Multi-Frequency Differential Absorption LIDAR (DIAL) System for Aerosol and Cloud Retrievals of CO2/H2O and CH4/H2O
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached review.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
None
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA remote sensing system that is used to simultaneously detect range-resolved differential absorption LIDAR (light detection and ranging; DIAL) signals and integrated path DIAL signals (IP-DIAL) from aerosol targets for ranges up to 22 km was presented. Range resolved and column integrated dry-air CO2 and CH4 mixing ratios are obtained from line shape fits of CO2 and CH4 17 centered at 1602.2 nm and 1645.5 nm, respectively. The paper is well organized and the results are well discussed. There are a few mistakes due to the editing process. Here, I only list a few, the authors should check the paper thoroughly.
1. Line 82-83, “The micro- 82 wave (MW) frequencies are”, some words are missing.
2. Line 109, “In second order, the spectral bandwidth coverage over the (±) sidebands is”, words are missing.
3. Fig. 1, the OPO part, the output direction to the Tx is not correct.
4. Line 149 “one frequency on the H2O” content is missing.
5. Fig. 2, the caption only describe the frequency points on Fig. 2 (b), information of Fig.
2 (a) is missing.
6. “The typical value of the scattering loss coefficient for high-quality Nd:YAG is 0.002”, a unit is missing here.
7. In line 344, words are missing.
Some other problems need to be addressed:
1. In Fig. 4 (b), the enhanced SNRs from 14 km to 22 km are not very obvious, although from 18 km to 20 km the enhancement of SNRs is more obvious. Therefore, it is necessary to draw a curve of SNRs vs range.
2. Fig. 7 shows the Comparison of the dry-air CO2 mixing ratios obtained from the slice averaged IPDA data, column averaged DIAL data and the point sensor data, there should be three sets of data in the Fig. but we only see two sets of data: IPDA data and point sensor data. Besides, the point sensor data is very different from the lidar obtained data, both the value and the dependence to time, although the authors stated the reason, what is the meaning of the comparison then? The point sensor and lidar measured completely different volumes, and the values are different, why should they be compared?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached review
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment where we have addressed all of the reviewer's concerns
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
