Whitecap Observations by Microwave Radiometers: With Discussion on Surface Roughness and Foam Contributions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of: Whitecap observations by microwave radiometers: With discussion on surface                    roughness and foam contributions --- by Paul A Hwang

General Comments

This is an excellent paper and certainly deserves publication. I do have a few suggestions that the author should consider. Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions.

Specific Comments

In Figure 1, two issues can be noted.  First, the colors of two of the lines make them difficult to distinguish. I suggest that one of the colors be change to be more distinct from the other, or perhaps “bolding” the lines would make the light blue and light green be more distinguishable.

Also, in Figure 1, in the bottom row, where individual data points show a scatter, the black line (representing the sum of the foam and roughness terms) seem to show a tendency for consistent under prediction at winds higher than about 40 m/s.   Such underprediction should be addressed in the paper. Perhaps there is some reason that this is expected; however, since the paper suggests that the relationship can be extended to very high wind speeds, it is important to discuss this issue. This difference between the sum and the sum model reappears in Figure 2 in the winds about 20 m/s in the leftmost panel and possibly in the rightmost panel, although the log-log format makes it more difficult to determine. I think that a slight adjustment in the high-speed-range formula could achieve improved results in this region in terms of a small reduction of bias in this region.  

Author Response

Please see the attached point-by-point reply (with colors and highlights).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s Suggestions re MS RemoteSensing-849786:

Line 19: Suggest “…observations in inclement weather…”, rather than “…observation inclement weather…”

Line 73, and elsewhere:  This reviewer finds the use of curved brackets “…(5)…” for equations along with the use of square brackets “…[21, 27]…” for references somewhat confusing, and this reviewer thinks many of this journal’s readers will likewise find the usage confusing.  This reviewer suggests the traditional use of “…Eq.5..” to refer to a numbered equation in the text, while agreeing with the use of “…[21]…” to indicate the number of a reference in the References section.

Line 85, or previously: u* should be identified as the “friction velocity” .

Fig.1, after Line 91: This figure is too small to be legible.  The reviewer cannot differentiate between the various colored curves in the various panels of this figure.  Suggestion: this figure should be enlarged so it is readable.

Line 112:  Suggest “ …the whitecap coverage model, Eqs.9 and 10, is shown as the black solid curve” , rather than “…the whitecap coverage model, (9)-10) is shown with the black solid curve”.

Fig.3, after Line 124: The legend is too small to be conveniently read in the lower right hand corner of this figure.  Suggest it be removed, and the caption of this figure be altered to read, “Fig.3. Whitecap coverage values retrieved from whitecap radiometer measurements appear as green points, and those retrieved from optical measurements appear as blue points.  The solid black curve is the whitecap model, Eqs.9 and 10.”  

Author Response

Please see the attached point-by-point reply (with colors and highlights).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.