Applicability Assessment of Coherent Doppler Wind LiDAR for Monitoring during Dusty Weather at the Northern Edge of the Tibetan Plateau
, Jiacheng Gao 1,2,4, Ailiyaer Aihaiti 1,2,3, Chenglong Zhou 1,2,4,5, Fan Yang 1,2,4,5, Wen Huo 1,2,4,5, Cong Wen 1,2,3 and Bo Wang 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Here are some advices.
1. In the introduction, the references are too old, in recent years, CDWL has developed rapidly, and there are many related applications. Please cite more recent articles for a more comprehensive introduction.
2. Many parameters of the CDWL in Table 1 is wrong, for example, the speed accuracy is <=0.1m/s, according to the equation between wind speed variance and CNR, the speed variance is always much larger than 0.1m/s. Please check the parameters again, and the table name is typo ‘CWDL’.
3. The full name of the abbreviation should be marked, such as DBS.
4. Line 153-158, it is the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio decreased in sunny days, but the specific error of wind speed and direction is not given, and the quantitative data should be given.
5. Line 195, the bias in wind direction is as larger as 20o, Does the observation equipment need to be calibrated?
6. Line 243，PBLH below 45m? Can you show the data?
7. The R2 in Fig. 7 b is 0.8383, which is 0.8205 in Fig. 8 b, but from the figures, 8b is much better than 7b. Do you use the same algorithm? Please check again.
8. In Fig. 9, the PBLH results from the MF and the CDWL looks no correlations.
9. Line 322, where is the Ref 22?
10. In the conclusion (1), We know that CDWL can be used for PBLH, but the data in the manuscript is too poor to support this conclusion. And in conclusion (3), the PBLH at night is relatively stable, and it changes slowly, the inversion difficulty is smaller than that in the daytime, maybe this is also the reason why the results at 8 o'clock is better. In conclusion (4), as mentioned before, the data in Fig. 9 is too poor to support this conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend accept after minor revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answerd all of my questions, it can be published now.
I still think, you can read the comparsion between direct dection lidar and coherent detection lidar.
10.5194/amt-12-3303-2019
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for considering our article for publication in Remote Sensing. I am grateful to you for the valuable suggestions provided.
We consider the reference you suggest we read to be closely related to this manuscript and have added it to the references in this manuscript, in reference 14. The quotation is in line 49 of the manuscript. “The boundary layer height retrieved by direct detection lidar and coherent Doppler wind lidar were correlated with PM2.5 to study a precipitation event [14].”
I would be happy to make any further changes that may be required.
Meiqi Song and co-authors
October 17, 2022
