Evaluation of the Horizontal Winds Simulated by IAP-HAGCM through Comparison with Beijing MST Radar Observations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Evaluation of the horizontal winds simulated by IAP-HAGCM through comparison with Beijing MST radar observations” by Tian et al. systematically evaluated the performance of horizontal wind in IAP-HAGCM with the MST radar observations in Beijing. They found the IAP-HAGCM can reasonably reproduce the observed wind distribution, seasonal variations and temporal variations, though non-negligible discrepancy still exists in some months and at some levels, especially for the variable of meridional wind. Their findings will provide important clues for IAP-HAGCM users, as horizontal wind are essential variables for atmospheric dynamical, thermodynamical and also chemical characteristics.    Since the present manuscript is more like a technical report and does not touch too much about physical mechanism, I do not have many questions in terms of scientific perspective. However, I do find the current manuscript can improve in a better shape by carefully reorganizing their content and to concisely their results. Also, I think the manuscript will attract more readers if they can simply compare their results with some other models, and provide a concise discussion about possible physical mechanism behind the bias. Therefore, I recommend major revision. My comments are listed in below.   

 

1. I think many figures in the manuscript provides the same and thus redundant information. For example, Figure 1 and Figure 3 present the same time-altitude sections of zonal wind and meridional wind; Figure 5 and Figure 6 presents the same time-altitude sections of zonal wind and meridional wind bias. In addition, I think the information provided in Figures 1, 3 and Figures 5, 6 can be integrated into one single but more concise figure. Similar situations can be found for other figures. Same information repeatedly shown in similar figures will not help the readers to capture the main idea. I recommend the authors to consider how to reorganize the figure and content in a more concise manner. 
2. The introduction paragraph in current manuscript has reviewed many previous results that are irrelevant to current topic, I recommend the authors to consider shortening this part. Also, I recommend the authors to consider reviewing this part in a more organized way, not just simply list the results of previous studies as what appears in current manuscript. 
3. It will be more interesting if the authors can provide some information about the performance of IAP-HAGCM compared to other models. For example, whether IAP-HAGCM has better performance than other models in producing the general features of horizontal wind or not. 
4. I recommend the authors to give a simple discussion about why the IAP-HAGCM failed to reproduce some aspects of the horizontal wind. This discussion can be general and very speculated, but I think it will be helpful for readers to understand at least some possible reasons behind the bias.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Evaluation of the horizontal winds simulated by IAP-HAGCM 2 through comparison with Beijing MST radar observations” by Tian et al., compares the winds in the Troposphere and lower stratosphere(zonal and meridional) simulated using IAP-HAGCM with that of the MST Radar over Beijing.The paper is organized well and I recommend a minor revision.

Comments:

1. In Figure 4(a) it is shown the correlation coefficient between simulation and observations, along with correlation coefficient slope and intercept also can be calculated.

2. Line 214…remove et al.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of "Evaluation of the horizontal winds simulated by IAP-HAGCM  through comparison with Beijing MST radar observations"

This paper is very well written, the results and significance are immediate clear to the reader, and the presentation is very good.  It was a pleasure to review such a well written paper. The paper can be published in its current form.  I will give a few minor comments and suggestions, which the authors can choose to implement or comment on.  However, it is not required as the paper is fine in the current form.

Suggestions:
1) Introduce IAP-HAGCM a bit earlier in the abstract.  I was not familiar with this model.
2) line 28, ms-1 as a superscript
3) line 48, "Lidar" can be written as "lidar"
4) line 53, "all day long" is informal.  "24 hours per day" might be better
5) line 99, possible useful references for shuttle reentry
Fritts, David C., Ding-Yi Wang, and Robert C. Blanchard. "Gravity wave and tidal structures between 60 and 140 km inferred from space shuttle reentry data." Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 50.6 (1993): 837-849.
Wing, Robin, et al. "Gravity Wave Breaking Associated with Mesospheric Inversion Layers as Measured by the Ship-Borne BEM Monge Lidar and ICON-MIGHTI." Atmosphere 12.11 (2021): 1386.
6) Figure 4,  Doing correlations based on vertical profiles is challenging.  I've made similar plots myself, but it's important to note that the shape of the profile can have an impact on the correlation profile.  I don't know of a better technique to suggest.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing my previous comments. I believe the authors have successfully revised the manuscript. Now I recommend publication in Remote Sensing.