The Design and Performance Evaluation of a 1550 nm All-Fiber Dual-Polarization Coherent Doppler Lidar for Atmospheric Aerosol Measurements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript builded a polarization coherent wind lidar and carried out field experiments. The experimental results were analyzed, and the conclusions were consistent with the experimental data. The logic of the entire article is right, and the drawing is standard. There are some questions need to be answerd. Please refer to the attachment for the details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for handling and reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the substantial amount of time and effort that you dedicated to this review process.

We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and the response is uploaded with one separate file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for the presentation of the dual-polarization lidar that works at 1550 nm.
While I believe the presentation of the method and instrument set-up is well written and shows the necessary facts of methodology and instrument performance, the experiment section (section 3) needs a bit clarification.
My comments are as follows:
Figure 4: It should be Allan deviation instead of devistion
L 322: “trend of change”: please explain which change is meant.
L339: Where is the haze event in figure 6? You will have to describe more, for example at what time the event occurs and why you know that there was haze.
Fig. 6: Please replot with the same axes for the depolarization ratios of DPCDL and MPL
Fig. 7: What is plotted on the color scale?
Fig. 8: Same as Fig. 6

A bit difficult in some places, maybe having a native speaker look over it would be a good idea.
I found some little issue:
L 14 – 15: “the polarization state of the laser source is typically linearly parallel polarization state” leave out the second polarization state
L 18 backscattered light
L 29: the results show
L 31: “The depolarization ratios in different..” leave out “The”
L 42: replace weather by meteorological phenomena
L 44 – 46 please reread the referenced articles and rewrite the sentence.
L76: Operation (without s)
L 128: this study mainly focuses on
L 252: it may also rotate
L 256: Therefore, evaluation of the
L 261: which is compared
L288: deviation is gradually decreasing
L 290: spectrum instead of pectrum
L361: do you mean “have high consistency”?
L 383: could provide us with more information on
L397: have been deployed
L 398: Sorry, I do not understand the sentence
L 401: important parameter which reflects the shape

Author Response

Thank you for handling and reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the substantial amount of time and effort that you dedicated to this review process. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Line 198-199: I propose to describe the effect on the polarization state of the fiber element from the receiving telescope to the FPBS. Does this element significantly distort the final depolarization ratio, and if not, why?

2. Line 330: spelling error “pectrum”

3. Line 349, fig. 6: I propose to show figures (a) and (b) with a same scale of the depolarization ratio

4. Line 368, fig. 8: I propose to show figures (a) and (b) with a same scale of the depolarization ratio

Author Response

Thank you for handling and reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the substantial amount of time and effort that you dedicated to this review process. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript presents an interesting new report on all-fiber dual-polarization coherent Doppler lidar. The lidar system and method are well interpreted and studied. Thus, the manuscript is recommended to be published with minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for handling and reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the substantial amount of time and effort that you dedicated to this review process. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

We have made modifications according to the review requirements and have no further suggestions