Parametric, Semiparametric, and Semi-Nonparametric Estimates of the Kinetic Energy of Ordered Air Motion and Wind Outliers in the Atmospheric Boundary Layer from Minisodar Measurements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled “Parametric, semiparametric, and semi-nonparametric estimates of the kinetic energy of ordered air motion and wind outliers in the atmospheric boundary layer from minisodar measurements” was reviewed. The authors developed new algorithms for processing wind data and analyzing the kinetic energy of the ordered movement of air and wind outliers like gusts. The results are interesting and can be useful for the scientific community. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the manuscript after major revision in Applied Science. To improve the paper's quality, the following points need to be addressed in the revised form:

 

-Meteorological field data, especially in the boundary layer, depends on the environmental conditions and surface obstacles. Please explain more about the meteorological data recording location. Using photos and aerial maps can also be useful.

 

-It is mentioned in lines 35 to 36:

"Knowledge of the kinetic energy of air motion ... is essential for atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) physics"

In my opinion, it is not a suitable sentence to express the importance of this topic. Instead, it is better to mention some applicability of the results in society, such as:

Knowledge of flow disturbances in the boundary layer of the earth is very important for the design of wind turbines, the landing and takeoff of airplanes, the design of bridges, etc.

 

-The literature review is awful. A batch of Refs. generally mentioned. For example see lines 82 to 83: “A number of points inherent in the robust estimates  should be mentioned [5–9].”

Or Lines 35 to 36: “Knowledge of … is essential for atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) physics [1–3].”

In the introduction, the previous research performed in this field is not properly mentioned. The total number of mentioned references is 20 and many of them were published by the authors of this manuscript.

Many papers have been published in recent years in peer-reviewed journals dealing with ABL meteorology, please report previous efforts on your research topic and describe the gap in their studies (which you would like to bridge by publishing this article).

 

-In the first line of the abstract, it is mentioned: “Using robust parametric …algorithms developed by the authors”. What is the novelty of those algorithms? What is the superiority of new algorithms over previous ones, especially in post-processing? This is very important, so please describe it properly and in detail in the text. also, briefly mention it in the abstract and conclusion.

-The English writing of the manuscript is poor. Some sentences are very long and difficult to understand. For example, look at the following sentence in lines 37 to 38:

“It is necessary for calculating fields of meteorological parameters and analyzing and forecasting the influence of air mass motion on objects in the ABL.”

 

I highly recommend using a reliable English editing service.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general it is a very interesting article on a solid scientific level. However, a few things need to be changed:

·       A summary of results should appear in the introduction + a structuring of the article

·     As far as I know it is called prior distribution and not aprioristic distribution.

·       Once in a while there are small grammar errors. In general wording is fine

·       There seem to be some formatting errors. E.g. line 172

·       Sources are almost 100% Russian. I doubt that there is no literature in the rest of the world.

·       What is the function g in Equations (4),(5) and (6)? Please define. I guess it is the density corresponding to G? Commonly Gaussian distributions are referred to \Phi (CDF) and \phi (PDF).

·       Chapter 3 is the theory chapter, right? What is new? What is an existing method? Please structure a bit better, if possible.

·       Line 439: formatting error

·       Figure 1: If outliers influence the PDF that much, they are not outliers any more, or am I wrong? I mean then there is something significantly wrong or the measurement errors are that large. But outliers as far as I know are defined as values that appear with a very small probability. But according to Fig 1 the probability of an “internal outlier” is rather high

 

English is fine with some minor errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

At the end of the abstract, it should be noticed that wind outliers mainly affect the structure of the wind turbine rather than its power output.