Geometry of Non-Diffusive Tracer Transport in Gridded Atmospheric Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses several original and relevant aspects for the field of atmospheric sciences, especially in the context of atmospheric tracer transport modeling: minVAR algorithm, Geometric extension, Interaction with the WRF model. As specified by the authors, the paper addresses a significant gap in the field of atmospheric modeling, providing a solution for maintaining correlations between tracers during advective transport through the minVAR algorithm and making a practical contribution to the understanding of complex atmospheric processes in urban and coastal conditions by using data from the TRACER measurement campaign.

The authors should consider answering the following questions to avoid some issues and to find the "generalization" traits of their study: 

The authors discussed the need to validate the results by comparing them with experimental data or other existing models. Although the minVAR algorithm is presented as a solution for maintaining correlations between tracers, the paper emphasizes that no direct experimental validation of it has been performed, which may raise questions about its reproducibility and applicability in practice. Thus, the inclusion of experimental data would strengthen the credibility of the study and provide a more solid basis for the conclusions drawn. 

If I might suggest, to be more clearly understood, the paper mentions the TRACER measurement campaign, which suggests that the authors performed an experimental validation of the minVAR algorithm by applying it in real conditions. However, it is important to note that, although data from this campaign were used, a direct validation of the results obtained by the algorithm against the experimental data was not specified, which require further discussions in the paper. The paper raises some questions related to the experimental validation of the minVAR algorithm, despite the use of data from the TRACER campaign. Although the authors demonstrate the applicability of the technique in real conditions, it is necessary to clarify how the results obtained compare with experimental data or other existing models. This suggests that while there is a practical basis for using the algorithm, its full validation might require a more detailed discussion to address doubts about reproducibility and accuracy.   In order to improve the methodology of the paper, the authors should elaborate on the minVAR algorithm, explaining the implementation steps and the adjusted parameters, which would facilitate the reproducibility of the study. Even if I repeat myself, it is also essential to validate the results by comparing them with experimental data and to perform an error analysis to identify possible sources of inaccuracy. In addition, testing the algorithm in various atmospheric scenarios, including extreme conditions, could demonstrate its versatility and applicability in different contexts.

Chapter two does not exist in the work. The work is quite difficult to follow, I think it is not structured in a logical way following the structure of a scientific work.

Author Response

Response to all three reviewers is attached here. The reviewer comments are highlighted using boldface type 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presented some interesting geometric features from contour plots of minVAR Eulerian transport algorithm which was recently developed.  The author later proposed a sub-grid interpolation method with Arakawa C-grid combined with minVAR.  However, how the proposed method compares to the other methods was not investigated.  In addition, the presentation of the paper needs to be improved.  Some examples are given below.

 

Line 7, “… correlated tracers”: What does “correlated” mean here? 

Line 35: Where does “Introduction” section end?  Section 2 is missing.

Line 38, “focuses instead a …”: Missing the preposition “on” after “focuses”.

Line 48, “presents gives a …”: Remove a verb here.

Line 51: The term “p-value” has its established definition.  It is better to avoid using it with a different meaning.

Line 80: “Preservation of normalization” is confusing.

Lines 84-85, “non-uniform grids and grids having changes in resolution”:  Do the authors mean dynamic grids by “having changes in resolution”?

Table 2: Please add explanation to these formulas.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Already included.

Author Response

My response is attached as a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current manuscript looks like a student report instead of a journal paper. The authors need to learn how to write a journal paper. In addition, there are two reference sections. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 attached as a file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for the detailed and clear answer and for taking my comments into account and improving the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper addressed some minor issues raised previously.  However, the main idea of the paper is still not very clear.  What is the finding here?  Why is this important?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a suitable revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf