Air Temperature Intermittency and Photofragment Excitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A review paper hard to read as very short sections are alternated with longer ones, mixing hand-waving arguments of possible data incertainty and
model shortcomings with quite complicated mathematical tools and data-analysis techniques.
About a dozen of possible experiments, on laboratory scale or using the existing fleet of NASA aircraft, balloons and spectrometers, are proposed in the end as a research program, without a time scale or facilty to use.
With 77 references the article is well documented, and gives a good account on many difficulties in the field of atmospheric chemistry. However, I'd suggest to re-equilibrate sections for having more a readable manuscript and less an itemized summary of the different points raised.
Btw, what happened to section 12 ?

Author Response

Please see attached file.

The reviewer's efforts are appreciated, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Air Temperature Intermittency and Photofragment Excitation”, authored by A.F. Tuck, describes the use of multifractal analyses on atmospheric data including temperature and chemistry data. The results indicate some intermittency scaling laws as observed from analyzed data sets, and provides additional perspectives on understanding intermittency in these atmospheric data, especially in the upper stratosphere. Overall the manuscript is well written. I have the following comments:

1.     Reference to the work [1-3] at the beginning of introduction “by former students of Herschbach” seemed a bit casual. Suggest change directly to the referenced authors or do not mention at all.

2.     Because of the heavy flavor of review paper, the introduction does not clearly outline the scope of the paper, the only indication is the language at the end of the second to last paragraph in introduction. Later in section 14, at the beginning of page 15, the scope is better described “In this paper the primary focus is…”. Suggest somehow rearrange to have some of this discussion put in the introduction, probably with less explicit reference to the intermittency C1 or scaling characteristics H(s), so the reader is more clear at the beginning of the reading.

I recommend publication after these minor changes.

Author Response

See attached file.

Your efforts are appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf