Distinguishing Time Scales of Katabatic Flow in Complex Terrain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presented by the authors has a good scientific level. I may indicate only some notices. 

Introduction. I propose Authors to pay atension to the study:

-Banakh V. Lidar observations of atmospheric internal waves in the boundary layer of the atmosphere of the coat of lake Baikal/ Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 5239–5248, 2016 https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-5239-2016

Also, I propose to expand introduction and say about Remote optical Methods to recover vertical profiles of the wind speed and optical turbulence.:

Shikhovtsev, A.Y., Kiselev, A.V., Kovadlo, P.G. et al. Method for Estimating the Altitudes of Atmospheric Layers with Strong Turbulence. Atmos Ocean Opt 33, 295–301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1024856020030100

-Zhiyong Wang et al A modified S-DIMM+: applying additional height grids for characterizing daytime seeing profiles / Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 478, Issue 2, August 2018, Pages 1459–1467, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1097

• Kovadlo et al. Study of the Optical Atmospheric Distortions using Wavefront Sensor Data/ Russian Physics Journal (2021) / DOI 10.1007/s11182-021-02256-y

Figure 4. You should correct these Figure and labels.Figure 10... In whole, please pay atention to the quality of figures. 

The manuscript  Is good but the novelity of this study does not  described in  conclusion. Please add the novelity in  conclusions.

 

In whole, I like this study. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is competently written with a state of the art well presented.

However due to the high quality of the papers published in the Atmosphere journal I kindly ask the authors to make the following improvements:

The contribution of the paper is fuzzy. Please make a list that clearly states the actual contribution of the paper. It is not clearly presented in the introduction and conclusions parts what is original in this paper. A lot of studies already presented results about DTS and katabatic winds. The authors should consider answering the following questions to avoid this issue and to find the “generalization” traits of their study: What new findings provide their study compared to other similar studies [recent studies] performed? What lessons could be learned from their study? What is the rationale of the study, limitations, and future applications of the results? If the reader is not a specialist in the field and associated issues, this paper is not complete on its own. The originality and motivation of the paper is not properly presented.

I disagree with what the authors say at lines 46 and 47. If they want to keep their statement, I ask them to bring arguments with citations of recent studies. There are lidar systems with scanning system that bring important contributions in the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that authors presents clear results. I have only a few recommendations. Firstly, Authors should focus on the novelity in the conclusions in more clear way. Secondly, Authors should  correct figures. Please pay attention  to the titles of axes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In figure 4, the label of the figures overlaps the oy axis.

Next, the authors are forcing a little bit on the capacity and performance of a lidar system. Reference 18, is from 2002. She is cited in row no. 52, a statement with which I still disagree. The spatial resolution of the lidar systems can be for example also 3 meters. They are modern atmospheric lidar systems that scan 3D. I do not see these statements (comparisons) of the authors here welcome. However, in order to keep the idea mentioned by the authors, I recommend them to state that these techniques are complementary.

The authors have now written as "undulating terrain". It's very interpretable in correlation with lidar measurements. What scale does this "undulating terrain" refer to?

However, I consider that lines 43 to 53 can be deleted (because it can create many discussions that do not take place here), later already the authors say the right thing in row 66, which I think is adequate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf