the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Average visibility that has been miscalculated
- Key Laboratory for Aerosol-Cloud-Precipitation of China Meteorological Administration, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China
- Key Laboratory for Aerosol-Cloud-Precipitation of China Meteorological Administration, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China
Abstract. Visibility data are fundamental meteorological data widely used in many fields such as climate change, atmospheric radiation, atmospheric pollution, and environmental health. Calculating the average visibility is typically the first step when using visibility data. However, this study proves that the algorithm previously used to calculate average visibility is incorrect, leading to a non-negligible error in average visibility data. Moreover, the use of this incorrect algorithm not only artificially reduces the reliability of visibility data, but also affects the credibility and even the correctness of the conclusions reached in previous studies using visibility data. Therefore, we present the correct algorithm for average visibility, which should be applied to both future and previous research to significantly increase the reliability and application scope of visibility data.
Zefeng Zhang et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2022-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Apr 2022
General comments
The authors proved that the algorithm previously used to estimate average visibility is incorrect, and it causes the problems in previous studies related to reliability and credibility. I don’t think it is a ‘correct’ method to calculate the average of the visibility and other methods in the previous studies were incorrect. In this study, I wonder what the definition of the terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ is. I prefer to utilize the term ‘an improved method.’ In my opinion, it is one of the scientific methods for investigating the natural world instead of the absolutely correct way to estimate the average visibility.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2022-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2022
Major comments
This study claims to provide correct algorithm for calculating average visibility. The authors also argued that the methods used in previous studies were not correct.
First of all, I don't agree with the title of the paper. Saying “Average visibility that has been miscalculated” is completely wrong. There is no evidence that previous studies miscalculated visibility, so the paper's title is misleading. I agree with reviewer 1, making the claim that this study provides a correct method is not appropriate, while it may be one of the methods to calculate visibility.
The message of the current manuscript is misleading, therefore it should not be considered for publication. The authors should rewrite the manuscript by proposing their algorithm as one of the methods of calculating visibility. However, again it is a question of how reliable the proposed method is. If the authors take the issue raised carefully and resubmit the manuscript, I can review it again for any possibility of publication in the AMT.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2022-74', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Apr 2022
General comments
The authors proved that the algorithm previously used to estimate average visibility is incorrect, and it causes the problems in previous studies related to reliability and credibility. I don’t think it is a ‘correct’ method to calculate the average of the visibility and other methods in the previous studies were incorrect. In this study, I wonder what the definition of the terms ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ is. I prefer to utilize the term ‘an improved method.’ In my opinion, it is one of the scientific methods for investigating the natural world instead of the absolutely correct way to estimate the average visibility.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2022-74', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2022
Major comments
This study claims to provide correct algorithm for calculating average visibility. The authors also argued that the methods used in previous studies were not correct.
First of all, I don't agree with the title of the paper. Saying “Average visibility that has been miscalculated” is completely wrong. There is no evidence that previous studies miscalculated visibility, so the paper's title is misleading. I agree with reviewer 1, making the claim that this study provides a correct method is not appropriate, while it may be one of the methods to calculate visibility.
The message of the current manuscript is misleading, therefore it should not be considered for publication. The authors should rewrite the manuscript by proposing their algorithm as one of the methods of calculating visibility. However, again it is a question of how reliable the proposed method is. If the authors take the issue raised carefully and resubmit the manuscript, I can review it again for any possibility of publication in the AMT.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2022-74/amt-2022-74-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', zhang zefeng, 19 May 2022
Zefeng Zhang et al.
Zefeng Zhang et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 387 | 104 | 20 | 511 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 387
- PDF: 104
- XML: 20
- Total: 511
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1