Estimation of Day-Time Seeing Changes at Huairou Solar Observing Station Based on Neural Networks from 1989 to 2010

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is certainly of interest for the community, the authors master very well the main subject which is the use of neural networks for data classification. The methods are clearly described and the results convincing. Only small typos (in yellow in the attached pdf) to be corrected

The method is applied to a database of astronomical images of solar observations through a turbulent atmosphere. Unfortunately the authors do not understand well the subject and the database description contains numerous errors and confusions  (in red in the attached pdf) which are not acceptable

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Below is our response to your comments:

1. We are glad to hear that you find the topic of our paper interesting and that you acknowledge our expertise in using neural networks for data classification. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and have corrected the minor typos highlighted in yellow in the attached PDF. These corrections have been made to ensure the clarity and accuracy of our presentation.
2. (1)We have revised the description of seeing and r_0​ in lines 1-4 of the abstract:

” Seeing is a key factor affecting the image quality of astronomical observations and can be quantitatively described by the Fried parameter $r_0$. The larger the $r_0$ value, the better the seeing. Currently, daytime seeing measurements are primarily conducted using the Solar Differential Image Motion Monitor (SDIMM) or the spectral ratio method.”

(2) We have provided a more detailed explanation of seeing and r0​ in lines 17-25 of the introduction:

“Seeing refers to the effect of atmospheric turbulence on the quality of astronomical imaging. The better the seeing, the higher the imaging quality. It is typically defined by the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM, in units of arcseconds) of the image of a point source. The smaller the FWHM, the better the seeing. The Fried parameter $r_0$ (in units of centimeters) is an important parameter for quantifying seeing \citep{Fried-1966}. It represents the coherence length of wavefront distortion caused by atmospheric turbulence and reflects the typical scale over which the wavefront remains coherent under the influence of turbulence. According to Fried's theory, seeing is positively correlated with the Fried parameter $r_0$. A larger $r_0$ value indicates less impact of turbulence on wavefront distortion, resulting in better imaging quality \citep{Fried-1966, Liu-1993}.”

(3) We have added a detailed description of the data in lines 96-103:

“The SMFT instrument is capable of obtaining vector magnetic field and line-of-sight velocity data from the photosphere at the $FeI 5324$ Å wavelength, as well as line-of-sight magnetic field and velocity data from the chromosphere at the $H\beta 4861$ Å wavelength. Each FITS file consists of an intensity image and Stokes parameters, expressed as $0.5(I \pm S)$, where I represents the intensity image (also referred to as a monochromatic image) and S denotes the Stokes parameters of polarization. For the purposes of this study, we have employed the monochromatic image data at the $FeI 5324$ Å wavelength for our analysis.”

(4) We have corrected Equation 8.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented in this paper is interesting but there are a number of issues that need to be improved significantly.

Some general comments:

The authors use the Fried parameter and the seeing as equivalent. I suggest to stick to the standard convention of considering the seeing as the fwhm of the image of a point source in arcesc, then the Fried parameter is a different quantity measured in cm.

In formula (1) the symbol ~ is not well visible

Line 99 “The molecule in the formula” ?? this expression is unclear

In Section 2 the description of the data is not complete enough.

The captions of the images must be more extended and explain in more details the content of the images

In Figure 3 the label of the vertical axis seems wrong it should probably be r₀(cm), idem Fig 4 and 5

Figure 8 left panel is not readable for not Chinese scientists

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be improved significantly. There are many errors, some are minor but others make the paper really difficult to read. I am including a list of minor errors that I found in the first pages but there are too many for me to identify all. The manuscript must be reviewed by a professional editor or a native English speaker.

Line 22 arc seconds --> arcsecs or arcseconds

Line 24 of seeing --> of the seeing

Line 27 by seeing --> by the seeing

Line 28 of the system --> of a system

necessitates --> requires

Line 32 nighttime --> night time

Line 36 remove “o estimate daytime seeing”

Line 37 atmospheric temperature structure constants --> the constant of atmospheric temperature structure

Line 38 seeing --> the seeing

Line 39 the degree of seeing --> the seeing

Line 42 the solar --> the sun

Line 44-47 rephrase better

Line 99 “The molecule in the formula” ?? this expression is unclear

Line 104-108 needs rephrase

and so on.....

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, we have made the corresponding revisions to our manuscript, as detailed below:

1.

(1) We have distinguished between seeing and the Fried parameter according to the standard convention, clearly stating that seeing is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the image of a point source in arcseconds, while the Fried parameter is a different quantity measured in centimeters:

Lines 1-4 of the abstract:

” Seeing is a key factor affecting the image quality of astronomical observations and can be quantitatively described by the Fried parameter $r_0$. The larger the $r_0$ value, the better the seeing. Currently, daytime seeing measurements are primarily conducted using the Solar Differential Image Motion Monitor (SDIMM) or the spectral ratio method.”

lines 17-25 of the introduction:

“Seeing refers to the effect of atmospheric turbulence on the quality of astronomical imaging. The better the seeing, the higher the imaging quality. It is typically defined by the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM, in units of arcseconds) of the image of a point source. The smaller the FWHM, the better the seeing. The Fried parameter $r_0$ (in units of centimeters) is an important parameter for quantifying seeing \citep{Fried-1966}. It represents the coherence length of wavefront distortion caused by atmospheric turbulence and reflects the typical scale over which the wavefront remains coherent under the influence of turbulence. According to Fried's theory, seeing is positively correlated with the Fried parameter $r_0$. A larger $r_0$ value indicates less impact of turbulence on wavefront distortion, resulting in better imaging quality \citep{Fried-1966, Liu-1993}.”

(2) We have adjusted the symbol “~” in formula (1) to ensure it is clearly visible.

(3) We have clarified and revised the expression “The molecule in the formula” to make it clear and understandable. Line:115

(4) We have supplemented and perfected the data description to provide more comprehensive information:

lines 96-103:

“The SMFT instrument is capable of obtaining vector magnetic field and line-of-sight velocity data from the photosphere at the $FeI 5324$ Å wavelength, as well as line-of-sight magnetic field and velocity data from the chromosphere at the $H\beta 4861$ Å wavelength. Each FITS file consists of an intensity image and Stokes parameters, expressed as $0.5(I \pm S)$, where I represents the intensity image (also referred to as a monochromatic image) and S denotes the Stokes parameters of polarization. For the purposes of this study, we have employed the monochromatic image data at the $FeI 5324$ Å wavelength for our analysis.”

(5) We have expanded the image captions to provide detailed explanations of the content of the images, helping readers to better understand them.

(6) We have corrected the labels of the vertical axes in Figures 3, 4, and 5 to correctly display r_0​ (cm).

(7) We have adjusted Figure 8, and removed Figure 8(a) without losing any essential information, to ensure its readability for non-Chinese scientists.

 

2. Thank you very much for your attention to the quality of the English language in our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We fully understand and accept the issues you have pointed out, and we agree that the language needs significant improvement. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors and rephrase sentences for better clarity and readability.

We have engaged a professional English editor to carefully proofread and revise the manuscript. Additionally, we have also had the manuscript reviewed by a native English speaker to ensure the accuracy and naturalness of the language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for having corrected the paper

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for having corrected the paper

 

Authors:

Thank you for your positive feedback and for acknowledging the corrections made to the manuscript. We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our work, which have been instrumental in enhancing the quality and clarity of our paper. We are pleased that the revisions have addressed your concerns and that you find the updated version satisfactory.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper improved considerably since the last version. There are still a few typo or editing errors left. I suggest a careful check. In addition I have the following specific suggestions:

line 27 should say: Accurate and long-term observation records of r₀ are....

line 53 should probably say: There are shortcomings of these methods, for instance, because the SDIMM is on a different telescope....

line 58 rephrase, cannot start a line with And

line 69 Geoffrey Hinton

line 72 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2024

line 94 not clear what "conventional" refers to

line 96 substitute . with ,

line 130 should say: In the present study we processed the data with the Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

line 190 1: 1 --> 1:1

line 197 cannot begin a line with a number unless is spelled

line 231 In Fig. 6 we show the percentage....

Between 1995 and 2000 the seeing seems to be worst than average or the seeing improved after 2000, any explanation for this possible trend?

line 247 The results obtained from this method are consistent with the observational experience.

what does "observational experience" refer to? please clarify

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English has improved a lot, there are still a few minor details that can be improved.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

Reviewer 2:

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper improved considerably since the last version. There are still a few typo or editing errors left. I suggest a careful check. In addition I have the following specific suggestions:

line 27 should say: Accurate and long-term observation records of r₀ are....

line 53 should probably say: There are shortcomings of these methods, for instance, because the SDIMM is on a different telescope....

line 58 rephrase, cannot start a line with And

line 69 Geoffrey Hinton

line 72 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2024

line 94 not clear what "conventional" refers to

line 96 substitute . with ,

line 130 should say: In the present study we processed the data with the Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

line 190 1: 1 --> 1:1

line 197 cannot begin a line with a number unless is spelled

line 231 In Fig. 6 we show the percentage....

Between 1995 and 2000 the seeing seems to be worst than average or the seeing improved after 2000, any explanation for this possible trend?

line 247 The results obtained from this method are consistent with the observational experience.

what does "observational experience" refer to? please clarify

 

2. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English has improved a lot, there are still a few minor details that can be improved.

 

Authors:

Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and made the necessary revisions. Below is our response to your specific comments:

1. Line 94, we have revised the description to: “(i) observations for solar activity research topics; (ii) long-term accumulation of routine observational data”.

 

2. For the period between 1995 and 2000 as shown in Fig. 6, where the seeing was below average and improved after 2000.

 

We sincerely appreciate the insightful comments and valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. Your feedback has been instrumental in guiding us to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the data trends. We have conducted a detailed statistical analysis, as shown in Figures (a) and (b). Figure (a) illustrates the percentage of seeing conditions with r₀​>3 cm, Figure (b) displays the total amount of data per year. We have carefully analyzed the statistical results and believe that the observed patterns may be influenced by selection biases in our observational strategy. Specifically, our observations are more likely to occur during periods when: (i) Seeing conditions are favorable; (ii) Solar activity is higher. Between 1995 and 2000, solar activity was relatively low, corresponding to a solar minimum. During this period, there were fewer active regions on the Sun, which naturally led to a reduced amount of observational data. Conversely, as solar activity began to rise around 2000, entering a more active phase of the solar cycle, the volume of observational data also increased accordingly.

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again to the reviewer for their meticulous work and valuable suggestions. Your feedback has been crucial in helping us refine the content of our paper and enhance the quality of our research.

(a)    Percentage of r0 greater than 3 cm

(b) The total amount of data per year

 

3. On line 247, we have provided a new description for 'observational experience': “ The variations in seeing are consistent with the observational experience of our observers, as well as our conventional experience in data usage and interpretation.”

 

4. We have carefully reviewed and addressed each of the remaining suggestions, ensuring that our manuscript is clearer and more precise. We have made the necessary corrections to the text to improve the overall quality and coherence of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf