Radiative forcing and feedback by forests in warm climates &ndash; a sensitivity study

Port, Ulrike; Claussen, Martin; Brovkin, Victor

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-535-2016

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-535-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-535-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 3

Research article

|

06 Jul 2016

Research article |

| 06 Jul 2016

Radiative forcing and feedback by forests in warm climates – a sensitivity study

Ulrike Port, Martin Claussen, and Victor Brovkin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Jul 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Dec 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C1199: 'Review of “Radiative forcing and feedback by forests in warm climates – a sensitivity study” by Port et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Feb 2016
- SC C1207: 'reply to referee 1', Martin Claussen, 18 Feb 2016
RC C1209: 'Review of « Radiative forcing and feedback by forests in warm climates – a sensitivity study » by U. Port et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2016
- AC C1307: 'Response to Referee #2', Ulrike Port, 20 Apr 2016
EC C1216: 'Editor comment', Michel Crucifix, 23 Feb 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (21 Apr 2016) by Michel Crucifix

AR by Ulrike Port on behalf of the Authors (23 Apr 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Apr 2016) by Michel Crucifix

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (19 May 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of the revised manuscript by Port et al for ESD

[ all line numbers refer to the version of the ms with track changes ]

General opinion:

Although the authors have not been able to have a further look at points I mentioned in my first review (e.g. changes in clouds vs changes in atmospheric circulation, more comparisons between climate changes induced by CO2 vs. land surface) I think they made the necessary changes for the paper to be published in ESD. They will find below a list of minor improvements and corrections.

Suggestions for final improvements:

- line 365: different SWcl feedback parameters for the pre-industrial and
the early Eocene are due to differences over the ocean. Would it be possible to relate this to differences in cloud cover changes depicted on Fig 6?

- lines 375-377: I do not understand the new sentence.

Minor/typos:
- please use consistently “pre-industrial” (sometimes spelt “preindustrial”)
- line 16: replace “in early Eocene climate” by “for early Eocene climate” and “in pre-industrial climate” by “for pre-industrial conditions”… and consistenly troughout the text
- line 20: replace “stronger” by “more”
- lines 59ff: “vegetation cools regional climate” --> which regions?
- line 88: replace “between land and atmosphere” by “between the land surface and the atmosphere”
- line 89: replace the sentence by “JSBACH uses a fractional approach to describe the vegetation cover”
- line 94: insert “the” between “simplify” and “analysis”
- figure 1: numbers 1 and 2 are difficult to see
- lines 172-3: Split the sentence into two sentences: “The soil albedo does not matter in the forest world. This was tested by performing simulations of “forest worlds” with low and high soil albedo.“
- next sentence: replace “reveal” by “yield”
- line 181: remove “thereby” (it is unnecessary)
- lines 250-251: the comment between brackets can be removed, I think.
- Figure 6: planetary albedo. This is the total response (surface albedo + compensation by clouds+other feedbacks), right? It would be worth giving this precision in the caption.
- line 324: replace “we are not allow to” by “we cannot” or “we are not able to”
- lines 328-329: Stronger than? Smaller than? for the pre-industrial case I presume, but it would be nice to complete the sentence.
- line 334: add that Caballero and Huber do study the feedbacks associated with GHG, not with land surface changes.
- line 336: missing s at the end of strength
- line 348-349: “previous studies using various models which find that the water vapour feedback is stronger the warmer the climate is” --> “previous studies which find that the water vapour feedback is stronger for warmer climates”. Is this what the authors mean?
- line 350: add “The” at the beginning of the sentence
- lines 352-353: “differs significantly in both climates” --> differs significantly between the pre-industrial and early Eocene climates”? and “The differences in lambda_SWcl indicate that” can actually be removed.
- line 356: “the reason for the different sign … in both climates” --> “the reason for the different sign … for the cold and warm climates considered here”
- line 359: “For that purpose” can be removed
- line 373: “we like to mention” --> “we should remember that” (this is a suggestion)
- line 386: add an s at the end of “strength”, add “the” before “early Eocene” and replace “than” by “and”
- line 414: “in the sum” --> “in total”
- line 415: “glboal” -->“global”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 May 2016) by Michel Crucifix

AR by Ulrike Port on behalf of the Authors (14 Jun 2016) Author's response Manuscript