Multiple technical observations of the atmospheric boundary layer structure of a red-alert haze episode in Beijing

Shi, Yu; Hu, Fei; Fan, Guangqiang; Zhang, Zhe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4887-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4887-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-4887-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

Research article

|

11 Sep 2019

Research article |

| 11 Sep 2019

Multiple technical observations of the atmospheric boundary layer structure of a red-alert haze episode in Beijing

Yu Shi, Fei Hu, Guangqiang Fan, and Zhe Zhang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Sep 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Jan 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Multiple technical observations of the atmospheric boundary layer structure of a red warning haze episode in Beijing"', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Feb 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to the reviewer's comments and attach the revised paper', Fei Hu, 21 Mar 2019
- AC4: 'Re-send our new replies to your review comments and the new revised papers', Fei Hu, 15 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Recommendation', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Mar 2019
- AC2: 'our revised paper', Fei Hu, 15 Apr 2019
RC3: 'Multiple technical observations of the atmospheric boundary layer structure of a red warning haze episode in Beijing', Guenter Baumbach, 29 Mar 2019
- AC5: 'Response to Prof. Guenter Baumbach', Fei Hu, 29 Apr 2019
AC3: 'Reply to your review comments and revised paper', Fei Hu, 15 Apr 2019
AC4: 'Re-send our new replies to your review comments and the new revised papers', Fei Hu, 15 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Fei Hu on behalf of the Authors (29 Apr 2019) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 May 2019) by Laura Bianco

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (02 Jul 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

First of all, I commend the authors for seriously considering many of the comments on the previous version of the manuscript. It is clear that the authors have taken much time and effort to improve the quality of the paper and addressed many of the concerns I have initially raised. However, there are still several outstanding issues in the manuscript that remain before this paper is acceptable for final publication in AMT. I recommend that this paper can be reconsidered for acceptance pending the following concerns are adequately addressed. The readability of this paper would also benefit from extensive English editing.

Major comment:
a) The methodology for determining the ABL height from the WPR is still not appropriate to use for the boundary-layer types here. The method used only applies to LLJ situations wherein there is strong and nearly linear wind shear from the surface to the LLJ nose (see the Banta, 2008 paper). In the profiles shown in Figs. 6/7, the wind maxima is generally disconnected from the surface as indicated by the low-wind speeds between the surface and 200-500m, above which the wind speed increases with heights. Thus these low-level wind maxima are likely not boundary-layer phenomena, and the WPR method is inappropriate to use to determine the ABL height. Given this limitation, it would be best to eliminate the WPR ABL height analysis from the manuscript as the methodology is not appropriate in this environment. At the very least, the authors need to directly address this in the manuscript when describing the technique and again when describing the results as a likely reason for why the WPR ABL height is such an outlier compared to the radiosonde and lidar heights.

Specific comments:
a) Fig. 1: It would be helpful to put a box around the geographical area in panel (a) that shown in panel (b).
b) P. 4 line 12: Add a sentence or two here discussing the blind zone/minimum range of the lidar and at what height the lidar data is first reliable.
c) P. 10 line 10 – P.11 line 2: Please clarify the statements “If we were to … based on the Lidar system.” This reader is unsure what exactly the authors are referring to. I believe the authors are simply stating that the lidar ABL height is unreliable when there was little pollution in the air, which this reviewer agrees with given the data shown in Fig. 4.

Editorial corrections:
a) P.2 line 30: Change ‘basically stable’ to ‘often stable’.
b) P.5 line 15 and throughout: When ranges are given, use a dash (-) instead of a tilde, i.e. 200-300 instead of 200~300.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Jul 2019) by Laura Bianco

AR by Fei Hu on behalf of the Authors (23 Jul 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Jul 2019) by Laura Bianco

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Jul 2019)

ED: Publish as is (02 Aug 2019) by Laura Bianco

AR by Fei Hu on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

In this paper, the boundary layer structure, and especially turbulence characteristics, were studied during a severe pollution episode. The data were taken from multiple observation techniques, such as lidar, wind profiler radar, radiosonde and a 325 m meteorological tower. Vertical distribution of wind and temperature, evolution of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) height, and turbulent flux quantities were compared and analyzed.