- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 On “A comparison of optical and microwave scintillometers with eddy covariance derived surface heat fluxes”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 77
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “A comparison of optical and microwave scintillometers with eddy covariance derived surface heat fluxes”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation: Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: Review of the manuscript “A comparison of optical and microwave scintillometers with eddy covariance derived surface heat fluxes” by Yee et al., manuscript number AGRFORMET-D-1500215 General remarks This manuscript describes a comparison between scintillometers and tower-based eddy covariance (EC) measurements, using two different scintillometers operating in the optical spectral range and two instruments operating in the microwave range. Moreover, different methods to derive surface fluxes from scintillometry using one or two wavelength and using energy balance information or not were investigated. Particularly for the latent heat flux, it is not clear yet, which method works best under which conditions. Hence, the study provides an important contribution to provide further insights on this open issue. The manuscript is well written and clearly structured. The presented results are instructive and discussed appropriately in the context of the available literature. Only a few minor points need further attention. Minor remarks L52: The Blyth et al. reference is probably not the best reference for the EC method. Rather use Kaimal and Finnigan (1994) for example.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.07.004. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.01.090
L60: Please refer also to the new paper by van Kesteren et al. (2015), and discuss your results in the light of their findings, particularly for the BLS900. L212: Please use orthogonal regression in order to account for errors in both variables; otherwise the resulting slopes will be too low. L293: The cross reference to Figure 3 is missing in the text. Figure 3456 Please state in the figure caption what is a), b), c) and d). L327: It is hard to believe that EC derived latent heat fluxes can be that wrong: please be more specific. L329: Why did you not use specific humidity then? L411: Is this perhaps an indication for un-isotropic turbulence? References Kaimal, J. C. and Finnigan, J. J. Atmospheric Boundary Layer Flows: Their Structure and Measurement. 289. 1994. New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Van Kesteren, B., Beyrich, F., Hartogensis, O. K., and Braam, M. Long-Term Evaluation of the Scintec Boundary-Layer Scintillometer and the Wageningen Large-Aperture Scintillometer: Implications for Scintillometer Users. Boundary-Layer Meteorology. Boundary-Layer Meteor, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10546015-0023-y. 2015. Anonymous
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 On “A comparison of optical and microwave scintillometers with eddy covariance derived surface heat fluxes”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation: Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: Review of the manuscript “A comparison of optical and microwave scintillometers with eddy covariance derived surface heat fluxes” by Yee et al., manuscript number AGRFORMET-D-1500215 General remarks This manuscript describes a comparison between scintillometers and tower-based eddy covariance (EC) measurements, using two different scintillometers operating in the optical spectral range and two instruments operating in the microwave range. Moreover, different methods to derive surface fluxes from scintillometry using one or two wavelength and using energy balance information or not were investigated. Particularly for the latent heat flux, it is not clear yet, which method works best under which conditions. Hence, the study provides an important contribution to provide further insights on this open issue. The manuscript is well written and clearly structured. The presented results are instructive and discussed appropriately in the context of the available literature. Only a few minor points need further attention. Minor remarks L52: The Blyth et al. reference is probably not the best reference for the EC method. Rather use Kaimal and Finnigan (1994) for example.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.07.004. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.01.090
L60: Please refer also to the new paper by van Kesteren et al. (2015), and discuss your results in the light of their findings, particularly for the BLS900. L212: Please use orthogonal regression in order to account for errors in both variables; otherwise the resulting slopes will be too low. L293: The cross reference to Figure 3 is missing in the text. Figure 3456 Please state in the figure caption what is a), b), c) and d). L327: It is hard to believe that EC derived latent heat fluxes can be that wrong: please be more specific. L329: Why did you not use specific humidity then? L411: Is this perhaps an indication for un-isotropic turbulence? References Kaimal, J. C. and Finnigan, J. J. Atmospheric Boundary Layer Flows: Their Structure and Measurement. 289. 1994. New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Van Kesteren, B., Beyrich, F., Hartogensis, O. K., and Braam, M. Long-Term Evaluation of the Scintec Boundary-Layer Scintillometer and the Wageningen Large-Aperture Scintillometer: Implications for Scintillometer Users. Boundary-Layer Meteorology. Boundary-Layer Meteor, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10546015-0023-y. 2015. Anonymous