the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Drivers of late Holocene ice core chemistry in Dronning Maud Land: The context for the ISOL-ICE project
Abstract. Quantifying the natural variability of the stratospheric ozone layer and understanding the underlying factors that control natural total column ozone (TCO) variability are required to put modern observations into historical context and evaluate the effectiveness of climate and TCO protection policies. Within the framework of the Isotopic Constraints on Past Ozone Layer in Polar Ice (ISOL-ICE) project, we present initial ice core results from the new ISOL-ICE ice core covering the last millennium from the high-elevation Dronning Maud Land (DML) located under the Antarctic spring stratospheric TCO minimum, and discuss the implications for interpreting the stable isotopic composition of nitrogen in ice core nitrate (δ15N(NO3-)) as a surface ultra-violet radiation (UV) and TCO proxy. To interpret the ice core δ15N(NO3-) record, an understanding of past snow accumulation changes, as well as aerosol source regions and present-day drivers of their variability are required. We therefore report here the ice core age-depth model, the snow accumulation and ice chemistry records, and correlation analysis of these records with climate variables over the observational era (1979–2016). The ISOL-ICE ice core covers the last 1349 years from 668 to 2017 C.E. ± 3 years extending previous ice core records from the region by two decades and shows excellent reproducibility with those records. The extended ISOL-ICE record of last two decades showed a continuation of the methanesulphonate (MSA) increase from ~1800 to present while there were less frequent large deposition events of sea salts relative to the last millennium. The correlation analysis, combined with the finding that sea salts do not carry a sea ice signature to the site, highlight that sea salt and MSA aerosol concentrations are primarily related to atmospheric transport over the extended two-decade period and not to changes in sea ice source strength. Correlation of the snow accumulation record with climate variables over the observational era showed that precipitation at ISOL-ICE is predominately derived from the South Atlantic with onshore winds delivering marine air masses to the site. The snow accumulation rate was stable over the last millennium with no notable trends over last two decades relative to the last millennium. Interannual variability in the accumulation record, ranging between 2 and 20 cm a−1 (w.e.), would influence the ice core δ15N(NO3-) record. The mean snow accumulation rate of 6.5 ± 2.4 cm a-1 (w.e.) falls within the range suitable for reconstructing surface mass balance from ice core δ15N(NO3-) highlighting that the ISOL-ICE ice core δ15N(NO3-) can be used to reconstruct either the snow accumulation rate or surface UV if the ice core δ15N(NO3-) is corrected for the snow accumulation influence.
- Preprint
(5220 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2023-96', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jan 2024
In this paper by Winton and co-authors the results achieved from a 120 m deep ice-core are presented. The ice-core was drilled in the DML region (close to Kohnen Station) in 2017 in the framework of the ISOL-ICE project. The main results shown and described in the paper can be summarised in: production of a chronology for the last 1349 years, the history of the accumulation rate at the site along this period and the chemical profiles of selected markers (mainly nitrate, MSA and sea spray species). The chronology was built via annual layers counting with the aid of selected accurate age markers to be used as tie points (volcanic eruptions). The authors clearly write that this work is just the first part of the full job to be done in the framework of the project and I agree with them that the reconstruction of the accumulation rate is very important to better understand the nitrogen isotopes variations in nitrate. We all agree on the importance of the study of the TCO variations in the past but, in this paper, this topic is not studied at all and some sections of the Abstract and of the Introduction should be “cleared” at least in part since they are a bit misleading. I think that especially the Abstract should not give all those details about TCO, UV radiation and nitrogen isotopes. The discussion about the importance of this topic is properly described in section 4.2.
Regarding the chronology, the authors declare an estimated uncertainty at the bottom of the core of 3 years. I have two questions for this point:
- How was the uncertainty estimated? Is it a sum of the “uncertain” annual layers?
- Since you have several well-known volcanic age markers, I would expect the maximum uncertainty in the middle of the largest interval enclosed between volcanic peaks. Which is the maximum uncertainty along the core? Does it coincide with the bottom uncertainty?
All along the manuscript the authors use Na and Mg but from time to time they use the ionic form. I know that the authors measured the “total” content of the two species but, as stated at line 139, the total is assumed to represent mostly the ionic specie. The same thing holds true for chloride which is sometimes Cl- and other times Cl. I think that the ionic forms would be to be preferred all along the text.
Figure 3 (a) shows an interesting “dip” a few years before 2000 but this feature is not discussed in the text. Do the authors have a possible explanation for this section? Such significant variations in the accumulation rate will be basic in correctly interpret the N-nitrate isotopic changes and thus past surface-UV and TCO implications.
Minor comments:
Line 19: when the authors speak about an extension of the previous records by two decades, I guessed that was an extension back in time but I understood later that it’s an extension towards more recent years. Elsewhere in the manuscript this was correctly said. I invite the authors to correct this expression in the abstract in order to clarify this point.
Line 132: insert a space between Cl- and “was”.
Line 139: change to “are assumed”
Line 263: change “with SAM …” to “between SAM…”
Line 488: change the full stop before “While” in a comma.
Figure A3: bottom panels: y-axes add + to Na in both panels
Table A2: I would prefer “Deposition date” instead of “Arrival date” in the title of the third column.
Table A3: the SAM/accumulation R should be bold
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2023-96-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2023-96/cp-2023-96-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on cp-2023-96', Tessa Vance, 09 Feb 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2023-96/cp-2023-96-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2023-96', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jan 2024
In this paper by Winton and co-authors the results achieved from a 120 m deep ice-core are presented. The ice-core was drilled in the DML region (close to Kohnen Station) in 2017 in the framework of the ISOL-ICE project. The main results shown and described in the paper can be summarised in: production of a chronology for the last 1349 years, the history of the accumulation rate at the site along this period and the chemical profiles of selected markers (mainly nitrate, MSA and sea spray species). The chronology was built via annual layers counting with the aid of selected accurate age markers to be used as tie points (volcanic eruptions). The authors clearly write that this work is just the first part of the full job to be done in the framework of the project and I agree with them that the reconstruction of the accumulation rate is very important to better understand the nitrogen isotopes variations in nitrate. We all agree on the importance of the study of the TCO variations in the past but, in this paper, this topic is not studied at all and some sections of the Abstract and of the Introduction should be “cleared” at least in part since they are a bit misleading. I think that especially the Abstract should not give all those details about TCO, UV radiation and nitrogen isotopes. The discussion about the importance of this topic is properly described in section 4.2.
Regarding the chronology, the authors declare an estimated uncertainty at the bottom of the core of 3 years. I have two questions for this point:
- How was the uncertainty estimated? Is it a sum of the “uncertain” annual layers?
- Since you have several well-known volcanic age markers, I would expect the maximum uncertainty in the middle of the largest interval enclosed between volcanic peaks. Which is the maximum uncertainty along the core? Does it coincide with the bottom uncertainty?
All along the manuscript the authors use Na and Mg but from time to time they use the ionic form. I know that the authors measured the “total” content of the two species but, as stated at line 139, the total is assumed to represent mostly the ionic specie. The same thing holds true for chloride which is sometimes Cl- and other times Cl. I think that the ionic forms would be to be preferred all along the text.
Figure 3 (a) shows an interesting “dip” a few years before 2000 but this feature is not discussed in the text. Do the authors have a possible explanation for this section? Such significant variations in the accumulation rate will be basic in correctly interpret the N-nitrate isotopic changes and thus past surface-UV and TCO implications.
Minor comments:
Line 19: when the authors speak about an extension of the previous records by two decades, I guessed that was an extension back in time but I understood later that it’s an extension towards more recent years. Elsewhere in the manuscript this was correctly said. I invite the authors to correct this expression in the abstract in order to clarify this point.
Line 132: insert a space between Cl- and “was”.
Line 139: change to “are assumed”
Line 263: change “with SAM …” to “between SAM…”
Line 488: change the full stop before “While” in a comma.
Figure A3: bottom panels: y-axes add + to Na in both panels
Table A2: I would prefer “Deposition date” instead of “Arrival date” in the title of the third column.
Table A3: the SAM/accumulation R should be bold
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2023-96-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2023-96/cp-2023-96-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on cp-2023-96', Tessa Vance, 09 Feb 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2023-96/cp-2023-96-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Holly Winton, 03 Apr 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
282 | 81 | 19 | 382 | 17 | 19 |
- HTML: 282
- PDF: 81
- XML: 19
- Total: 382
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1