Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Benchmarking Photolysis Rates: Species for Earth and Exoplanets
Sophia Adams,James Manners,Nathan Mayne,Mei Ting Mak,and Eric Hebrard
Abstract. Using the Socrates photolysis scheme, we present newly calculated photolysis rates under modern Earth atmospheric conditions for species directly relevant to Earth and species relevant to different atmospheric compositions. We compare to a previous photolysis comparison exercise, namely PhotoComp 2011. Overall, we find good agreement between our results and previous work, with discrepancies usually caused by the implementation of temperature dependent cross-sections or quantum yields and updated or higher resolution input data. We provide a new set of benchmark photolysis rates for additional species both for Solar irradiance and when irradiated by an M dwarf host star. In general, the higher actinic flux at far-UV and shorter wavelengths of the M dwarf compared to the Sun drives increased photolysis rates for reactions with high threshold energies. This work provides an updated set of benchmark results for further studies of photolysis in the Earth's atmosphere and that of other planets.
Received: 19 Jun 2025 – Discussion started: 08 Aug 2025
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
in my role as Executive editor of GMD, I would like to bring to your attention our Editorial version 1.2: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/2215/2019/
This highlights some requirements of papers published in GMD, which is also available on the GMD website in the ‘Manuscript Types’ section: http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission/manuscript_types.html
In particular, please note that for your paper, the following requirements have not been met in the Discussions paper:
"The main paper must give the model name and version number (or other unique identifier) in the title."
“If the model development relates to a single model then the model name and the version number must be included in the title of the paper. If the main intention of an article is to make a general (i.e. model independent) statement about the usefulness of a new development, but the usefulness is shown with the help of one specific model, the model name and version number must be stated in the title. The title could have a form such as, “Title outlining amazing generic advance: a case study with Model XXX (version Y)”.''
As you evaluating Socrates please add something like “Benchmarking photolysis rates calculated by Socrates (vX.y): ....” to the title of your revised manuscript.
We perform calculations of photolysis reactions using an existing model but including updated input data. These reactions are important in shaping the composition of our upper atmosphere and that of other planets, for example, controlling ozone formation and destruction. The results of our model are compared with those of previous benchmarks, and rates of various reactions provided to facilitate other researchers in developing accurate schemes to capture photolysis in planetary atmospheres.
We perform calculations of photolysis reactions using an existing model but including updated...
Dear authors,
in my role as Executive editor of GMD, I would like to bring to your attention our Editorial version 1.2: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/2215/2019/
This highlights some requirements of papers published in GMD, which is also available on the GMD website in the ‘Manuscript Types’ section: http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission/manuscript_types.html
In particular, please note that for your paper, the following requirements have not been met in the Discussions paper:
As you evaluating Socrates please add something like “Benchmarking photolysis rates calculated by Socrates (vX.y): ....” to the title of your revised manuscript.
Yours, Astrid Kerkweg