Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this manuscript is well written and structured. The authors presented the wind data  from their previous publication (Ref [1]), and discussed the occurrence and physical properties of arctic long jets.

 

I have the following main concerns about this manuscript that require the authors to further clarify:

(1) The authors may need to clearly state the new scientific contributions of this manuscript, as the wind data have been available in the public literature. For example, new developments of sensors suing the field measurements, or new methodology of analysis, etc.

The following comments are rather minor:

(2) Table 3 needs to re-arrange to have a better presentation. Some data are overlay.

(3) Citation of figures "figure X" should be "Figure X".

Unless the authors can clearly justify the major comments regarding new contribution, I would only recommend this manuscript as a case study rather than full-length research article.

Author Response

Dear anonymous reviewer,

thank you for your suggestions for improvement. Please find our complete answer in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript shows the analysis of rare wind measurements in the polar region using Windlidar. The authors define and analyse Long Jets. The manuscript is very well written. The tables are poorly formatted.
Minor comments:
Figure 3. please zoom out on the sub figure. It is not easy to find the location on the map of Europe.
L378 Please explain the z value in "with z being the z value".
Table 3. null hypothesis missing

Author Response

Dear anonymous reviewer,

thank you for your suggestions for improvement. Please find our complete answer in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear anonymous reviewer,

thank you for your suggestions for improvement. Please find our complete answer in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved. The authors have addressed my comments. Now, I recommend it.