A Comparison of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Height Determination Methods Using GNSS Radio Occultation Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, it is a very interesting study. Some aspects need to be improved, so my recommendation implies major changes (see attached).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English proofreading by a native speaker would be appreciated.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript first introduces five distinct methods for estimating ABLH, namely MG (MGBA+MGR), BP, WCT, and DPMF. Then, the ABLH obtained from IGRA sounding data was used as a reference, and the results of COSMIC-2 and Spire occultation data were verified using co positioning standards of 300 km and 3 h. The results showed that the boundary layer height corresponding to WCT method was significantly different from the results of IGRA. In addition, the boundary layer height results in different seasons and methods were analyzed. Subsequently, these five methods were presented to obtain the two-dimensional grid results of the ocean atmospheric boundary layer height from March 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023 (with a latitude and longitude resolution of 1 °). Finally, the sensitivity of the WCT method was analyzed. Overall, the literature review and research content of this manuscript are comprehensive and substantial, using occultation data from COSMIC-2 and Spire satellites launched in recent years.

 

Some more specific comments are as follows:

 

1, Line 95, an extra “.”

2, The 3.2 and 3.1 on lines 215 and 265 may be written incorrectly

3, What does the color bar in Figure 3 represent? I didn't understand. It is recommended to annotate or explain in the manuscript.

4, Lines 260-261, 'with the highest biases observed during spring', but according to Figure 4 (a), it should be the summer with the highest biases, rather than the spring.

5, Line 381, something wrong with "4. Discussion"

 

6, The results of the WCT method differ significantly from those of the other four methods, and according to Figure 5, there are significant differences globally. Could you explain under what situation or context is this method applicable?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is much improved in reply to my points.  I have no major comments, but expecting an explanation of why Zwct are largely underestimated in some cases as compared to Zraob in Figs. 7 and 8.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the checking point.