Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A highly relevant paper overall, but I didn't understand all the steps of your approach. Specific comments are:

 

-       Line 89: what is ‘FD’? Probably full disk, but that is explained after it is used first. In general, this paper uses a lot of acronyms, so an acronym list should be considered.

-       Line 99: isn’t it better to say ‘a circle with a diameter’?

-       Line 174: add ‘A’ before ‘different’

-       Line 175: is it possible/likely that the EW dependence varies with the N/S location? If not, please state the technical reason why it is impossible/unlikely. Such a variation would limit the usefulness of the results shown in this paper.

-       Line 272: replace ‘this’ with ‘a’

-       Lines 280-282: it is not obvious why (and how) they should be accounted for. Please provide more details. This is especially important as it may impact how you treat the straylight impact later in the paper.

-       Line 322: these gaps are very large, I assume B06 is the worst band. Please also show Figure 6 with the best band.

-       Line 340: if I understand equation 6 correctly, the mean of the pink dots in Figure 8 should be the same as the mean of the brown dots, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Why?

-       Line 352: what do you mean with ‘intensive layout’?

-       Lines 388-392: I don’t understand this reasoning. The error is 0.0035% for 40% albedo. I do not know the average albedo for the moon for this band, but it should be about 10%. So this means the error could be 0.014% (4 times 0.0035%). How are you getting 1.05%?
It might be related to you using radiance instead of albedo, but it is unclear why you are not sticking with one quantity in your explanation.

-       Line 417: does ABI not apply a temperature correction? Please clarify that in the text. Or are you suggesting that the temperature correction that ABI does apply is incorrect?

-   Line 558: ‘display’, not ‘displays’

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study provides a solid analysis of the response versus scan angle for GOES-16 and GOES-17 ABI bands using scanned lunar image data. I only have a few minor suggestions as listed below:

1) Suggest to add two corresponding plots relative to Figs 18 and 19 with x-scale replaced from the scan angle to lunar phase angle. I understand the trends are pretty flat but this would confirm there is no phase angle dependence due to imperfect of the ROLO model.

2) pg 17-18, "assumes that the spilled light is gradually changes across a subset lunar image". I am wondering if equation (10) is applied to total integrated lunar irradiance or at each pixel level. If it is at the pixel level, how to estimate within the lunar image.  

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf