Articles | Volume 13, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3439-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The NY-Ålesund TurbulencE Fiber Optic eXperiment (NYTEFOX): investigating the Arctic boundary layer, Svalbard
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 14 Jul 2021)
- Preprint (discussion started on 17 Feb 2021)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-37', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Mar 2021
- CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marie-Louise Zeller, 11 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-37', Ian Brooks, 11 Mar 2021
- CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marie-Louise Zeller, 11 Mar 2021
- AC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-37', Jannis-Michael Huss, 12 May 2021
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
AR by Jannis-Michael Huss on behalf of the Authors (13 May 2021)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (31 May 2021) by David Carlson
AR by Jannis-Michael Huss on behalf of the Authors (08 Jun 2021)
Manuscript
The manuscript addresses near-surface meteorological observations during an extensive field campaign carried out in Ny Ålesund, Svalbard, in late winter 2020. The focus is on the Fiber-Optic Distributed Sensing (FODS) technique, which is a rather novel method for wind observations (more used for temperature observations). The FODS system is very well integrated with other meteorological in-situ and remote sensing observations carried out during the campaign in Ny Ålesund. It is impressive that the FODS method worked so well in very low temperatures, down to -30 deg C. I consider the manuscript excellent, with an impressive clarity and organization in presenting the observations, data gathered, error sources, corrections, and post-processing of the data. Further, the scientific motivation is very well presented for all measurements taken and how they complement each other. The figures are well planned and clear. The link to the data set works, and the data are well organized and publicly available. Throughout the manuscript, the text is very carefully written and it is hard to find errrors or issues to be criticised. I only request to add a table summarizing the accuracy of various observations made during the campaign.