An Investigation of the SOCOLv4 Model’s Suitability for Predicting the Future Evolution of the Total Column Ozone
, Yurii Timofeyev 1, Alexander Polyakov 1, Yana Virolainen 1, Eugene Rozanov 1,4 and Vladimir Zubov 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is devoted to compare the results in various parameters from SOCOL model and selected satellites and reanalyses. According to my opinion this paper is the good one, where the results are interpreted and explained. I have some minor comments :
1.In the introduction the phrase on top of that is repeated too frequently. Please change it.
2. l. 322-323 underestimate...underestimate. In one case the overestimate should be used
3. l. 560 When the model overestimate the temperature so it contain more energy than in reality and no source is missing, but the sink is missing.
This paper can be accepted for publication after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Investigation of the SOCOLv4 model suitability for predicting the future evolution of the total column ozone
The authors assessed a model to reproduce past remote sensing observations and reanalyze global total column ozone (TCO) data. They indicated that the model overpredicted the TCO in the Northern Hemisphere and significantly underestimated it in the South Pole. The model's best performance was identified in the tropics. Finally, they proposed this model for predicting TCO.
This is an exciting topic. The authors need to address the following concerns:
As the model did show good performance over the Northern Hemisphere and the South Pole, why is it proposed for future projections?. It seems necessary to improve its performance before considering it for prediction.
The authors used remote sensing and reanalysis data. Why did they select these datasets? Were these TCO datasets previously compared to records from vertical sounding to support their selection?. The authors indicated they identified differences in the reanalysis datasets they used (MERRA2 vs ERA5-reanalysis).
What about other TCO sources such as Temis?: TEMIS -- Near-real time total ozone column
What are the performances of other TCO models?
What are the advantages of SOCOLV4 compared to other TCO models?
Other suggestions.
Add a glossary for the abbreviations.
Increase the size of numbers and letters in figures 1, 2, 7, 9, 10.
It seems that one of the equations in the subplots of Figure 6 needs to be drawn in red.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSecond review:
Atmosphere
Title: Investigation of the SOCOLv4 model suitability for predicting the future evolution of the total column ozone
The authors substantially addressed the observations and concerns of the first review. Therefore, I believe the manuscript can be published, considering these final suggestions:
1. Highlight that the model can correctly forecast the TCO globally with decadal temporal resolution. Still, as a limitation, its performance needs to be improved for more spatial and temporal resolution forecasting purposes.
2. I highlight the sentence of the authors’ answer to one of the questions of the first review:
There are a lot of CCMs which are used to simulate long-term spatio-temporal variation of ozone in the atmosphere in the past and future. Today almost all existing CCMs on average cover the same list of physical processes and chemical reactions and should not change significantly.
I believe the authors should highlight in the manuscript that, as developers of the model, they can contribute to improving the forecasting of the TCO, by enhancing the modeling of the physical processes or chemical reactions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
