Observations and Variability of Near-Surface Atmospheric Electric Fields across Multiple Stations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of 'Near-Surface atmospheric electric field observations and variability through multiple stations' by Li et al.

I found the results valuable and interesting.  However, it needs some improvement before publication.

Major comments:

Observations: 

1. It is needed to add a description of the surroundings of each EFM sensor. It would be good to add a picture of the sensor. 

2. Are the sensors face up or down? It was performed an absolute calibration? The electric field values were calibrated by the reduction factor? (the height of the EFM sensor) This is important if you would like to compare absolute AEF values in V/m.

Results:

1. Figure 4: I suggest fixing the Y scale between 75 and 120 % to highlight the AEF diurnal variation.

2. Please add a new figure showing the AEF diurnal variation for the four stations in Local Time. Add vertical lines indicating sunrise and sunset. Calculate correlation coefficients between the four stations. 

Conclusions:

1. The statement between lines 200-203. Before doing this comparison is needed to know if the calibration of the AEF values for the four stations was performed. If it was not, this comparison is not valid. Please specify in the 'observations' sections and modify your conclusions.

Minor Comments:

Introduction section:

1. Lines 37-38: Harrison did not measure AEF on the oceans. These measurements were performed by the Carnegie Institute.

2. Line 46: 'many scholars at home and abroad': this sentence should be improved.

Observation Section:

1. Please add the period of study.

Results section:

1. Line 121: 'sunny': I think this is not correct since fair weather conditions could be accomplished at 'night'. Please just consider 'in fair weather'.

2. Line 146: 'which is consistent with our regular knowledge'. What exactly does this mean? Maybe you would like to refer that AEF negative values in undisturbed weather could be related to rain precipitation, thunderstorms? Please give more details and references if needed.

3. Lines 154-155: The statement is not clear. The values of 400 and 500 V/m are still fair weather or not?

I found several 'rare' words (e.g., minutely, surmised, profounder). Please check that.

Author Response

# Reviewer 1:

Review of 'Near-Surface atmospheric electric field observations and variability through multiple stations' by Li et al.

I found the results valuable and interesting. However, it needs some improvement before publication.

Major comments:

Observations: 

1. It is needed to add a description of the surroundings of each EFM sensor. It would be good to add a picture of the sensor. 

Response: [Thank you for suggesting the addition of descriptions and pictures of the EFM sensors. I have included detailed descriptions of the surroundings of EFM 100 sensor as shown on lines 105-132 and added a figure (Figure 2) to provide a clearer understanding of the setup.]

2. Are the sensors face up or down? It was performed an absolute calibration? The electric field values were calibrated by the reduction factor? (the height of the EFM sensor) This is important if you would like to compare absolute AEF values in V/m.

Response: [I appreciate your attention to the orientation and calibration details of the sensors. We have clarified in the manuscript that the sensors are positioned down. As you mentioned, the calibration of electric field probes is essential. Typically, researchers dig a pit near the EFM and place an identical electric field probe at ground level (height 0 m) in the pit. By comparing the detection data between the two probes, a reduction factor can be obtained. However, considering the inclusion of numerous EFMs in our observation network, this method becomes costly, and currently, we only perform calibrations indoors. For indoor calibration, electric field probes are placed in a calibration box. By applying voltage to generate a simulated electric field, the probes are calibrated. In the future, we may consider employing the first method, involving outdoor calibration, for a more comprehensive calibration approach.]

Results:

1. Figure 4: I suggest fixing the Y scale between 75 and 120 % to highlight the AEF diurnal variation.

Response: [Thank you for your recommendation to adjust the Y scale in Figure 4. I have modified it to range between 75 and 120% to better highlight the AEF diurnal variation.]

2. Please add a new figure showing the AEF diurnal variation for the four stations in Local Time. Add vertical lines indicating sunrise and sunset. Calculate correlation coefficients between the four stations. 

Response: [Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have observed that, theoretically, there is little difference in sunrise and sunset times among these four stations due to their close proximity. However, the terrain around these four stations is uneven, which may affect the time they are exposed to sunlight. The previous publication (Li et al., Universe, 2023, 9(3): 112) indicated that this sunrise-sunset effect can influence the diurnal variation of AEF, but it is not the primary cause of the differences observed among them.]

Conclusions:

1. The statement between lines 200-203. Before doing this comparison is needed to know if the calibration of the AEF values for the four stations was performed. If it was not, this comparison is not valid. Please specify in the 'observations' sections and modify your conclusions.

Response: [The AEF sensors used at these four stations have been calibrated in the laboratory, and there were no identical sensors placed around the instruments for cross-calibration. We acknowledge that this is a limitation, and we have highlighted it in the revised manuscript.]

Minor Comments:

Introduction section:

1. Lines 37-38: Harrison did not measure AEF on the oceans. These measurements were performed by the Carnegie Institute.

Response: [I am grateful for your correction regarding Harrison's measurements. I have revised lines 37-38 to accurately reflect the work done by the Carnegie Institute.]

2. Line 46: 'many scholars at home and abroad': this sentence should be improved.

Response: [Thank you and this sentence has be improved in the revised manuscript.]

Observation Section:

1. Please add the period of study.

Response: [Thank you for highlighting the omission. I have now added the specific period of study in the Observation Section as shown on lines 87-89.]

Results section:

1. Line 121: 'sunny': I think this is not correct since fair weather conditions could be accomplished at 'night'. Please just consider 'in fair weather'.

Response: [Thank you, and it has been revised.]

2. Line 146: 'which is consistent with our regular knowledge'. What exactly does this mean? Maybe you would like to refer that AEF negative values in undisturbed weather could be related to rain precipitation, thunderstorms? Please give more details and references if needed.

Response: [Thanks, the reference [28] has been added.]

3. Lines 154-155: The statement is not clear. The values of 400 and 500 V/m are still fair weather or not?

Response: [Due to the limited range on the horizontal axis of the distribution figure, values in the range of 400-500 V/m are all aggregated in the last histogram. It's important to note that these are raw data, so values of 400 V/m are possible under fair weather conditions, and after smoothing, smaller values will be obtained.]

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We earnestly appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ work and hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

At a first glance, the manuscript reports on sensible measurements of the near-surface atmospheric electrostatic field, an essential part of geophysics aspects of the complex atmosphere that one would like to model in order to further the understanding of our environment. This topic surely fits to the journal Atmosphere. What also jumps up at a first glance is a fluency of English, but in a pompous style ("it is imperative to thoroughly ...", "meticulously" (self-aggrandising self-praise), "shed light on significant insights"). I have seen/heard this style in the USA, but it is not usual in a community which sees itself governed and limited by scientific modesty - "let others praise my work" for its quality (if appropriate), but self-praise is advertisement by salespeople, not advised for professionally modest scientists.

In the introduction (line 25), the first lines confirm that the language proficiency might be better.
"field" is not a parameter, but "field strength" might be.
Another formulation might use "The near-surface field ... is ... part of the description of atmospheric electricity ..." and so on.
Slight variations of the wording may result in phrases that are "not quite right" or "mostly o.k.". I am aware of how difficult a problem these nuances are that need to be handled in a foreign language while caring for scientific correctness.
I am not a native English speaker myself (and have been criticised by colleagues who are), and I am also aware of a fair number of native English speakers who would have similar trouble. Yet my feeling is that the present authors ought to screen their manuscript for phases that do not quite say what the authors meant to say. This problem cannot be addressed by a language service, because the science knowledge is also required.

Line 30, "intensity of the fair ..." To my knowledge, Chinese has no articles as the English "a" and "the", and they make for a major indicator of whether the speaker is foreign. There are many occurrences/misses of these articles in the text.

Line 42, if the Carnegie curve is known, it does not have to be praised as "famous" as well

Line 46, "at home and abroad" refers to what location? Actually, "at home and abroad", implying that the living quarters of a researcher may be different from the work place, is of no interest in the context.

The introduction covers interesting points, but needs to be re-organised in a more systematic fashion, maybe with rough coordinates of all stations mentioned. The story ought to sound less like a travelogue.

Line 85, "their location map are as shown" is grammatically wrong

Line 92, "EFM 100" is unexplained, a keyword, manufacturer, reference might help

Line 95, the text is confusing: "a battery that stores electricity on fine days if the sun is not shining enough."
Maybe "The battery is charged on fine days and stores electricity for those days on which the station receives too little sunshine"?

4G telephone network, I presume.

Line 111, "fair days in CX Station are the largest" - days larger than others? or is the number of days larger?

Line 129, "minute averaging" or "averaging over one minute"  - which sense of the word "minute" is meant?

Line 154, please rephrase

Lines 172-175, why put into text what can be seen in the diagram of Figure 4? Is it worth mentioning (somewhere) the time lag between UT and local time?

Lines 185/186: percentages are given with three decimals, which is pretentious when looking at the likely uncertainties and scatter.

References:
Some of the papers cited have a [D], [J] or [M] after the title. PLease enlighten the reader, if this is meaningful.  

In conclusion, the manuscript is a good start. However, it needs to be reworked into a more systematic description of the problem and what was done (and how) to tackle it. I see that the data from four Yunnan locations differed somewhat, but I would have been surprised if they did not. The explanation of what can be learned from the data is rather cursory; again, a more systematic description should be developed.

The pompous text elements are not borne out by the quality of the data collected. It is pitiful to see presumably junior scientists doing hard technical work in remote locations of Yunnan in order to recover sensible data with some meaning - and then resorting to ill-advised pomposity in their write-up.

Author Response

# Reviewer 2:

At a first glance, the manuscript reports on sensible measurements of the near-surface atmospheric electrostatic field, an essential part of geophysics aspects of the complex atmosphere that one would like to model in order to further the understanding of our environment. This topic surely fits to the journal Atmosphere. What also jumps up at a first glance is a fluency of English, but in a pompous style ("it is imperative to thoroughly ...", "meticulously" (self-aggrandising self-praise), "shed light on significant insights"). I have seen/heard this style in the USA, but it is not usual in a community which sees itself governed and limited by scientific modesty - "let others praise my work" for its quality (if appropriate), but self-praise is advertisement by salespeople, not advised for professionally modest scientists.
Response: [Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. I have taken your advice to refine the manuscript's language, ensuring it adheres to scientific modesty and clarity. Your detailed feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript.]

In the introduction (line 25), the first lines confirm that the language proficiency might be better.

Response: [Thank you for your detailed comments and the language has been improved.]

"field" is not a parameter, but "field strength" might be. Another formulation might use "The near-surface field ... is ... part of the description of atmospheric electricity ..." and so on.

Response: [Thanks, and it has been revised.]

Slight variations of the wording may result in phrases that are "not quite right" or "mostly o.k.". I am aware of how difficult a problem these nuances are that need to be handled in a foreign language while caring for scientific correctness.

Response: [Than you, these similar statements have been improved.]

I am not a native English speaker myself (and have been criticised by colleagues who are), and I am also aware of a fair number of native English speakers who would have similar trouble. Yet my feeling is that the present authors ought to screen their manuscript for phases that do not quite say what the authors meant to say. This problem cannot be addressed by a language service, because the science knowledge is also required.
Response: [Thank you for your suggestions and the language quality has been improved.]

Line 30, "intensity of the fair ..." To my knowledge, Chinese has no articles as the English "a" and "the", and they make for a major indicator of whether the speaker is foreign. There are many occurrences/misses of these articles in the text.
Response: [Thank you, and these statements have been revised.]

Line 42, if the Carnegie curve is known, it does not have to be praised as "famous" as well
Response: [Thanks and it has been changed.]

Line 46, "at home and abroad" refers to what location? Actually, "at home and abroad", implying that the living quarters of a researcher may be different from the work place, is of no interest in the context.
Response: [Thanks and it has been changed.]
The introduction covers interesting points, but needs to be re-organised in a more systematic fashion, maybe with rough coordinates of all stations mentioned. The story ought to sound less like a travelogue.
Response: [We really appreciate the suggestions and this part has been improved.]

Line 85, "their location map are as shown" is grammatically wrong
Response: [Thanks and it has been changed.]

Line 92, "EFM 100" is unexplained, a keyword, manufacturer, reference might help
Response: [It’s a type of AEF meter, and it has been added in the revised version. And it can be explained with the reference [24].]

Line 95, the text is confusing: "a battery that stores electricity on fine days if the sun is not shining enough."
Maybe "The battery is charged on fine days and stores electricity for those days on which the station receives too little sunshine"?
Response: [Thank you, and this sentence has been improved.]

4G telephone network, I presume.

Response: [You’re right, and it has been revised.]
Line 111, "fair days in CX Station are the largest" - days larger than others? or is the number of days larger?
Response: [It has been revised.]

Line 129, "minute averaging" or "averaging over one minute"  - which sense of the word "minute" is meant?
Response: [We apologize for the details we overlooked and this has been changed.]

Line 154, please rephrase
Response: [Thank you and it has been improved.]

Lines 172-175, why put into text what can be seen in the diagram of Figure 4? Is it worth mentioning (somewhere) the time lag between UT and local time?
Response: [Thank you for your detailed comments and it has been removed.]

Lines 185/186: percentages are given with three decimals, which is pretentious when looking at the likely uncertainties and scatter.
Response: [Thank you and it has been changed.]

References:
Some of the papers cited have a [D], [J] or [M] after the title. PLease enlighten the reader, if this is meaningful.  
Response: [Thank you for your suggestion. The references have been reorganized and formatted uniformly based on the journal's requirements.]

In conclusion, the manuscript is a good start. However, it needs to be reworked into a more systematic description of the problem and what was done (and how) to tackle it. I see that the data from four Yunnan locations differed somewhat, but I would have been surprised if they did not. The explanation of what can be learned from the data is rather cursory; again, a more systematic description should be developed.

Response: [We really appreciate you and the conclusion has been improved.]

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We earnestly appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ work and hope that the corrections will be met with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all reviewer's comments. Thus, this reviewer recommends the publication of this manuscript.

Author Response

# Reviewer 1:

The authors addressed all reviewer's comments. Thus, this reviewer recommends the publication of this manuscript.

Response: [We extend our special thanks for your review and appreciate the valuable suggestions and comments you provided earlier.]

Reviewer 2 Report

The language has clearly improved.

However, the problem of missing "a/the" persists, for example,  in
line 27 "the distribution", line 32, "the intensity", line 35, "the ionization", and so on. The high frequency of this persistent shortcoming is evident.

Line 37, "the near-surface"
Line 39,"the diurnal fair-weather ..."

Line 40, " The Carnegie Institute ... of the daily variation ...  regarded as a daily  ..."

This problem is so omnipresent in this text that I no longer point to individual occurrences. Nevertheless, it is
a disservice to the reader not to thoroughly repair the basic wording of the text.

Line 45, "can serves" ? Delete "can"

Line 47, delete ", both ... international, "; for a global journal, the distinction made is of no concern; furthermore,
why care about a domestic scholar in measurements in Antarctica? There isn't any. This is an indicator of the
persistent pomposity of style noted in the original version of the manuscript that is not warranted in an
international science journal.

Line 75, it might be useful to reveal to foreign readers that Yunnan is not a city, but a province of China. (There is a hint later, but it belongs into an earlier position.)

The language has clearly improved, but more should be done on grammar.

However, the problem of missing "a/the" persists, for example,  in
line 27 "the distribution", line 32, "the intensity", line 35, "the ionization", and so on. The high frequency
of this persistent shortcoming is evident.

Line 37, "the near-surface"
Line 39,"the diurnal fair-weather ..."

Line 40, " The Carnegie Institute ... of the daily variation ...  regarded as a daily  ..."

This problem is so omnipresent in this text that I no longer point to individual occurrences. Nevertheless, it is a disservice to the reader not to thoroughly repair the basic wording of the text.

Line 45, "can serves" ? Delete "can"

Line 47, delete ", both ... international, "; for a global journal, the distinction made is of no concern; furthermore, why care about a domestic scholar in measurements in Antarctica? There isn't any. This is an indicator of the
persistent pomposity of style noted in the original version of the manuscript that is not warranted in an international science journal.

Author Response

# Reviewer 2:

However, the problem of missing "a/the" persists, for example,  in
line 27 "the distribution", line 32, "the intensity", line 35, "the ionization", and so on. The high frequency of this persistent shortcoming is evident.
Line 37, "the near-surface"
Line 39,"the diurnal fair-weather ..."
Line 40, " The Carnegie Institute ... of the daily variation ...  regarded as a daily  ..."
This problem is so omnipresent in this text that I no longer point to individual occurrences. Nevertheless, it is a disservice to the reader not to thoroughly repair the basic wording of the text.

Response: [Thank you for your detailed comments; these have been addressed and corrected in the revised manuscript.]

Line 45, "can serves" ? Delete "can"
Response: [Thank you, and it has been changed.]
Line 47, delete ", both ... international, "; for a global journal, the distinction made is of no concern; furthermore, why care about a domestic scholar in measurements in Antarctica? There isn't any. This is an indicator of the persistent pomposity of style noted in the original version of the manuscript that is not warranted in an international science journal.
Response: [Thank you for your comments, and this has been changed.]
Line 75, it might be useful to reveal to foreign readers that Yunnan is not a city, but a province of China. (There is a hint later, but it belongs into an earlier position.)
Response: [Thank you for your detailed comments, and it has been changed in the revised version.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf