Impacts of Tibetan Plateau uplift on atmospheric dynamics and associated  precipitation <i>δ</i><sup>18</sup>O

Botsyun, Svetlana; Sepulchre, Pierre; Risi, Camille; Donnadieu, Yannick

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-12-1401-2016

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-12-1401-2016

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-12-1401-2016

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

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

28 Jun 2016

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 28 Jun 2016

Impacts of Tibetan Plateau uplift on atmospheric dynamics and associated precipitation δ¹⁸O

Svetlana Botsyun, Pierre Sepulchre, Camille Risi, and Yannick Donnadieu

Download

Final revised paper (published on 28 Jun 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 15 Jan 2016)
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: 'review comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Feb 2016
- AC1: 'Response to anonymous review #1', Svetlana Botsyun, 29 Feb 2016
RC2: 'Reviewers Comments.', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Feb 2016
- AC2: 'Response to anonymous review #2', Svetlana Botsyun, 10 Mar 2016
RC3: 'Review of cp-2015-187', Anonymous Referee #3, 17 Mar 2016
- EC1: 'a reply to the third review please', Denis-Didier Rousseau, 29 Mar 2016
- AC3: 'Response to anonymous review #3', Svetlana Botsyun, 04 Apr 2016

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (05 Apr 2016) by Denis-Didier Rousseau

AR by Svetlana Botsyun on behalf of the Authors (08 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 May 2016) by Denis-Didier Rousseau

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 May 2016)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (26 May 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I do have one additional issue. RH changes are a major player driving δp; it would be useful to see how well the MOD run captures the empirical modern conditions both spatially and as a function of altitude. The authors address this point (P10 L12, and in their answer to reviewer #2) but don’t provide a compendium figure. The reference cited does not have the desired comparison as well. A mismatch of ~10% in RH could drive changes of up to 2‰ in δp which make it a sensitive parameter and thus requires further clarification.

Small corrections:
P2 L8-12. this in not a full sentence.
L8. “On the other hand” is not the right phrase, maybe try: “In addition, understanding the timing ... are crucial for reconstructing the rate ... etc.”
L25. “The difference between paleoprecipitation δ18O recorded in natural archives and  modern values of the site of interest is identified with has been used to identify the effect of the surface uplift in  numerous recent studies”
P5 L21. initial site of what?
L29. deviate
P6 L2. add “near the surface, therefore:”
Eq 5. Shouldn’t you be subtracting the laps rate component from T0 instead of adding it? Or you should put a minus sign before the 5˚ km-1
L13. And throughout you use the δ notation in 2 different ways 1) the standard isotope notation and 2) as the changes in T, Rv etc due to large circulation changes. This is a bit confusing and maybe should be replaced by d or some other notation.
Eq 6a. the last + sign shouldn’t be in subscript
P7 L15. Eq. 6a or 6b?
P9 L22. missing full stop at e.g.
P10 L12. There is a mistake with figure S1, it should be comparing RH in MOD and reanalysis, but instead it is a replica of Fig 3a,b and c. The RH comparison is very important, as RH is a major player in the authors’ results.
L17. increased
L31. Fig 4f
P11 L3. Which subplot of Fig 4?
L9. Fig S4 with capital letter.
L11-12. Add ref to the figure that shows this.
P12 L11. Add “the model”
L19-20. Add ref to figure.
P13 L20. Add ref to figure 12.
P20 L9. Erase one of the: “and 5%”
L16. Erase “is observed”
L26. Should be: qs
P21 L14. delete “by”
L20. Add “at about 2 km”
Figure 1. There are no black rectangles in the figure as stated in the caption.
Figure 8. L6. Delete . (
Figure 10. Missing F is 10F
Figure 12. In caption missing “A”.
Figure 13. In caption missing “A”.
Figure N7. In the letter to editor you added a figure comparing your model to Rowley’s model, which didn’t end up in the final version or supplement. I think this is an important figure and should find its way in to the MS.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (03 Jun 2016) by Denis-Didier Rousseau

AR by Svetlana Botsyun on behalf of the Authors (05 Jun 2016) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We use an isotope-equipped GCM and develop original theoretical expression for the precipitation composition to assess δ¹⁸O of paleo-precipitation changes with the Tibetan Plateau uplift. We show that δ¹⁸O of precipitation is very sensitive to climate changes related to the growth of mountains, notably changes in relative humidity and precipitation amount. Topography is shown to be not an exclusive controlling factor δ¹⁸O in precipitation that have crucial consequences for paleoelevation studies

Impacts of Tibetan Plateau uplift on atmospheric dynamics and associated precipitation δ18O

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Impacts of Tibetan Plateau uplift on atmospheric dynamics and associated precipitation δ¹⁸O