Performance of the Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Simulator (ARTS) in the 600–1650 cm⁻¹ Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

there is in the attached file, named peer-review-31885747.pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents an interesting work on exploring the usage of ARTS for TIR investigation. Authors have overall presented a sound analysis and attractive results. This paper can be potentially accepted but after some revisions.

1. The title of this paper is not clear at all since it does not showcase the purpose/motivation/findings of this paper.

2. Authors should at least present a paragraph of urban thermal environment, its impact, and the significance of exploring urban thermal environments. Please also refer the urban heat works: Beating the urban heat: Situation, background, impacts and the way forward in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112350.

3. There have been many tools for TIR studies, and why do you want to explore the ARTS? What is the potential strength compared with the LANDSAT, MODIS, ECOSTRESS and many others. Please refer: Landsat: Profile and concentric zonal analysis of relationships between land use/land cover and land surface temperature: Case study of Shenyang, China. Energy and Buildings, 155, 282-295.

MODIS: Influence of non-urban reference delineation on trend estimate of surface urban heat island intensity: A comparison of seven methods. Remote Sensing of Environment, 296, 113735.

ECOSTRESS: Monitoring diurnal dynamics of surface urban heat island for urban agglomerations using ECOSTRESS land surface temperature observations. Sustainable Cities and Society, 98, 104833.

4. The current introduction is fully ARTS, and I do see the comparison with other tools/datasets.

5. It is good to showcase the atmospheric profiles which are neglected by many studies. Does wind affect the results?

6. Have you also tested the results certainty and robustness with the comparison of field measurement or other tools?

7. A discussion section is needed to discuss the strength and uncertainties.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study evaluated the performance of the Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Simulator (ARTS) model in the thermal infrared region by comparing with the reference model LBLRTM, as well as the MODTRAN and CK.

This is a well-written manuscript presenting a useful study on assessing the accuracy of the ARTS model compared to the trusted Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM). The introduction provides good context and motivation for evaluating ARTS in the 600-1650 cm-1 spectral region. The methods are clearly explained, including details on the simulation setup, spectral response functions used, and criteria for evaluation. The results are thoroughly presented with helpful figures and tables. The discussion relating the results back to physical processes and model differences is insightful. Overall, this is a solid manuscript that I would recommend for publication after addressing the major comments below. The study provides valuable benchmarking of ARTS in the thermal infrared that can guide future applications and development. I have some suggestions below to further improve the manuscript:

 

Major comments:

[1]     The abstract could be strengthened by more clearly stating in the conclusion the key findings on ARTS' accuracy compared to LBLRTM. Specifically, mention the sub-0.1K agreement on 0.001 cm-1 grid, and RMSDs of <0.1K after convolution with AIRS/MODIS spectral response.

[2]     In the introduction, provide some additional details when mentioning the usage of ARTS in the microwave-terahertz range (e.g. example applications, key studies). This will better set the context for extending the evaluation to thermal infrared.

[3]     In the results, consider adding some example atmospheres/profiles when showing larger differences occur in specific subregions for certain profiles. This can give more insight into the atmospheric conditions leading to those larger differences.

[4]     The Jacobian comparison results are interesting but quite technical for the general reader. Consider moving some details to supplementary material and focusing the main text on the key highlights and implications of the Jacobian differences.

[5]     The discussion on line mixing effects is very helpful. Can this be expanded with some detail on which gases have greater line mixing and why it matters more in some spectral subregions?

 

Minor comments:

[1]     Line 18, what the AIRS stands for?

[2]     Line 19-20, only RMSD is presented but why two values exist?

[3]     "lager" should be "larger" in Line 302.

[4]     Improve flow between sections, e.g. end of Section 3 to start of Section 4.

[5]     Reduce acronym usage where possible, e.g. just write out "spectral response function" instead of SRF.

[6]     Carefully check figure captions and axes labels for clarity and completeness.

[7]     Improve some awkward phrases for clarity, e.g. "the statistics in different percentile intervals"

[8]     Fix minor typos throughout.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx