Temperature and Ozone Response to Different Forcing in the Lower Troposphere and Stratosphere

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examine the outcomes of numerical tests done with the SOCOLv3 CCM from 1980 to 2020, using various forcing methods both separately and together. This work is new compared to earlier studies because it includes thorough validation of the results with existing observations, a specific time period, and an analysis of changes in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and temperature.

1.      The reference #4 on the success of the Montreal Protocol was published in 2012 and should be replaced by a more recent one: e.g.,  "An Arctic ozone hole in 2020 if not for the Montreal Protocol." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 21, no. 20 (2021): 15771-15781.

2.      Lines 78-85. For the Arctic ozone depletion the events in 2011 and 2020 should be mentioned: e.g.,

 "The exceptional ozone depletion over the Arctic in January–March 2011." Remote Sensing Letters 3, no. 4 (2012): 343-352.

"Exceptionally low Arctic stratospheric ozone in spring 2020 as seen in the CAMS reanalysis." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 125, no. 23 (2020): e2020JD033563.

 "The lesson learned from the unprecedented ozone hole in the Arctic in 2020; A novel nowcasting tool for such extreme events." Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics 207 (2020): 105330.

3.      The temporal scaling effect in solar and volcanic forcings is missing and should be mentioned accordingly: e.g.:  

 "Exciting natural modes of variability by solar and volcanic forcing: idealized and realistic experiments." Climate Dynamics 23 (2004): 153-163.

"Scaling regimes and linear/nonlinear responses of last millennium climate to volcanic and solar forcings." Earth System Dynamics 7, no. 1 (2016): 133-150.

 "A voyage through scales, a missing quadrillion and why the climate is not what you expect." Climate Dynamics 44 (2015): 3187-3210.

 

The paper after including the aforementioned information would be publishable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few edits should be corrected

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time, we have taken into account your comments and suggestions. The answer is in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the article and my suggestions are below.

Most of the references are old. Current references should be added to the article.

The abstract section should be written in detail about what was obtained.

The "in this study" section of the introduction section should be written in more detail.

Table 1 should be explained in more detail.

 

Linear regression models should be explained in more detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time, we have taken into account your comments and suggestions. The answer is in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the revisions performed and thus I suggest publication.