Articles | Volume 15, issue 22
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The measurement of mean wind, variances, and covariances from an instrumented mobile car in a rural environment
- Final revised paper (published on 17 Nov 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 13 Jun 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2022-163', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jul 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefan Miller, 25 Aug 2022
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2022-163', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jul 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefan Miller, 25 Aug 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Stefan Miller on behalf of the Authors (27 Aug 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (30 Aug 2022) by Cléo Quaresma Dias-Junior
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (19 Sep 2022)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (21 Sep 2022)
ED: Publish as is (21 Sep 2022) by Cléo Quaresma Dias-Junior
AR by Stefan Miller on behalf of the Authors (25 Sep 2022)  Author's response
AA: Author's adjustment | EA: Editor approval
AA by Stefan Miller on behalf of the Authors (04 Nov 2022) Author's adjustment Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (09 Nov 2022) by Cléo Quaresma Dias-Junior
The paper presents a thorough evaluation of mobile car-mounted turbulence measurements near the surface. The mobile measurements are compared with corresponding stationary tower data, which shows that the mobile system can provide satisfactory mean and turbulence data following a proper procedure for flow distortion correction. Furthermore, it is shown that using wavelet analysis for calculating higher order statistics of the mobile measurements can be more appropriate than the traditional eddy-covariance technique. The paper is well written and I recommend publication after minor review.
1. It is not clear how many measurement passes are made for each track.
2. ln 243: The authors should clarify how exactly the mobile data can have "a time series with a temporal length 11 times that of" the 1-km variance. Since the track length is 1 km, where does the additional data (the temporal equivalent of 10 km) come from?
3. lns 605-607 and 617: The interpretation of the confidence interval should be clarified. Why is one standard deviation related to the 95% confidence interval? Why is the confidence related to "not significantly different than 0" at ln 607 and "consistent with the tripod" at ln 617?
- ln 365: the sentence looks unfinished?
- ln 394: "Figure 6(a), (b) and (c) show..." - Such statements should be clear from figure captions and are not needed in the main text. Similar holds for other figures (e.g. Fig. 8).
- ln 478: delete one occurrence of "of the".
- Fig. 12b: x-axis should say "... sonic...".