Study of the Effect of Different Atmospheric Conditions on the Temporal Evolution of the Mixing Layer over Madrid during the Year 2020 by Means of Two Different Methods: Ceilometer Signals and the ECMWF-IFS Meteorological Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

It’s better to show a map with the location of Madrid and surrounding areas, e.g., Europe.

 

6 stages? Not easy to understand.

 

Figure 2: Add panel names (a, b, c, and d). Why the retrieved MLH difference between IFS and STRATfinder is so large at 0000 UTC to 0900 UTC on 20 May, panel (d)?

 

 

Specific comments:

 

P1L14-16: “The characterization of atmospheric aerosols, which are mostly concentrated within the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and mixing layer (ML), is mandatory because of their effect on the air quality.”. This sentence is simplified as “The characterization of atmospheric aerosols is mandatory.”, which does not make sense. Rephrase it.

P1L27: “estimate the MLH whatever meteorological condition”. Rephrase it.

P1L38: “unnatural”. What does it mean? Chang it to a more precise word.

 

2. Materials and Methods

 

P4-5: Too many descriptions of the site, reduces them to the facts related to the explanation of results.

P6L287: “[33]”. Use authors’ name.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Remote sensing-2682884

 

Study of the effect of different atmospheric conditions on the temporal evolution of the mixing layer over Madrid during the year 2020 by means of two different methods: ceilometer signals and the ECMWF-IFS meteorological model” by Barragan et al.

 The authors utilized two methods, ceilometer observation and ECMWF-IFS modeling, to estimate the MLH and compared the outcomes by season, synoptic pattern, and time of day.  One unique aspect of this research is the use of high resolution MLH measurements with the ceilometer, combined with the STARTfinder algorithm. Still, seasonal or synoptic comparisons can be adequately performed with radio-soundings, as authors detailed in the introduction. Considering that, The crucial aspect in this study is the diurnal evaluation in this work. However, the conclusion points out a limited data availability during nighttime and morning times (i.e., NT or MO) when air quality worsens under stable conditions or inversions. It would be partly due to the instrumental limitations but direction comparison of diurnal NLH variations in the two methods will be crucial. Currently, the results only present MAPE and R2, which makes it difficult to assess the overall daily performance. In addition, as authors mentioned, nighttime MLH is more important in terms of air pollution because of relatively lower MLH compared to that during daytime. Therefore, a more in-depth discussion is needed to address these limitations when using the ceilometer measurements to better understand the complex ABL dynamics. 

 The current version of manuscript is too long to read. The readers may want concise version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review of the manuscript "Study of the effect of different atmospheric conditions on the temporal evolution of the mixing layer over Madrid during the year 2020 by means of two different methods: ceilometer signals and the ECMWF-IFS meteorological model" by R. Barragán et al. submitted to Remote Sensing

The manuscript presents the study of the temporal evolution of the mixing layer above Madrid in 2020 in different atmospheric conditions. The authors achieve this using experimental ceilometer data. They also investigate mixing layer evolution using ECMWF model and compare the two. The final conclusion is that it would be advisable to assimilate ceilometer data into the model.

1. Methodology

To claim to study a certain phenomenon by modeling or simulations is in my opinion inappropriate. It can only be done by measurements. As the authors state themselves, the agreement of modeling with measurements (of the real phenomenon, in this case the MLH) varies by a lot depending on meteorological conditions. It would be correct to say that the authors attempted to verify the ECMWF-IFS model predictions (which are handy and readily available) using ceilometer data processed by the STRATfinder algorithm. The two can by no means be made equivalent tools for atmospheric studies. I propose to rewrite the relevant parts of the manuscript to clarify this. It would also be worthwhile mentioning in the introduction that celiometer data were not assimilated into the ECMWF.

Furthermore, the authors refer to MLH values obtained from ceilometer data by the STRATfinder algorithm as “estimates”. These are experimental results, and measurement (and algorithm generated) uncertainties for these values should be provided (or at least discussed).

2. Goals

Related to the comment 1. Methodology the goals of the work presented by this manuscript should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction. At the present, these are very vague, in lines 162-172 the authors are summarizing (again) what they did but not with what aim. It is more than enough to summarize the paper in the abstract and briefly in the conclusions.

3. Conclusions

An almost 2 page long Conclusion section in its first two paragraphs summarizes statistical analysis of the comparison of the ceilometer MLH data with ECMWF values. Firstly, I would not call these two equivalent methods, the authors are simply verifying the model. Secondly, the uncertainties of the statistical parameters are huge. Thirdly, the section is lengthy, hard to read as it goes into justifying this and that detail of specific cases. In my opinion this section should be used to present in a concise and clear way the conclusions (the essence learned) of the research performed. One of such conclusions is hinted at in the last paragraph, namely that their results show that inclusion of ceilometer-based data on ABL height would improve predictions by high-resolution numerical models, which was to be expected.

4. Style and typos

• Please define abbreviations, for example agl is just used and never written out in full;

• “.” missing on line 251;

• [33] performed a classification of the most frequent synoptic meteorological patterns

• (SMPs) that happened over the Iberian Peninsula in the period 2001-2019. →

  A classification of the most frequent synoptic meteorological patterns (SMPs) that happened over the Iberian Peninsula in the period 2001-2019 has already been performed [33].

• Please itemize the Section 2.4 in a more reader friendly way (not just paragraphs);

• Please use the manuscript text to present your research and refer to figures for clarification. Do not explain figures in the manuscript body, the captions are intended for this. Example. “Figure 2 shows the time-height representation of the attenuated backscattering, …”, line 411;

• Please use descriptive captions for all figures, “Figure 4. Synoptic weather maps representing each SMP.” is not descriptive.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The manuscript entitled ‘Study of the effect of different atmospheric conditions on the temporal evolution of the mixing layer over Madrid during the year 2020 by means of two different methods: ceilometer signals and the ECMWF-IFS meteorological model’ by Barragán et al. discussed the evolution of the mixing layer in Madrid using ceilometer and weather forecasting model. The comparison results are presented clearly and in detail. I recommend publication of the manuscript after addressing the following issues.

 

 

Specific comments:

What’s the height of the blind zone of the ceilometer? And how does the blind zone affect the MLH estimation of the ceilometer?

 

Please provide detailed method to obtain the overlap correction function.

 

Figure 2 presents some examples of wrong estimation of MLH by ceilometers. MLH-mismatch can also be brought by IFS with various reasons, which can be further inferred from the later analysis. Can the author provide a detail analysis of the mismatch reasons and corresponding statistical results? Or I am looking forward to see the results in authors’ future studies.

 

Minor comments / typos:

Some formats of citations in the text (e.g., ref 19 in line 104) are not correct. Please check the whole text and revise them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review of the revised manuscript "Study of the effect of different atmospheric conditions on the temporal evolution of the mixing layer over Madrid during the year 2020 by means of two different methods: ceilometer signals and the ECMWF-IFS meteorological model" by R. Barragán et al. submitted to Remote Sensing

I to confirm that the authors successfully addressed all the issues that were raised in the first review. I believe that the revised version has been substantially improved and therefore recommend its publication.