Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. There is a numbering error in the figure captions. The second instance of "Figure 4." should be corrected to "Figure 5." Additionally, please provide the corresponding legend to enrich the information conveyed by the illustrations.

 

2. It is advisable to offer a more comprehensive description of the experimental methods. The algorithms discussed in the paper mainly fall within common processing methodologies. Consider providing detailed elucidation of the steps involved in experimental observation and data processing. Alternatively, employing flowcharts to illustrate the application of the proposed algorithms can underscore the innovation of this study.

 

3. The presentation of experimental results lacks depth. To bolster the credibility and persuasiveness of the research, it is recommended to furnish more instances of actual observation data when presenting observational data and results. During the validation of experimental findings, augmenting graphical analyses to visually depict differences compared to other data sources will fortify the research's impact.

 

4. While comparing and validating against simulated data, the paper acknowledges that measured data encompass the influence of trace gases, an aspect not accounted for in the radiation transfer model, suggesting a direction for subsequent algorithm optimization. It is proposed to analyze the unconsidered impact factors and elucidate their contribution to result deviations, enhancing understanding of the system's performance and limitations.

 

5. Figure 7 illustrates the fluctuation of spectral residuals during the iterative inversion process of temperature and water vapor mixing ratio. As per the legend, a noticeable consistency in residuals is observed between the second iteration and convergence. Please elucidate this phenomenon to clarify the behavior of residuals throughout the iteration process.

Author Response

We thank the referees for their thoughtful and thorough reviews. We are pleased that all the reviewers see our manuscript as a valuable contribution to the field. We have made changes to the manuscript to answer the suggestions of the reviewers and clarified a few points raised in the review. A revised version of the manuscript including most of the changes suggested by the reviewers will be submitted to the editor. We thank the reviewers and the editor for their time and effort. In the attached file, Reviewers’ comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This paper mainly discusses a low-cost compact Fourier transform infrared system for monitoring atmospheric conditions. What are the advantages and limitations of this system compared with traditional observation methods? 

2. It is mentioned in the document that the atmospheric thermodynamic profile is obtained by observing the downlink radiation spectrum. How feasible is this method under different weather conditions? Can the thermodynamic profile be accurately obtained? 

3. It is mentioned in the paper that the accuracy of the thermodynamic profile obtained by this system has been verified by comparing with other data sets. Can this system replace traditional observation methods and become a reliable tool for monitoring atmospheric conditions in practical applications? 

4. The main deficiency of this paper is the lack of sufficient comparison tests, such as more comparisons under different weather conditions, and comparisons with other ground similar observation equipment.

Author Response

We thank the referees for their thoughtful and thorough reviews. We are pleased that all the reviewers see our manuscript as a valuable contribution to the field. We have made changes to the manuscript to answer the suggestions of the reviewers and clarified a few points raised in the review. A revised version of the manuscript including most of the changes suggested by the reviewers will be submitted to the editor. We thank the reviewers and the editor for their time and effort. In the attached file, Reviewers’ comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I want to say that I enjoyed reading this interesting research paper. The manuscript titled “Measurement of Sky Downwelling Radiation by Low-Cost Compact Fourier Transform Infrared System to Monitor Atmospheric Conditions,” describes and discusses a new equipment for monitoring atmospheric conditions. The science contained in this work is solid and the structure is well organized. However, I would like to encourage authors to consider making major improvements to the manuscript before considering publication in Remote Sensing. Please carefully consult the annotated comments in the pdf file provided, and prepare a new version of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1) Please, the manuscript needs grammatical corrections

 2) Please, pay special attention to the abstract and introduction section, as I have made no suggestions on the wording of these two sections of the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the referees for their thoughtful and thorough reviews. We are pleased that all the reviewers see our manuscript as a valuable contribution to the field. We have made changes to the manuscript to answer the suggestions of the reviewers and clarified a few points raised in the review. A revised version of the manuscript including most of the changes suggested by the reviewers will be submitted to the editor. We thank the reviewers and the editor for their time and effort. In the attached file, Reviewers’ comments are in black and our responses are in red.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think it can be published after a  minor revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the paper greatly improved, as mentioned in my previous report, the science within the paper is solid and it is an interesting an valuable paper. I would like to see the following stages, including comparisons using background aerosols and aerosols, so I will pay attention to further publications. All my questions and doubts have been answered, then I will recommend publication of the manuscript in the present form.