Solar Contamination on HIRAS Cold Calibration View and the Corrected Radiance Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached review comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very well presented manuscript that addresses an important issue in the calibration of HIRAS instrument. The research is clear and correct without any major issue to be considered. There are only minor suggestions for this paper which I detail below.

L17. What do you refer by "terminal"?

L46 "or" might not be needed since the blackbody is the ICT.

L56 rather than Channels you might refer to bands/lines inside the channel

L58 define acronym  SZA here.

L59 and 63. It should be clarified somewhere the angular configuration. I am missing the azimuth dependence that you might be considering in a different way (e.g. with negative values or a different reference)

L142 dominates where reads dominants

L235 the term "previous" might be confusing and I would recommend to mention as "contaminated latitudes" or similar.

L252 The sentence needs rewriting.

L282 compute where reads computer.

L335 the dot should not be there

Fig 17 for easier understanding I would delete the straight lines between the channels. In addition, the scales are different between left and right plots and this should be carefully explained or better represented.

Fig 18 same issue with scales as with Fig. 17. In addition, it seems that these results also show an improvement of the spectral noise  which could be mentioned.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am fine with the author's response. Recommend accepting at present form.