On the Human Thermal Load in Fog

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

·     This is an interesting study, however it would be better if the authors can discuss the relevance and contribution of this work to the body of knowledge. There exist a few methodological concerns in the study. I am listing a few minor observations that the authors should address.

·       Lines 30-31 Reword the statement for clarity. Hope the authors referring to thermal comfort. Please clarify.

·       Lines 33-34 PET and UTCI are not models. They are indices. Please use appropriate terms.

·       Line 43- Please elaborate. The authors should define human thermal load and how it differs from thermal stress and comfort, for the benefit of the readers.

·       Authors should specify how human thermal load is calculated? Also specify about operative temperature and choice of index.

·       Line 57 – Add reference

·       Line 105 - Kindly specify the climate type and key information pertaining to the metrological variables.

·       Line 118 - Why are only males chosen from the dataset? Second why are children not considered?

·       Line 120 -  Authors state that the anthropometric data was taken from the Hungarian human data set. On what basis were these three samples drawn. Kindly clarify.

·       Line 128 - Where is the tabulation of the data? How were these two parameters measured?

·       Line 130 -  Authors should specify the weather conditions prevalent in terms of mean value of air temperature, relative humidity etc. during the study period. Also measurement period during the day should be specified.

·       The instrumentation setup with specifications should be indicated.

·       Line 133 - What do the authors mean by evolution of air temperature? Is it the variation? Please clarify.

·       The details pertaining to the fog events should be discussed.

·       Implication of solar radiation, mean radiant temperature are not discussed. It would be crucial to add the same.

·       Line 135 - Is this average air temperature?

·       Line 137 - Can specify average values additionally.

·       Line 153 - Please specify which human factors.

·       Line 170 - It will be interesting to see what ensembles represent 0.5 clo, 2.5 clo etc.

·       Line 283 - Please elaborate with reasoning.

Minor editing required.

Author Response

The Authors thank the Reviewer for the review and for the useful comments on the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript addresses the human thermal load in fog, a topic that has not been explored before. Therefore, the findings presented in this manuscript are significant. However, I struggled with the manuscript for the following reasons:

Main comments:

1.      In the introduction (lines 25-28), the authors summarize other studies on fog, but the references cited are relatively few. I suggest that the authors add the following references to enrich the content. Shao et al. (2023) and Wang et al. (2023) both delved into microphysics in fog. Gultepe et al. (2006) conducted classical research on fog visibility. Yan et al. (2019) and Yan et al. (2021) also explored the relationship between fog and air pollution.

2.     Are the samples selected in Table 1 representative? Why?

3.      In Figure 4, I recommend quantitatively analyzing the correlation between M_b and BMI. If possible, consider using a function to fit the relationship between M_b and BMI. This suggestion also applies to Figures 5, 7, 8, and 9.

4.      This paper focuses on human thermal load in fog. It is crucial to indicate the duration of fog in Figure 6 and concentrate on analyzing the physical processes occurring in the presence of fog.

Minor comments:

1.      There is an error in the citation of references in the main text. For instance, in line 79, when the referenced article is the subject of a sentence, it is necessary to include the author and publication time instead of just indicating the numbers in the reference list. Kindly correct all similar errors in the text.

2.      The format of the units needs to be modified. For example, there needs to be a space between 'm' and 's' in line 139. Please correct all similar errors in the text.

3.      Is the air temperature the average temperature for each fog process in Figure 2? I suggest the author make this clear in the manuscript.

4.      The subgraphs a and b in Figure 6 can be combined into a single image instead of being divided into two subgraphs, as the authors currently have them.

References

Gultepe, I., Müller, M. D., and Boybeyi, Z.: A new visibility parameterization for warm-fog applications in numerical weather prediction models, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 45, 1469-1480, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2423.1, 2006.

Shao, N., Lu, C., Jia, X., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Yin, Y., Zhu, B., Zhao, T., Liu, D., Niu, S., Fan, S., Yan, S., and Lv, J.: Radiation fog properties in two consecutive events under polluted and clean conditions in the Yangtze River Delta, China: a simulation study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9873-9890, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9873-2023, 2023.

Wang, Y., Lu, C., Niu, S., Lv, J., Jia, X., Xu, X., Xue, Y., Zhu, L., and Yan, S.: Diverse dispersion effects and parameterization of relative dispersion in urban fog in eastern China, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 128, e2022JD037514, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037514, 2023.

Yan, S., Zhu, B., and Kang, H.: Long‐Term Fog Variation and Its Impact Factors Over Polluted Regions of East China, J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 124, 1741-1754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029389, 2019.

Yan, S., Zhu, B., Zhu, T., Shi, C., Liu, D., Kang, H., Lu, W., and Lu, C.: The Effect of Aerosols on Fog Lifetime: Observational Evidence and Model Simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL61803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl091156, 2021.

Author Response

The Authors thank the Reviewer for the review and for the useful comments on the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled „On the human thermal load in fog”, authored by Kristof et al., assess the thermal stress during fog conditions in central Pannonian Basin, a very representative region for fog occurrence at continental scale. The study is interesting, bringing new information for the field of bioclimatology. Before publication I consider that some improvements are needed in order to better convey their conclusions.

Major comments:

1. The main issue of the actual form is that the analysis is too general. Some recommendation are made in this regard as specific comments, but also a comparison between fog and non-fog conditions would be very useful in underlying the specific thermal load during fog.  

2. The discussions part should be refined. Actually, in the current form no discussion is really made. The actual section should be assimilated in the results part in my opinion. Also, the relevance of the main findings for the field of human bioclimatology should be better presented.  

Specific comments:

1. In section 3.1 it should be clearly specified from the beginning if the authors used this model from literature and if they adapt it in a way or another. If the model is already used as it is presented here, the presentation could be shortened to the essential, by given the proper citations. Also, the authors should present how they implemented the model (using a software or by developing the application in a specific script).

2. In section 3.1 the authors should explain briefly for the reader the concept of clothing thermal resistance (clo) which varies between 0 and 2.5. Please explain what 0 and 2.5 means exactly for the human body. This information appears in the last paragraph of the Discussions, but in my opinion would be very useful for the reader to have this clarification earlier in the manuscript.

Minor comments:

L8: Please rewrite as “the thermal resistance of clothing (rcl), and operative temperature (To).” As, well please explain the acronym “clo” at its first use.

L17-18: Please be more specific, i.e:” We can see that fog events are very diverse concerning their thermal load from a bioclimatic perspective.” or adapt it according to your main idea that you want to convey. In the current form is too general.

In abstract you should summarize in a phrase, what exactly your study brings new by comparing briefly your results with other similar attempts from the scientific literature.

L23-28: Please rephrase avoiding the repetition of “fog” in the paragraph, which makes the text hardly readable.

The authors should firstly introduce and explain the notion of fog thermal load. 

L111: The phrase does not sound very English. Please rephrase!

L112: I suggest “Human body data” instead of “Human data”

L118: How representative are the data for these 3 selected people when compared with the overall population?

L132: It is not clear which is the time step of these observations. Are they daily/hourly observation? Please explain and clarify the text.

L276-277: Do we really need a scientific study to realize that: ”a person lying in the snow can get cold very quickly and is therefore in a life-threatening situation”? The findings of a scientific study should have more consistency than this.

In the reference list I suggest to mention “(in Hungarian)”, but firstly to give the English translation.  

Figures:

Figure 1: This map presents a molested version of Hungary’s map by the deformation of Lat-Lon axis. As well, you should specify the interval during which the observation have been made, at least in the text from L105-106.

In figure 2 it is recommended not using the term “evolution” since the observations are purely sampled from a larger time interval. Also, instead of this graph it would be more recommended to group the observations by month or season and to show some more general air temperature features at these larger time intervals. The same comment is valuable for Figure 3. A general descriptive statistic by season with max/min, mean or stdv values will be indicated in order to understand better the variability of weather during fog events. Also, a similar descriptive statistics for non-fog conditions would be very useful for a meaningful comparison.

For Figure 4 you should give citation for [42], since you use their data.

Some English refinements are needed.

Author Response

The Authors thank the Reviewer for the review and for the useful comments on the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

no more comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors delivered firm responses to my comments and suggestions and they have revised the manuscript in many and relevant parts. Thus, I agree with the publication of the revised version.

Minor improvements are possible.