Model-based aviation advice on distal volcanic ash clouds by
assimilating aircraft in situ measurements

Fu, Guangliang; Heemink, Arnold; Lu, Sha; Segers, Arjo; Weber, Konradin; Lin, Hai-Xiang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9189-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 14

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9189-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-9189-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 14

Research article

|

26 Jul 2016

Research article |

| 26 Jul 2016

Model-based aviation advice on distal volcanic ash clouds by assimilating aircraft in situ measurements

Guangliang Fu, Arnold Heemink, Sha Lu, Arjo Segers, Konradin Weber, and Hai-Xiang Lin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Jul 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Mar 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2016
- AC1: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #1', Guangliang Fu, 29 Apr 2016
RC2: 'Interactice comment on acp-2016-166 - "Model-based aviation advice on distal volcanic ash clouds by assimilating aircraft in-situ measurements"', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 May 2016
- AC2: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #2', Guangliang Fu, 30 May 2016

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Guangliang Fu on behalf of the Authors (31 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Jun 2016) by Philip Stier

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Jun 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised manuscripts clarifies the questions raised in my original review. I'm fine with moving towards publication, although the manuscript should though be professionally proof-read. We note below some technical corrections, but a close edit of the entire manuscript is in order.

2.13 “thus are lack of sufficient” —> “and thus lack sufficient”

2.18 “They have some..measured.”
These are two separate sentences separated by a comma.

2.20 Correct to: “…the in-situ aircraft measurements can be compared…”

2.21 “Whereas” —> “In contrast, ’’

2.25 “beforehand designed” —> “designed beforehand”

2.27 “appropriate” —> “useful”

4.8 and Table 1; PM10 typically represents all PM with diameter less than 10um, which would be equal to the sum, vash_5 + vash_6.

4.11 “Where the transport is determined by the wind fields that could be regarded as rather well known, the other processes deposition and sedimentation processes are rather uncertain.”
—> Needs correction for grammar.

4.12-14 “The parameterizations for the later processes involve assumptions on the particle distribution for example, which is difficult to summarize in a few numbers of bins.”

—> “For example, the parameterizations for the latter processes include assumptions about the particle distribution, which are difficult to summarize in a few bins.”

4.17-19 “Processes that are missing yet are for example coagulation, evaporation, and resuspension, which might be considered in future when appropriate observations
are available to constrain them, for example sedimentation amounts.”
—> Needs correction for grammar.

7.4-7 How do you handle missing observations when a grid-cell value is compared to an average of fewer observations? For example, if you have 20 observations per grid cell normally, but 15 of the observations are missing, do you take any extra steps or does that scenario not come up in your problem?

7.17-18 If high accuracy is supposed to mean very close, then just say that to begin with.

8.1-2 “…which is a sign of consistency to the measurement locations.”
Can the authors please clarify what the mean?

10.24 Do you mean plume or cloud boundaries? If the author means “cloud”, there are no figures to support that claim. If plume, then it is not surprising that only small differences are seen where there is not much mass to begin with (on the edges of plumes), since there weren’t any low bias model values in the prior. A more interesting conclusion might relate to how the forecast difference behaves in regions containing freshly emitted PM.

11.8 “that data assimilation approach is able to compensate the”—> “that the data assimilation approach used herein is able to compensate some of the”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (12 Jul 2016) by Philip Stier