Comparison of Identified Ice Supersaturated Regions for Contrail Avoidance Using Three Standard Weather Forecast Databases
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work seem to be very valuable for the contrail avoidance and reduction of anthropological factors in climate change.
Before publication I find necessary the following clarifications:
In abstract, the authors note that they review the 22 previous works. It will be good if the authors give details about criteria and process of selection these 22 works.
Pages 106-120
The authors note three types of contrails. It will be good if the authors give quantitative description of corresponding scales and theoretical-qualitative background for such distribution of contrails.
Pages 123-143
It will be good if the authors give more justification for use of linear interpolation.
Pages 242-257
It will be good if authors describe in more details the given formulas (describe quantities, are these formulas empirical?) and give their justification
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper and provide constructive feedback. We appreciate it!
Comment 1: In abstract, the authors note that they review the 22 previous works. It will be good if the authors give details about criteria and process of selection these 22 works.
Response 1: Thank you for this note. We have expanded in Section 2 the selection criteria for the papers and the specific calculations and parameters we used as search criteria.
Comment 2: Pages 106-120
The authors note three types of contrails. It will be good if the authors give quantitative description of corresponding scales and theoretical-qualitative background for such distribution of contrails.
Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We added quantitative notes on the size, time duration, geographic shift, and radiative impact of contrails. Additionally, we have added qualitative notes on what type of operational flights would create such contrails. All notes were added in Section 1.
Comment 3: Pages 123-143
It will be good if the authors give more justification for use of linear interpolation.
Response 3: We have added some notes on why linear interpolation works in the forecast of temperature but is limited in forecasts of relative humidity and why it ultimately was the best choice in the context of this study. These notes are added immediately before the equation.
Comment 4: Pages 242-257
It will be good if authors describe in more details the given formulas (describe quantities, are these formulas empirical?) and give their justification
Response 4: We have added some descriptions of the formulas as they stem originally from the Goff-Gratch Equations and are now used in the application of the Schmidt-Appleman Criteria for the forecast of upper tropospheric ice supersaturation in the context of this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examines the methodologies for identifying Ice Super Saturation Regions (ISSRs) and highlights discrepancies in atmospheric data sources affecting contrail predictions. The findings emphasize the need for improved accuracy in modeling, as variations in data can significantly impact ISSR identification. By reviewing 22 peer-reviewed articles, this research identifies key parameters essential for refining ISSR predictions. This research can be considered as a review paper that may provide an overview of current knowledge, although it is expected to suggest specific directions for future studies.
Below are some specific comments:
- In the abstract: Emphasize the significance of the findings more explicitly. For example, the differences in ISSR identification rates across databases could be highlighted as a key result rather than just mentioned in passing.
In the introduction:
- Provide more context on the implications of contrails' contribution to global warming to enhance understanding.
- What is the relevance of the three atmospheric data sources (NOAA, ECMRWF, IGRA) used in the study?
- Why the chosen parameters (temperature, pressure, RHW) are critical for the study of contrail formation.
- Conclude the introduction with a clear statement of the study's objectives or research questions to guide the reader on what to expect in the subsequent sections.
In the data and methods:
- Specify the exact date or time frame during which the searches were conducted to provide context for the literature review.
- If any statistical tests or methods are applied beyond interpolation, mention them to give a complete view of the analysis approach.
In Results:
- When discussing the different threshold values for temperature and RHI used in the literature, summarize how these variations impact the results. Consider a comparative analysis of the findings based on different thresholds.
- Acknowledge any limitations in the data sources or methods used to derive atmospheric parameters, as this adds credibility to your results and helps frame future research.
- Explain how these results contribute to the overall understanding of atmospheric modeling and their potential applications in aviation and climate studies.
- In conclusion avoid repeating points, particularly regarding the overestimation of ISSRs, to maintain conciseness
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper and provide constructive feedback. We appreciate it!
Comment 1: In the abstract: Emphasize the significance of the findings more explicitly. For example, the differences in ISSR identification rates across databases could be highlighted as a key result rather than just mentioned in passing.
Response 1: Thank you for this note. We have shortened the abstract and added some comments on the differences in ISSR identification in addition to the final findings.
Comment 2: In the introduction:
Provide more context on the implications of contrails' contribution to global warming to enhance understanding.
Response 2: We have added some more notes on global radiation balance and how contrails disrupt that balance and the implications of this process in a warming climate. Ultimately this is a key motivation in contrails research and we appreciate the opportunity to highlight this further.
Comment 3: What is the relevance of the three atmospheric data sources (NOAA, ECMRWF, IGRA) used in the study?
Response 3: These three databases are commonly used in ISSR and contrail forecasting as identified in the literature review. We have made this sentiment clearer in the introduction and leading into Section 2.
Comment 4: Why the chosen parameters (temperature, pressure, RHW) are critical for the study of contrail formation.
Response 4: In the introduction, we have added comments describing the natural physical relationship between these parameters and how they are related to ISSR tracking and contrail formation.
Comment 5: Conclude the introduction with a clear statement of the study's objectives or research questions to guide the reader on what to expect in the subsequent sections.
Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We have added a few sentences clearly stating the research questions and goals as well as outlining the structure of the paper.
Comment 6: In the data and methods:
Specify the exact date or time frame during which the searches were conducted to provide context for the literature review.
Response 6: Thank you for catching this. We have updated Table 3 and the surrounding text to specify the exact date range and times as well as the location of the area of interest in the study.
Comment 7: If any statistical tests or methods are applied beyond interpolation, mention them to give a complete view of the analysis approach.
Response 7: No statistical tests were applied aside from the linear interpolation.
Comment 8: In Results:
When discussing the different threshold values for temperature and RHI used in the literature, summarize how these variations impact the results. Consider a comparative analysis of the findings based on different thresholds.
Response 8: Discussion was added in how variations of input values such as temperature and RHi affect the results and furthermore into forecasts of ISSRs and contrails.
Comment 9: Acknowledge any limitations in the data sources or methods used to derive atmospheric parameters, as this adds credibility to your results and helps frame future research.
Response 9: Thank you for this advice and suggestion to include it in the Results section. We have added some notes on limited data such as the need for the linear interpolation into this section and ensured its consistency in the Limitations subsection in the Conclusions.
Comment 10: Explain how these results contribute to the overall understanding of atmospheric modeling and their potential applications in aviation and climate studies.
Response 10: Added remarks at the end of the Results section addressing the intersection of aviation and climate studies as they benefit from the results of improved understanding of atmospheric modeling from the results of this study.
Comment 11: In conclusion avoid repeating points, particularly regarding the overestimation of ISSRs, to maintain conciseness
Response 11: Several notes on overestimating ISSRs have been removed, leaving the remaining ones in key discussion points in the beginning and end of the Conclusions section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper focused on the comparison of ISR for contrail avoidance using 3 standard weather forecast databases. It's meaningful and interesting. But there are some issues to be addressed before accepted for publication.
1. The abstract must be rewritten, now it is too long. Please highlight innovation and contribution.
2. Please list nomenclature and abbreviations.
3. Line 148-151, Please correct 4.1-4.4 to 3.1-3.4.
4. All equations seems to be pictures, please rewrite them using formula editor.
5. Table 7-Table9 are not standardized, please reform them.
6. In part 5.2，please give more future work description according to the figure 5.
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract must be rewritten, now it is too long. Please highlight innovation and contribution.
Response 1: Abstract has been shortened and added some comments on the differences in ISSR identification in addition to the final findings to highlight the unique contributions.
Comment 2: Please list nomenclature and abbreviations.
Response 2: Confirmed that all nomenclature are spelled out in entirety first and then throughout the paper as abbreviations.
Comment 3: Line 148-151, Please correct 4.1-4.4 to 3.1-3.4.
Response 3: Thank you, corrected.
Comment 4: All equations seems to be pictures, please rewrite them using formula editor.
Response 4: Thank you for catching this. All equations have been incorporated using the formula editor.
Comment 5: Table 7-Table9 are not standardized, please reform them.
Response 5: Thank you for catching that. Tables 7, 8, and 9 have been reformatted to standard.
Comment 6: In part 5.2，please give more future work description according to the figure 5.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have expanded on the future work planned following this paper and made sure to describe Figure 5 in more detail in this edit.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for authors' revision. The comment 2 "Please list nomenclature and abbreviations", I think the authors should list them separately at the end of the paper.
Author Response
Comment 1: Thanks for authors' revision. The comment 2 "Please list nomenclature and abbreviations", I think the authors should list them separately at the end of the paper.
Response 1: Thank you for the note. A table was added at the very end of the paper.
