the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Mar 2021
Atmospheric Optical Turbulence Profile Measurement and Model Improvement over Arid and Semi-arid regions
Abstract. From August 4th to 30th, 2020 and from November 27th to December 25th, 2020, a self-developed radiosonde balloon system was used to observe high-altitude atmospheric optical turbulence at three sites in northwestern China, and an improved model based on the observational data was established. Through comparative analysis of the observational data and the improved model, the distribution characteristics of atmospheric optical turbulence under the combined action of different meteorological parameters and different landform features in different seasons were obtained. The improved model can show the variation of the detailed characteristics of turbulence with the height distribution, and the degree of correlation with the measured values is above 0.82. The improved model can provide a theoretical basis and supporting data for turbulence estimation and forecasting in northwestern China.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(1755 KB)
-
Supplement
(7726 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1755 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(7726 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-55', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Apr 2021
General comments:
Based on the observation experiments of atmospheric optical turbulence at three sites on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China, the authors obtained the distribution characteristics of atmospheric optical turbulence under different seasons over different underlying surfaces. In particular, they found that the distribution characteristics of atmospheric optical turbulence under the influence of penetrating convection and subtropical jet are different. Based on the HMNSP99 model, an improved local model is proposed. While there are some issues should be addressed. As you mentioned, much work has been carried out by researchers on the parameterization and model forecasting of atmospheric optical turbulence, please reorganize and summarize the lines of 43-54 in introduction section, while not list one by one. Particularly, you should compare their advantage or disadvantage or differences with your present results, and then make an in-depth discussion and give your implications in a discussion section. In addition, the results can not be clearly derived in figure 2, due to busy sub figures, please reorganize figure 2 for readerships. Generally speaking, the manuscript is scientific sound and well written and organized. I recommend to accept it after minor revision.
Specific commentsï¼
- lines 56–57:’ …Northwestern China has a typical arid and semi-arid climate…’should be more appropriate
- line 62: Lots of ‘carried out’ has been used. Should be ’conducted’ .
- line 93: fronts in figure1c are too small to be seen clearly, please reorganize figure1
- line 138: Please change it to ’ … h is the height above…’.
- line 151: What is the unit of A?
- line 162: Please change it to ’ … by different outer-scale models show…’.
- line 166: Please change it to ’ … observational results at the three sites, 56 radiosonde’s data with good signal…’.
- lines 169–70: This sentence is incorrect, please change it to ’Inserting the improved model into equation 4, we can obtain the estimated ’
- lines 174,201,204: Please change’ observation data’ to ’ observational data ’’.
- The abbreviation of the average value of the meteorological parameters in Figure 2 should be described in the figure title.
- line 240: Please be consistent and change’ (Figures 2p–r).’ to’ (Figs. 2p–r)’.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-55', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Apr 2021
The paper presents measurements performed with a self-developed radiosonde during a month-long field campaign to observe high-altitude atmospheric optical turbulence at three sites in northwestern China. Based on these data an improved model for the estimate of the atmosphere refractive index structure constant was developed. The paper is potentially interesting, but there are some aspects, both regarding the analysis of the data and the fitting of the empirical model that should be clarified, before the paper can be suitable for publication.
Major remarks
1) In the analysis of the data there are some points with which I do not completely agree:
- a) In several parts it is written that the upper part of the troposphere is influenced by the presence of a subtropical jet. Given the latitude of the sites and the season (winter), I think that the high wind speed at these heights is connected with the polar jet stream and not with the subtropical jet stream.
- b) In several parts it is written that the observations highlight the presence of penetrating convection into the stratosphere during wintertime. This is not clear from the data presented and in particular I am honestly very skeptical about the presence of penetrating convection in winter in that part of China. This part should be discussed in detail and comparisons with similar cases should be reported.
- c) Data should be reported with respect to the height above sea level and not with respect to the height above ground level. In this way data can be directly compared.
2) In the analysis of data there are some points that are rather obvious and do not need to be highlighted:
- a) on page 7, line 192 it is written that “the atmospheric pressure was gradually decreasing”. If this sentence refers to the fact that the atmospheric pressure decreases with height (with an exponential profile), this is of course obvious.
- b) it is also obvious that the stratosphere is more stable than the troposphere (page 8, line 242).
3) It is not completely clear to me the significance of the results presented in Fig. 5. In particular, I do not understand why, if I have understood correctly, results presented in Fig. 4 refer to a total of 56 profiles, while the results presented in Fig. 5 refer to 6 profiles only (2 for each site). I would like to see some more details about the procedure followed to fit the data presented in these two figures, to better understand what is the added value of the new formulation proposed and in particular if this can be valid also for other situations both in the same location or in other (at least similar) locations.
4) In Figure 4 it is evident an enhanced vertical variability of Cn2 in Golmud with respect to the other two sites. On the one hand, this high vertical variability is suspicious since this is an average profile from 19 profiles. On the other hand, if this is a real feature, it should be commented.
Minor remarks
Page 2, line 46: space is missing between “al.” and “(1964)”.
Page 2, line 75: I would not define “long-term” a month-long field campaign.
Page 4, equation 3: it should be 10-6 and not 10-5.
Page 4, line 138: space between “h” and “is” is missing.
Page 5, line 147: Hufnagel-VallEy model.
Page 5, equation 5: check this formula.
Page 5, lines 169-170: this formula is not for the estimated Cn2 value.
Page 7, lines 192-193: “the pressure was stable without obvious diurnal changes”: what do you mean with diurnal changes? From measurements performed twice a day you cannot appreciate diurnal changes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-RC2 -
AC1: 'Description of the situation to withdraw amt-2021-55', Hao Yang, 20 Apr 2021
Description of the situation
Our group has been submitted “Atmospheric Optical Turbulence Profile Measurement and Model Improvement over Arid and Semi-arid regions”(amt-2021-55) to journal “Atmospheric Measurement Techniques”.Because our article (amt-2021-55) involved multiple institutes ,we haven't discuss who was the first author institute.Hence, we decide to withdraw this manuscript.
I am sorry to make this decision.Please understand our condition.I hope that I have chance to get a rapid publication in this journal in future.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-AC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2021-55', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Apr 2021
General comments:
Based on the observation experiments of atmospheric optical turbulence at three sites on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China, the authors obtained the distribution characteristics of atmospheric optical turbulence under different seasons over different underlying surfaces. In particular, they found that the distribution characteristics of atmospheric optical turbulence under the influence of penetrating convection and subtropical jet are different. Based on the HMNSP99 model, an improved local model is proposed. While there are some issues should be addressed. As you mentioned, much work has been carried out by researchers on the parameterization and model forecasting of atmospheric optical turbulence, please reorganize and summarize the lines of 43-54 in introduction section, while not list one by one. Particularly, you should compare their advantage or disadvantage or differences with your present results, and then make an in-depth discussion and give your implications in a discussion section. In addition, the results can not be clearly derived in figure 2, due to busy sub figures, please reorganize figure 2 for readerships. Generally speaking, the manuscript is scientific sound and well written and organized. I recommend to accept it after minor revision.
Specific commentsï¼
- lines 56–57:’ …Northwestern China has a typical arid and semi-arid climate…’should be more appropriate
- line 62: Lots of ‘carried out’ has been used. Should be ’conducted’ .
- line 93: fronts in figure1c are too small to be seen clearly, please reorganize figure1
- line 138: Please change it to ’ … h is the height above…’.
- line 151: What is the unit of A?
- line 162: Please change it to ’ … by different outer-scale models show…’.
- line 166: Please change it to ’ … observational results at the three sites, 56 radiosonde’s data with good signal…’.
- lines 169–70: This sentence is incorrect, please change it to ’Inserting the improved model into equation 4, we can obtain the estimated ’
- lines 174,201,204: Please change’ observation data’ to ’ observational data ’’.
- The abbreviation of the average value of the meteorological parameters in Figure 2 should be described in the figure title.
- line 240: Please be consistent and change’ (Figures 2p–r).’ to’ (Figs. 2p–r)’.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2021-55', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Apr 2021
The paper presents measurements performed with a self-developed radiosonde during a month-long field campaign to observe high-altitude atmospheric optical turbulence at three sites in northwestern China. Based on these data an improved model for the estimate of the atmosphere refractive index structure constant was developed. The paper is potentially interesting, but there are some aspects, both regarding the analysis of the data and the fitting of the empirical model that should be clarified, before the paper can be suitable for publication.
Major remarks
1) In the analysis of the data there are some points with which I do not completely agree:
- a) In several parts it is written that the upper part of the troposphere is influenced by the presence of a subtropical jet. Given the latitude of the sites and the season (winter), I think that the high wind speed at these heights is connected with the polar jet stream and not with the subtropical jet stream.
- b) In several parts it is written that the observations highlight the presence of penetrating convection into the stratosphere during wintertime. This is not clear from the data presented and in particular I am honestly very skeptical about the presence of penetrating convection in winter in that part of China. This part should be discussed in detail and comparisons with similar cases should be reported.
- c) Data should be reported with respect to the height above sea level and not with respect to the height above ground level. In this way data can be directly compared.
2) In the analysis of data there are some points that are rather obvious and do not need to be highlighted:
- a) on page 7, line 192 it is written that “the atmospheric pressure was gradually decreasing”. If this sentence refers to the fact that the atmospheric pressure decreases with height (with an exponential profile), this is of course obvious.
- b) it is also obvious that the stratosphere is more stable than the troposphere (page 8, line 242).
3) It is not completely clear to me the significance of the results presented in Fig. 5. In particular, I do not understand why, if I have understood correctly, results presented in Fig. 4 refer to a total of 56 profiles, while the results presented in Fig. 5 refer to 6 profiles only (2 for each site). I would like to see some more details about the procedure followed to fit the data presented in these two figures, to better understand what is the added value of the new formulation proposed and in particular if this can be valid also for other situations both in the same location or in other (at least similar) locations.
4) In Figure 4 it is evident an enhanced vertical variability of Cn2 in Golmud with respect to the other two sites. On the one hand, this high vertical variability is suspicious since this is an average profile from 19 profiles. On the other hand, if this is a real feature, it should be commented.
Minor remarks
Page 2, line 46: space is missing between “al.” and “(1964)”.
Page 2, line 75: I would not define “long-term” a month-long field campaign.
Page 4, equation 3: it should be 10-6 and not 10-5.
Page 4, line 138: space between “h” and “is” is missing.
Page 5, line 147: Hufnagel-VallEy model.
Page 5, equation 5: check this formula.
Page 5, lines 169-170: this formula is not for the estimated Cn2 value.
Page 7, lines 192-193: “the pressure was stable without obvious diurnal changes”: what do you mean with diurnal changes? From measurements performed twice a day you cannot appreciate diurnal changes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-RC2 -
AC1: 'Description of the situation to withdraw amt-2021-55', Hao Yang, 20 Apr 2021
Description of the situation
Our group has been submitted “Atmospheric Optical Turbulence Profile Measurement and Model Improvement over Arid and Semi-arid regions”(amt-2021-55) to journal “Atmospheric Measurement Techniques”.Because our article (amt-2021-55) involved multiple institutes ,we haven't discuss who was the first author institute.Hence, we decide to withdraw this manuscript.
I am sorry to make this decision.Please understand our condition.I hope that I have chance to get a rapid publication in this journal in future.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2021-55-AC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 839 | 411 | 49 | 1,299 | 75 | 45 | 50 |
- HTML: 839
- PDF: 411
- XML: 49
- Total: 1,299
- Supplement: 75
- BibTeX: 45
- EndNote: 50
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Zhiyuan Fang
Cheng Li
Xu Deng
Kunming Xing
Chenbo Xie
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(1755 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(7726 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote