Optical properties of sea ice doped with black carbon – an experimental and radiative-transfer modelling comparison

Marks, Amelia A.; Lamare, Maxim L.; King, Martin D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-2867-2017

Articles | Volume 11, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-2867-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-2867-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 6

Research article

|

12 Dec 2017

Research article |

| 12 Dec 2017

Optical properties of sea ice doped with black carbon – an experimental and radiative-transfer modelling comparison

Amelia A. Marks, Maxim L. Lamare, and Martin D. King

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Dec 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 16 May 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewers comments on Marks et al 2017:', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jun 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to anonymous referee 1', Amelia Marks, 25 Aug 2017
SC1: 'anonymous review comment', Sarah Doherty, 12 Jun 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to comment from S. Doherty', Amelia Marks, 25 Aug 2017
RC2: 'review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to anonymous referee 2', Amelia Marks, 25 Aug 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Amelia Marks on behalf of the Authors (25 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Sep 2017) by Dirk Notz

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (18 Sep 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of revised manuscript entitled “Optical properties of sea ice doped with black carbon—An experimental and radiative-transfer modelling comparison”.

The authors are commended for this much improved, revised manuscript. My initial comments have mostly been satisfactorily addressed. I do however have a few comments on this revised version.

Abstract, first sentence. This run-on sentence makes it daunting for potential readers to dive into this manuscript. This first sentence needs to be rewritten.

This may be a stylistic difference, but I am not accustomed to the use of “sea ices”. This terminology is used throughout the manuscript. It would seem more natural to me to see the media described as “sea ice samples”.

P 5. In the description of the illumination, it needs to be made clear whether the lights are only turned on for optical measurements or whether they remain turned on during the entire ice growth period.

P 15 line 9. It is not clear to me how the heat flux output from the refrigerator plant can be reduced and still maintain constant temperature in the context of this laboratory environment. If the refrigeration system is used to conduct heat out of the water in the tank, then I would expect a reduced heat flux to produce a higher air temperature in the air space above and around the tank. What am I missing?

Figure 9. I still don’t agree with the conclusion drawn from this figure. First of all, the curve reproduced here from Briaud (2004) doesn’t show much fidelity to either Fig 1 or Fig A1a in Bricaud’s original paper. Bricaud generally shows peak absorption by chlorophyll at substantially longer wavelengths (centered around 450 nm). I just don’t see a basis for claiming that the residual absorption in this experiment is related to chlorophyll. This is especially true given the efforts carried out to inhibit algae growth, and the lack of natural lighting. Frankly, the absorption spectra shown in Fig. 9 b looks more like a mineral dust to me. I suppose this is largely up to our respective interpretation, and I suppose we could continue to argue the comparison, but I would suggest the authors show the residual absorption and present some various options for how it should be attributed.

Various axis labels show the name of the variable and then a “/” before the units. This of course looks like a “divide” sign, suggesting the units are implicitly (-1). I would recommend instead the units be placed within square brackets [ ], as I believe is the more conventional style.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 Sep 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (28 Sep 2017) by Dirk Notz

AR by Amelia Marks on behalf of the Authors (07 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (12 Oct 2017) by Dirk Notz

AR by Amelia Marks on behalf of the Authors (23 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Arctic sea ice extent is declining rapidly. Prediction of sea ice trends relies on sea ice models that need to be evaluated with real data. A realistic sea ice environment is created in a laboratory by the Royal Holloway sea ice simulator and is used to show a sea ice model can replicate measured properties of sea ice, e.g. reflectance. Black carbon, a component of soot found in atmospheric pollution, is also experimentally shown to reduce the sea ice reflectance, which could exacerbate melting.