Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper is interesting, well written and well structured. Its messages are clear and well supported by data and analysis

I only have a minor comment: I found a bit complex to follow all the acronyms (not always presented before their first use, as i.e. for EASM, EAWM...) used in the text. So I suggest the authors to introduce a section where all acronyms are presented.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please find the responses as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the present manuscript entitled " Effects of meteorology changes on inter-annual variations of  aerosol optical depth and surface PM2.5 in China – implications for PM2.5 remote sensing"  authors have analysed the influence of back ground meteorological changes on long term trends in AOD and surface PM2.5 over different regions in China using a 3D chemical transport model GEOS-Chem and tiple linear regressions. The findings in this manuscript are interesting. Authors have carefully analysed the data and interpretation of results are clearly explained. Though the manuscript is clear and scientifically sound enough for the publication in this journal, there are few typographical and grammatical mistakes that needs to be taken care to enable this to be accepted. Few minor comments are

The abstract is too long. Authors can shorten the abstract highlighting main findings to grab the interest of readers.

The terms mentioned below the equation does not match with the terms in the equation. For example Lambda symbol is misplaced. Please correct the equation.

I feel the authors included too many references, that may be limited.

I appreciate the authors for their extensive data analysis to bring out the results.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please find the responses as attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Overall this manuscript is technically sound and clearly written. It is somehow a bit hard to digest due to its extensive use of regression and correlation. The readility would be improved if the authors can provide a brief guiding discussion at the beginning of each Results and Discussion section about the necessity of including additional meteorological variables in statistical analysis. Also, keep in mind that a correlation does not necessarily indicate a causative relationship. Thus, caution must taken when making statements like variable A enhances AOD reduction for a negative but significant correlation between A and AOD. Mechanistic explanations should always be emphasized.

A few specific comments: 

• Line 19: “fixing emissions at the year of 2006 level.”
• Line 164: “0% in YRD and NCP”. Meteorology changes were counter-productive with regard to PM reduction as per Table 1. The “0%” here is a bit misleading.
• “[The] same meteorology changes show relatively larger effects on smaller PM2.5 concentrations.” Why? Any references?
• Lines 192-193: Vertical air movement (O) is not considered as a wind unless the textbook changes.
• Tables 2&3: Some acronyms are inconsistent with those listed in Lines 139-143, e.g.,  PB, TR, and PR.
• Line 232: change “has adverse effects on aerosol pollution control” to “offsets aerosol pollution control efforts.”
• As per my understanding, MDPI requires one put “Ref.” before citation numbering when the citation appears at the beginning of a sentence, for example, “[65]” at Line 393 should be “Ref. [65].”
• Conclusions: This section is way too long and should be substantially shortened.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please find the responses as attached. 

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.