Thermally and Dynamically Driven Atmospheric Circulations over Heterogeneous Atmospheric Boundary Layer: Support for Safety Protocols and Environment Management at Nuclear Central Areas
, Luiz Claudio Gomes Pimentel 1,*, José Francisco de Oliveira Júnior 2, Ian Cunha D’Amato Viana Dragaud 3, Corbiniano Silva 3, William Cossich Marcial de Farias 4, Edilson Marton 1, Luiz Paulo de Freitas Assad 1,3, Jesus Salvador Perez Guerrero 5, Paulo Fernando Lavalle Heilbron Filho 5 and Luiz Landau 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper includes detailed analysis of the meteorological conditions near a nuclear power plant. The data themselves may be valuable. But one important limitation of the paper is that it is very site specific. What kind of new scientific insight could such an analysis offer to the meteorological community? Otherwise it is just a technical report of a particular site only.
The wavelet analysis is very puzzled. It is not sure what kind of new information this analysis offers in advancing scientific knowledge.
The paper touches upon a little on the application of the analysis of this paper, namely, checking the accuracy of NWP model for nuclear power plant applications. This is a very important subject, and hopefully this aspect can be expanded.
What does the data analysis help in the emergency preparedness and handling of nuclear power plant incidents/accidents?
Author Response
We thank referee for their detailed reading of our paper and insightful comments and we are grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised in their reviews. We also hope to have the opportunity to produce a much better document and re-submit a corrected version of the manuscript that incorporates all their comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The article describes wind properties in an area SE of Brasil, to assess meteorological conditions that may affect a nuclear power plant. The article is well written, however I do not recommend publication in the present. Please see below:
Please explain why
- the data set stops in 2002 (we are in 2021)
- since more than 95% of data is valid for 2016, why did the authors use for the wavelet analysis the 1984-1985 period?
I don't see the relevance of the paragraph 3.2 if the analysis is applied to an old dataset (1985 is more than 53 years ago). Things may drastically change over 30 years in meteorological processes, especially over coastal areas and especially during the last 30-40 years. Thus I suggest that the entire wavelet analysis is left out from the article.
Also, records of meteorological variables in the area should be available, somewhere close, to assess whether trends exist or not for the last 20 years (since 2002), to be on the safe side when comparing 2002 (towers
I don't understand what correlation with wind directions means (besides the formulas).
I suggest that Figures 16, 17 are redone by showing separately correlations with speed and with direction, since the low correlation with direction reduces the impact of correlation with speed. Also, if any correlation exist with direction (assuming that the authors explain what it is to be expected from suhc a correlation), it cannot be easily spot due to the higher correlations with speed.
Author Response
We thank referee for their detailed reading of our paper and insightful comments and we are grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised in their reviews. We also hope to have the opportunity to produce a much better document and re-submit a corrected version of the manuscript that incorporates all their comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has clearly improved and the explanations support the results and concept of the maunscript.
