kondrat'eva, A. V. Atmospheric ozone. Translated from Russian, Jerusalem (Israel Program for Scientific Translations), Humphrey, London, 1969, 90 p.

28. Zerefos, C. S.; Crutzen P. J. Stratospheric thickness variations over the northern hemisphere and their possible relation to solar activity, J. Geophys. Res. 1975, 80, 5041–5043, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i036p05041."

RC: Finally, an overall language checking should go throughout the text.

AC: We look through the text once again and provided the corrections by English native speaking author, which hopefully improved English.

 AC: According to comment from Reviewer #2 we change the title of the manuscript to

"Investigation of the vertical influence of the 11-year solar cycle on ozone using SBUV and Antarctic ground-based measurements and CMIP6 forcing data"

that better reflects the manuscript content

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

atmosphere-896914 MDPI Rev1

Manuscript: "The 11-year solar cycle in altitude ozone profile in the Antarctic Peninsula region from SBUV data" by Grytsai et al.

Reply to Reviewer #2

We thank Reviewer for useful comments and corrections. We corrected the text and included new one (in blue color) according to Reviewer suggestions. Our revisions are given below. Lines numbering corresponds to R1 version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer General Comment: This is overall an excellent manuscript that is nearly suitable for publication in its present form.

Reviewer Comment:  The title only mentions the Antarctic Peninsula region but the results pertain to the solar cycle variation of stratospheric ozone at all latitudes. This makes it a better contribution to the scientific literature. The introduction gives credit to prior work and provides up to date references.

 

Author Comment: We change the title to

"Investigation of the vertical influence of the 11-year solar cycle on ozone using SBUV and Antarctic ground-based measurements and CMIP6 forcing data"

that better reflects the manuscript content

RC: In the abstract, the two sentences in lines 26 to 31 (starting with “To compare with other latitudinal zones ...”) are confusing. Please re-write these two sentences to summarize better your results for the solar cycle variation of ozone at all latitudes.

AC: These sentences are corrected to (Lines 27-35)

"A statistically significant signal with a quasi-11-year period consistent with solar activity forcing was found in the lower–middle stratosphere at 22–31 km in ozone over Faraday/Vernadsky, although signals with similar periods were not significant in the total column measurements made by Dobson spectrophotometer at the site. For comparison with other latitudinal zones, the relative contribution of the wavelet spectral power of the quasi-11-year periods to the 2–32 year period range on the global scale was estimated. While a significant solar activity signal exists in the tropical lower and upper stratosphere and in the lower mesosphere in SBUV MOD, we did not find evidence of similar signals in the ozone forcing field for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)."

RC: In the first sentence of the Introduction, “consistent” should be “constituent”.

AC: Corrected in Line 43.

RC: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

AC: We provided the corrections by English native speaking author, which hopefully improved English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf