Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Kármán Vortex Street Detection via Auxiliary Networks Incorporating Key Atmospheric Parameters
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring with Reference Methods in Zagreb, Croatia
Previous Article in Journal
Border Wars and Climate Change: The Impact on the Evolution of the External Defense System of the Hexi Corridor in the Past 2000 Years
Previous Article in Special Issue
Retrieval of Atmospheric XCH4 via XGBoost Method Based on TROPOMI Satellite Data
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characteristics of Observed Electromagnetic Wave Ducts in Tropical, Subtropical, and Middle Latitude Locations

Atmosphere 2025, 16(3), 336; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16030336
by Sandra E. Yuter *,†, McKenzie M. Sevier †, Kevin D. Burris †,‡ and Matthew A. Miller †
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Atmosphere 2025, 16(3), 336; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16030336
Submission received: 29 January 2025 / Revised: 10 March 2025 / Accepted: 12 March 2025 / Published: 17 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Atmospheric Techniques, Instruments, and Modeling)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I agree to its publication in your esteemed journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 is satisfied with manuscript as is. No detailed comments to address.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My review is attached. I recommend acceptance pending major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Characteristics of Observed Electromagnetic Wave Ducts in Tropical, Subtropical, and Middle Latitude Locations

 

  1. The abstract is not strong enough. Enhance it.
  2. How reliable is the BUFR data format for capturing detailed variations in modified refractivity?
  3. Line no: 65- ‘The observed upper air sounding profiles at ∼5 m native resolution are linearly interpolated to 20 m vertical layers and then input to the calculation of modified refractivity’. What is the reason for interpolating the data from a 5 m native resolution to 20 m vertical layers before calculating modified refractivity?
  4. In line no 87 i.e., ‘A duct was included in the analysis only if it met both the criteria of duct strength M > 1.7 and duct thickness > 40 m’. What is the significance of using a threshold for duct strength and thickness in the study? How might weaker or thinner ducts affect the analysis?
  5. Would additional parameters such as wind speed, atmospheric turbulence provide deeper insights into duct formation? If so, where do u include this in this manuscript?
  6. With all these ducts above 2 km altitude at tropical and subtropical islands, is there some kind of atmospheric conspiracy at play, or is there a simple scientific explanation waiting to be uncovered?
  7. Figure 6 shows the Scatter density plots of duct thickness vs. strength. How do the varying scatter density patterns challenge the assumption that duct characteristics follow a uniform global pattern, and what hidden atmospheric factors could influence these regional disparities?
  8. What is the unique contribution or novelty of this study?
  9. How can your findings be applied in real-world scenarios, such as improving communication systems or military radar operations?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for carefully revised the original manuscript. I recommended acceptance in present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can be accepted in the present form 

Back to TopTop