Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments have been well addressed. I have no more comments. 

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has been improved by the authors in the revision, but there are several areas that still need some edits. I recommend minor revisions.

Major Concern :

I am still concerned about the proof that QPO were induced by KHI over such mountainous region. Unfortunately, the accuracy of pressure sensors are not appropriate to study the characteristics of gravity waves to identify the possible relation wave-oscillations. Since this study is based only on the available observational data and no numerical modeling is performed, it is not well demonstrated that KHI is the main factor inducing these QPO.

As a consequence :

1- Remove “KHI” from the title

2- rewrite the sentence L12-13 in the Abstract : “ Investigation …. affected by quasi-periodic oscillation of atmospheric variables is conducted ...”

Minor concerns :

L212-213: Add Fig.R3 as supplementary materials and refer to it in the manuscript.

L154. In equation (9) : “0.622” and “Lv” overlap and “Cpd” still undefined

L335 : write in one single term “log(LWC’)”

L289: I agree with the reviewer#3’s concern about the type of Case 5. I am not convinced that it is an advection-radiation type. In fact, N2 is negative and continue decreasing. It might be a fog resulting from low cloud base lowering since the study is performed in mountainous region. This could be confirmed by the fact that wind speed at 6m were stronger. Thus, this fog event must be removed from this study since it focused on radiation fog type, unless the editorial staff strongly opposes to this decision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf