Climatology of the Boundary Layer Height and of the Wind Field over Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although this study is a case study, why not emphasize the results obtained in this study together with similar studies in the past?

From the results of this study and the results of previous studies, is it possible to explain the features of PBLH in a unified manner by topographical features representing continental and oceanic characteristics?

For example, the land area ratio within a circle of radius r centering on the observation site or the distance between the site and the coast, etc.

If the three observation sites are shown on the map, the positional relationship between the continental boundary layer and the oceanic boundary layer will be easy to understand.

The results of other studies and the results of this study are summarized in a table for easy understanding.

I have the impression that there are many similar figures. It is better to put typical examples in each case and describe the rest in the text.

L82-83 Unify the notation of latitude and longitude of three sites.

L211 Change "is" to "are".

L217 Change "in Figure 5," to "in Figure 5 (upper panel),"

L243 What is the altitude resolution? Is the difference between the three significant?

L248-251 The altitude resolution on the right side of Fig. 7 is too coarse to understand the text. The scale of the figure needs some improvement.

L271-275 Mark the median values ​​of all similar figures.

L290-292 There is no significant seasonal variability as is observed for the daytime boundary layer (not shown the figure)

Fig.4 Upper panel

It is specified in the figure description that θ and Rib are the gradient method and the bulk Ri method, respectively.

Fig.4～Fig.11

Why are the pdf values ​​so different?

Figure.7

Isn't the solid line in the left figure the same as the solid line or the broken line in the right figure?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments that helped us improve the manuscript. We answer the points raised by the reviewer as they appear in the reviewer's report. There is a ``track changes'' version of the revised manuscript to easier follow the changes. We also note at which lines in the revised manuscript the same changes can be found.

1. Although this study is a case study, why not emphasize the results obtained in this study together with similar studies in the past?

In the revised manuscript, we made several changes in section 5, in order to further highlight the comparison of our results to the results of previous studies. We renamed the section as “Comparison to the results of previous studies”, we made several changes in the text, as well as inserted a table summarizing the results of previous studies for easier comparison (see also response to point 3).

2. From the results of this study and the results of previous studies, is it possible to explain the features of PBLH in a unified manner by topographical features representing continental and oceanic characteristics? For example, the land area ratio within a circle of radius r centering on the observation site or the distance between the site and the coast, etc. If the three observation sites are shown on the map, the positional relationship between the continental boundary layer and the oceanic boundary layer will be easy to understand.

We have added a map (Figure 1) in the revised manuscript showing the location of the three sounding sites. While the location of the three sites might be able to provide an explanation for the differences in the boundary layer characteristics between Heraklion and Athens (as well as Thessaloniki), there are other factors that might play a role as well such as local or larger scale circulations and local topographic features. Therefore, a further study that falls outside the scope of the current work is needed to determine the influence of these factors and will be pursued in the future. We have made several changes in the abstract, the main text and the last paragraph in the conclusions to clarify this.

3. The results of other studies and the results of this study are summarized in a table for easy understanding.

We inserted a table in section 5 (Table 2), summarizing the results of previous studies according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

4. I have the impression that there are many similar figures. It is better to put typical examples in each case and describe the rest in the text.

We followed the reviewer’s suggestion and tried to retain only the panels showing essential information. We therefore eliminated one figure and 7 panels total in the revised manuscript (see revised Figures 5-11).

5. L82-83 Unify the notation of latitude and longitude of three sites.

We unified the notation (l. 82)

6. L211 Change "is" to "are".

Done (l. 219)

7. L217 Change "in Figure 5," to "in Figure 5 (upper panel),"

Done (l. 225-226)

8. L243 What is the altitude resolution? Is the difference between the three significant?

The average resolution among all the soundings is 270 meters, while there are no significant differences among the three sites (less than 5%). These comments have been added in the discussion about the reported error bars in the revised manuscript (l. 169-171)

9. L248-251 The altitude resolution on the right side of Fig. 7 is too coarse to understand the text. The scale of the figure needs some improvement.

We revised Figure 7 and eliminated two panels, as well as revised the range of heights shown, both of which significantly improved the altitude resolution. (cf. revised Figure 8)

10. L271-275 Mark the median values ​​of all similar figures.

We revised Figures 5-11 and marked the median values in all panels showing pdf’s. (cf. revised Figures 6-11)

11. L290-292 There is no significant seasonal variability as is observed for the daytime boundary layer (not shown the figure)

We clarified that this is not shown in the figure (l. 304)

12. Fig.4 Upper panel: It is specified in the figure description that θ and Rib are the gradient method and the bulk Ri method, respectively.

We clarified in the legend of the revised Figure 5 that θ and Rib are the gradient and the bulk Richardson number methods respectively.  

13. Fig.4～Fig.11 Why are the pdf values ​​so different?

The pdf’s for the PBLH, for the wind angle and for the wind shear are normalized differently in the sense that the integral of the pdf is unitary when integrated over different quantities (height, angle and shear respectively) with different orders of magnitude. For example, shear is in milliseconds whereas height is in km. Therefore, the pdf’s for height have small values whereas the pdf’s for shear have large values.

14. Figure.7 Isn't the solid line in the left figure the same as the solid line or the broken line in the right figure?

No. The solid line in the left figure is the pdf for all types of boundary layers, while the broken line in the right figure is the corresponding pdf only for the NBL type.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper, “Climatology of the boundary layer height and of the wind field over Greece" written by Nikolaos A. Bakas, Angeliki Fotiadi, and Sophia Karyofyllidi seems to be acceptable to Atmosphere after minor revision. In this paper, they performed analyses of the climatology of planetary boundary layer height and wind field over Greece. So far, the scientific advantages of this article from previous studies are unclear. But the quantitative analysis of the PBLH and wind fields are important information for understanding local climatology. I suggest that the paper could be published in this journal after some major revisions as follows:

Minor comments:

ll.80 2.1. Data 
In this section, the authors don't mention to detail of the sounding data.
Please specify what kind of variables are used in this study.
(ex. Temperature, pressure, wind speed…)

ll. 87-91
For this analysis, seasonal biases or sample numbers are important.
Please add some comments for seasonal variation of the number of missing data.

Figure 2
Please use the same scales for every ordinate.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments that helped us improve the manuscript. We answer the points raised by the reviewer as they appear in the reviewer's report. There is a ``track changes'' version of the revised manuscript to easier follow the changes. We also note at which lines in the revised manuscript the same changes can be found.

1. ll.80 In this section, the authors don't mention to detail of the sounding data.
Please specify what kind of variables are used in this study.
(ex. Temperature, pressure, wind speed…)

We used the data of potential temperature, wind speed and wind direction and have clarified this accordingly in the text (l. 80).

2. ll. 87-91 For this analysis, seasonal biases or sample numbers are important. Please add some comments for seasonal variation of the number of missing data.

We added in the revised manuscript the relevant information for the seasonal variation of missing data (l. 90-94). The monthly distribution of the missing days is rather uniform. The relative differences between the maximum and the minimum sample size over a month are of the order of 10% for the four soundings with the largest sample size (both soundings for Athens and the 12UTC soundings for Thessaloniki and Heraklion). The differences in the 00UTC soundings over Thessaloniki and Heraklion that have the smallest sample size are of the order of 25%. These differences are generally small enough so that the monthly sample sizes can be considered equivalent and the seasonal variations discussed are considered statistically significant.

3. Figure 2 Please use the same scales for every ordinate.

We revised Figure 2 so that the height range of the comparable cases (a and c as well as b and d) is the same (cf. revised Figure 3).