  Duderstadt et al. [2016b] comment that the Melott et al. [2016] study of
nitrate formation by solar proton events (SPEs) and comparison with the ice
core archive is "fundamentally flawed," because it does not include
pre-existing HNO3 in the stratosphere. We show that they exaggerate both the
enhancement predicted by our findings and pre-industrial HNO3 levels in their
model, and fail to prove this assertion. Our feasibility study matched expected
SPE nitrate production with ground truth measurements. It is not clear that
their approach is more realistic and absence of a detailed mechanism does not
disprove our results. Models can be no better than the information they are
provided and in this case there continue to be significant unknowns and
uncertainties, especially in the role of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) and
possible interactions with cosmic rays that constitute lower boundary
conditions. Duderstadt et al. [2014; 2016a] used incomplete, poorly-constrained
and incorrect initial and boundary conditions, and they continue to advocate on
the basis of uncertain results. Meanwhile, Smart et al. [2014] identified a
series of ice core nitrate spikes that have since been confirmed in 10Be by
McCracken and Beer [2015]. Melott et al. [2016] computationally reproduced the
ionization profile of the only major balloon measurements to date. We show that
our calculated nitrate enhancement is consistent with measured results, given
current levels of uncertainty, and that extreme SPEs can potentially produce
occasional nitrate spikes with hundreds of percent increases. Instead of
repeating old arguments to dismiss nitrates as proxies of SPEs, it is past time
for a dedicated, fine-resolution, multi-parameter, replicate ice core field
campaign to resolve this debate.
