the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ozone and DNA active UV radiation changes for the near global mean and at high latitudes due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations
Abstract. This study analyses the variability and trends of ultraviolet-B (UV-B, wavelength 280–320 nm) radiation that can cause DNA damage, which are caused by climate change due to enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. The analysis is based on DNA active irradiance, total ozone, total cloud cover, and surface albedo calculations with the EMAC Chemistry-Climate Model (CCM) free running simulations following the RCP-6.0 climate scenario for the period 1960–2100. The model output is evaluated with DNA active irradiance ground-based measurements, satellite SBUV (v8.7) total ozone measurements and satellite MODIS/Terra cloud cover data. The results show that the model reproduces the observed variability and change of total ozone, DNA active irradiance, and cloud cover for the period 2000–2018 quite well. Between 50° N–50° S, the DNA-damaging UV radiation is expected to decrease until 2050 and to increase thereafter, as it was shown previously by Eleftheratos et al. (2020). This change is associated with decreases in the model total cloud cover and insignificant trends in total ozone after about 2050. The new study confirms the previous work by adding more stations over low and mid-latitudes (13 instead of 5 stations). In addition, we include estimates from high latitude stations with long-term measurements of UV irradiance (2 stations in the northern high latitudes and 4 stations in the southern high latitudes greater than 55°). In contrast to the predictions for 50° N–50° S, it is shown that DNA active irradiance will continue to decrease after the year 2050 over high latitudes because of upward ozone trends. At latitudes poleward of 55° N, we estimate that DNA active irradiance will decrease by 10.6 ± 3.7 % from 2050 to 2100. Similarly, at latitudes poleward of 55° S, DNA active irradiance will decrease by 4.8 ± 2.9 % after 2050. The results for the high latitudes refer to the summer period and not to the seasons when ozone depletion occurs, i.e., in late winter and spring. The contributions of ozone, cloud and albedo trends on the DNA active irradiance trends are estimated and discussed.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2116 KB)
-
Supplement
(4678 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2116 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4678 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-87/egusphere-2022-87-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-87', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jun 2022
The maunuscript presents valid and useful analysis with adequate source data, solid statistical analysis and interpretation and reasonable (but not spectacular or unexpected) conclusions. I am favourable on the scientific merits of this work despite the fact that a very similar analysis (now enriched with more data here) has already been published before by the same first author (I do not see this as an obstacle for publication). I only have the following comments which I would lke to see addressed (numbers indicate the respective manuscript lines):
GENERAL1-3: The title oversells the role of GHGs. The analysis of UV changes is done for simulations with and without time-varying GHGs and without doubt, modelled changes (=increases) of GHGs are driving the UV changes. But the actual UV change is mainly brought about by cloud changes (driven by changes in GHGs) that correctly the manuscript places in primary focus.
100-109: In direct relation to my comment for lines 1-3 and perhaps to justify the prominent insertion of the GHGs in the title, 1-2 additional lines should elaborate on why/how the GHG changes drive the cloud changes (that actually effect the UV changes).
177-178: From the way it is written, I deduce that the reference simulation includes additional 10 years of run for spin-up, while the sensitivity one, no. Is this correct? If yes, does this affect the ozone simulation? Ideally, shouldn't the runs be identical (with only difference the time-varying GHGs)?
267-268: The importance of this comment goes beyond technicalities so I insert it here. Currently the manuscript, throughout the figures, labels the three model runs according to their original names given by the modellers for specific reasons but are not necessary for the journal paper reader (in contrast they make harder following the figure content). The model run labels in the figure must be short and intuitive, for example:
SC1SD-Base02 -> HIS (for historical/hindcast)
RC2-Base04 -> SCE (for time-varying GHGs)
SC2-fGHG-01 -> FIX (for fixed GHGs)
590-592: how many Sigmas is this uncertainty range defined for? please clarify.TECHNICAL
176: Move the description of the runs in the a different paragraph for easier reading.
179-185: " Furthermore, we have analyzed the ...". The description of the EMAC ARC1SD-base-10 can preceed the description of the scenario runs.
186-192: Further escription of the scenario runs must be merged with the previous one in lines 176-179.
211-225: The deseasonalisation definitions and the t-test formula for the correlation coefficient formula may be introduced as a "statistical methods (or formulas)" sub-section in a Data and Methods Section.
256: replace "and of the parameters" with "and the parameters"
408-423: the mathematics (equations etc) used for the statistical tests for difference may be introduced as a "statistical methods (or formulas)" sub-section (same as in comment for lines 211-225) in a Data and Methods Section.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-87-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-87/egusphere-2022-87-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-87', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-87/egusphere-2022-87-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-87', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jun 2022
The maunuscript presents valid and useful analysis with adequate source data, solid statistical analysis and interpretation and reasonable (but not spectacular or unexpected) conclusions. I am favourable on the scientific merits of this work despite the fact that a very similar analysis (now enriched with more data here) has already been published before by the same first author (I do not see this as an obstacle for publication). I only have the following comments which I would lke to see addressed (numbers indicate the respective manuscript lines):
GENERAL1-3: The title oversells the role of GHGs. The analysis of UV changes is done for simulations with and without time-varying GHGs and without doubt, modelled changes (=increases) of GHGs are driving the UV changes. But the actual UV change is mainly brought about by cloud changes (driven by changes in GHGs) that correctly the manuscript places in primary focus.
100-109: In direct relation to my comment for lines 1-3 and perhaps to justify the prominent insertion of the GHGs in the title, 1-2 additional lines should elaborate on why/how the GHG changes drive the cloud changes (that actually effect the UV changes).
177-178: From the way it is written, I deduce that the reference simulation includes additional 10 years of run for spin-up, while the sensitivity one, no. Is this correct? If yes, does this affect the ozone simulation? Ideally, shouldn't the runs be identical (with only difference the time-varying GHGs)?
267-268: The importance of this comment goes beyond technicalities so I insert it here. Currently the manuscript, throughout the figures, labels the three model runs according to their original names given by the modellers for specific reasons but are not necessary for the journal paper reader (in contrast they make harder following the figure content). The model run labels in the figure must be short and intuitive, for example:
SC1SD-Base02 -> HIS (for historical/hindcast)
RC2-Base04 -> SCE (for time-varying GHGs)
SC2-fGHG-01 -> FIX (for fixed GHGs)
590-592: how many Sigmas is this uncertainty range defined for? please clarify.TECHNICAL
176: Move the description of the runs in the a different paragraph for easier reading.
179-185: " Furthermore, we have analyzed the ...". The description of the EMAC ARC1SD-base-10 can preceed the description of the scenario runs.
186-192: Further escription of the scenario runs must be merged with the previous one in lines 176-179.
211-225: The deseasonalisation definitions and the t-test formula for the correlation coefficient formula may be introduced as a "statistical methods (or formulas)" sub-section in a Data and Methods Section.
256: replace "and of the parameters" with "and the parameters"
408-423: the mathematics (equations etc) used for the statistical tests for difference may be introduced as a "statistical methods (or formulas)" sub-section (same as in comment for lines 211-225) in a Data and Methods Section.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-87-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-87/egusphere-2022-87-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kostas Eleftheratos, 29 Jul 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
481 | 112 | 11 | 604 | 35 | 3 | 6 |
- HTML: 481
- PDF: 112
- XML: 11
- Total: 604
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
John Kapsomenakis
Ilias Fountoulakis
Christos S. Zerefos
Patrick Jöckel
Martin Dameris
Alkiviadis F. Bais
Germar Bernhard
Dimitra Kouklaki
Kleareti Tourpali
Scott Stierle
J. Ben Liley
Colette Brogniez
Frédérique Auriol
Henri Diémoz
Stana Simic
Irina Petropavlovskikh
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2116 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4678 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper