Wind Profile Retrieval Based on LSTM Algorithm and Mobile Observation of Brightness Temperature over the Tibetan Plateau
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report Attached as a seperate file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Quality of English Language may be improved fiurther.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed manuscript is especially interesting for atmospheric physicists.
The manuscript is innovative. The purpose of the manuscript requires refinement.
Results are supported by statistical calculations, illustrated tables and figures –however, some drawings are not legible. There have been a discussion of the results, the rather general conclusions have been supported by the results. The cited literature relates to the research topic. However, there are several issues in the reviewed manuscript that should be clarified/complemented, including:
The manuscript contains a lot of abbreviations/designations, which makes the manuscript unreadable. For the clarity of the text, I suggest adding a table containing the symbols and their explanation
- The purpose of the manuscript should be clearly indicated
- In the manuscript there is lacks of the point 'research area' - for the clarity of the text, I suggest adding a short description of the area, paying attention to the variability of climate elements (including wind, precipitation) in the research area
- I suggest clearly indicating data usage from January to December 2021‘The dependent and independent variables of the training set are TB observation data at the Mangai (MA) GMR station (38°25’N, 90°E; 2947m a.s.l., Figure 1) in the Qinghai province from January to December 2021’ (line 89-91), especially since the period from July 18 to 30, 2021 was used in the study (e.g. line: 60-61, Figure1, 107)
- Figure 1 - marked: Xining, Yushu, Dari - I suggest adding a legend for the marked points
- Figure 1b - the legend for altitude is not clear - compared to the legend in Figure 1a
- I suggest providing stations and marking these stations in Figure 1‘Before simulating the MOTB over the TRSR from July 18 to 30, 2021, the weather during the MO experiment was categorized into clear-sky, cloudy, and rainy conditions based on measurement data of the nearby meteorological stations…’(line 184-186)
- I suggest adding a significance level ‘There is a significant correlation between Re-WS, In-WS, and Raob, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.96 and passing the 99.9% confidence level test’(line 214-216 and line 275)
- Figure 7 - wind speed ranges (m/s) have been given - I suggest providing the criterion for dividing the speed into ranges and the source (literature),
- Figure 7 - the range [0-5m/s) has been adopted - a comment is necessary. I suggest giving silence (0m/s) separately,
- I suggest specifying the meteorological conditions ‘Table 2 gives the RMSE, MAE, correlation coefficients of In-WS, In-WD, and corresponding TB measurement errors under three meteorological conditions’(line 244-245)
- It is not clear - what a cloudy day means. I suggest specifying the degree of cloudiness (‘…while the RMSE of WD under cloudy days is larger than rainy days, maybe because of the weak wind as the dominant wind on cloudy days…’ line 250-251). I also suggest specifying the degree of cloudiness for 'Under clear-sky'.
- Whether/how cloud height may influence on tuberculosis variability;
- The adopted heights requires comment ‘…altitude of 2.2km, 3.5km, and 4.0km, respectively…’(line 263)
- Table 2 – below table 2, I suggest introducing notations explaining the symbols have been used in the table
- ‘…Although the RMSE of the In-WS for the MO condition exceeded 2 m/s, the In-WS at the lower atmosphere…’ - the notation is not clear - what is lower atmosphere?
- Figure 9, 10 – is not legible
- Figure 11 – the given station names should match the names given in Figure1
- Figure11 – I suggest entering the stations names abbreviations in figure1 (‘…XN (a), DR (b) and YS (,c) radiosonde stations from July 18th to July 30th, 2021(BJT)’
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs the authors have addressed all the points suggested during my previous review I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
We thank the anonymous referee for his/her insightful and constructive comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made reasonable replies and revisions to most of the comments.
However, there is another suggestion for the 5th comment. Although the authors have stated citing Cheng et al (2014), the classification method is an important part of this article, but it should be briefly stated in the article (as in response to comment 12), unless it appears in the introduction section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the Authors for their comprehensive answers;
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their help in revising the article.
