Analysis of the Optical Turbulence Model Using Meteorological Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented the manuscript «Investment in the optical turbulence model using meteorological data» aimed at estimating the parameters of optical turbulence using meteorological data, namely, vertical profiles of air temperature and wind speed in atmospheric boundary layer, troposphere and stratosphere. It is worth noting that this study is a continuation of the long-period research of the authors. The presented manuscript contains a certain novelty. In particular, the model of the outer scale of turbulence is refined. However, this manuscript is not free from flaws.

- For example, the title of the manuscript includes the term «Investment», it seems to me that it does not quite fit. I recommend replacing the term «Investment».

-line 17. You used incorrect units for air temperature gradient 0 km^-1. Correct units – K/m or C/km etc.

- Formula 7 is incorrect. You've lost the brackets.

- Also, since you are considering optical turbulence and are concerned with adaptive optics systems, I suggest that the authors calculate the Fried parameter or the integral CN^2(h)dh for the obtained profiles. The calculated values of this (these) parameter(s) will allow you to verify your profiles CN^2(h). For example, the profiles in Figure 8 practically do not change for a wide range of heights from 1 km to 20 km. Perhaps there is an inaccuracy in data processing (please check). If your profiles are correct, clarify the physical explanation of the small variations of CN^2 with height.

-line 110. You used the wrong notation for the u component of wind speed.

-line 112. You used the terms «the temperature lapse rate» ( dT dh ) and «wind shear» ( S). According to the text, also you used temperature lapse rate and temperature gradient. Are the mathematical expressions for these terms the same?

-Authors often use the term outer model (Perhaps you mean model of outer scale) (lines 114 250 339).

-There is some ambiguity in the text. A significant part of the manuscript is devoted to the statistical analysis of the obtained profiles. However, CN ^2 values vary from 10^-19 to 10^-14, and for example RMSE corresponds to significantly larger values: 1 m^-2/3, 1.05 m^-2/3, and 1.25 m^-2/3. In general, the authors' approach is clear, but explain it.

The authors, of course, indicated how they constructed a new model of the outer scale of turbulence. «… model is obtained through constant fitting, where the residual sum of squares between measured values and estimations are minimized». However, important questions remain here. What are the data statistics used, how many radiosonde runs have you used, is there enough of runs from the point of view of statistics to create a new model that other researchers can use later.

I also recommend considering the following papers related to your research topic:

i) Kovadlo P.G. et al. Study of the Optical Atmospheric Distortions using Wavefront Sensor Data. Russ Phys J 63, 1952–1958 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11182-021-02256-y

 ii) Zhiyong Wang et al A modified S-DIMM+: applying additional height grids for characterizing daytime seeing profiles / Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 478, Issue 2, August 2018, Pages 1459–1467, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1097

iii) Scharmer G.B., van Werkhoven T.I.M. S-DIMM+ height characterization of day-time seeing using solar granulation // Astron. Astrophys. 2010. V. 513. P. A25. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913791

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a new statistical outer-scale model (WSTG model), which is more reliable than the well-known HMNSP99 one in reconstructing optical turbulence strength. This study plays an important role in the practical consideration of non-terrestrial networks using free-space optical (FSO) communications. While the studies on turbulence models have been widely investigated in the literature, I would say that the presented results and model are useful as it shows a better fit of data than previous ones. The detailed comments/suggestions are as follows.
1) In line 61, what do the authors mean by “Each existing approach has its own merits and limitations, but none of them are known to be superior.”?
2) Why a lot of turbulence models are existing in the literature, the motivation and contribution of this study should be highlighted more clearly.
3) It is extremely useful to derive the C_n^2 as a function of the altitude of h. In this case, please clarify the differences between your model and the well-known Hufnagel-Valley one.
4) Eqs. (6) (7) (8) use the statistical evaluation factors. Please include the range of reliable values for such factors.
5) what are the impacts of wind speed on the proposed WSTG model?  
6) It would be better to include an application of using the proposed model for optical communications. I think the authors can consider removing sections 3.1-3.3 as it compares existing models, where the results may overlap with section 3.4.    

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors take into account all my notes. The manuscript is good and I recomend it for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments in a satisfactory. I, therefore, suggest this paper for publication. I have only a minor comment. Please revise the statement on line 61 as you mentioned in the response letter. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf