Evaluating the performance of two surface layer schemes for the momentum and heat exchange processes during severe haze pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji in eastern China

Peng, Yue; Wang, Hong; Li, Yubin; Liu, Changwei; Zhao, Tianliang; Zhang, Xiaoye; Gao, Zhiqiu; Jiang, Tong; Che, Huizheng; Zhang, Meng

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17421-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 23

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17421-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Regional transport and transformation of air pollution in...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17421-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 23

Research article

|

10 Dec 2018

Research article |

| 10 Dec 2018

Evaluating the performance of two surface layer schemes for the momentum and heat exchange processes during severe haze pollution in Jing-Jin-Ji in eastern China

Yue Peng, Hong Wang, Yubin Li, Changwei Liu, Tianliang Zhao, Xiaoye Zhang, Zhiqiu Gao, Tong Jiang, Huizheng Che, and Meng Zhang

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 Dec 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Apr 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 May 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #3', Yue Peng, 14 Aug 2018
RC2: 'Review of “The evaluating study of the momentum and heat exchange process of two surface layer schemes during the severe haze pollution in east China” by Peng et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 May 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to Anonymous Referee #2', Yue Peng, 14 Aug 2018

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Yue Peng on behalf of the Authors (14 Aug 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Sep 2018) by Zhanqing Li

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Sep 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (03 Oct 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors were very responsive and have done a lot of work to address the concerns from the reviewers. All my major questions and concerns have been well addressed in details. The paper has been significantly improved and I recommend acceptance for publication after some minor/technical revisions/corrections. Note that there are still a lot of grammar errors or typos and I may not be able to identify all of them. A thorough editing is still required.
Minor suggestions or technical corrections:
1. Abstract: Since the title mentions about the severe haze pollution, it should be identified in the abstract that the evaluation was done for haze cases.

2. Lines 19-21, “The pollutants prediction by atmosphere chemical model exist obvious deficiencies, which may be closely related to the uncertainties of the momentum and sensible heat fluxes calculated in the surface layer”: Here “prediction”, not “pollutants”, is a singular subject and hence a singular verb “exists” should be used.

3. Line 26, “the algorithms of universal functions”: universal functions for what? surface fluxes? Please specify.

4. Lines 60-61, “Many international scholars verified the MOST using of field experiments”: Do the authors mean “Many international scholars verified the MOST using field experiments”?

5. Line 75, “have” should be “has”.

6. Lines 80-82, “The observed momentum and sensible heat flux data covering once complete haze process at Gucheng station was used to evalute the two schemes focsuing on the transition stage from unstable to stable atmospheric stratification corresponding to the PM2.5 accumulation”: “once” should be “one”; “was”: should be “were”; “evaluate” should be “evaluate”; “focsuing” should be “focusing”.

7. Lines 90-91: The period “.” after the equation should be a comma “,”, and “Where” should not be capitalized. Check all the other equations in which “where” is used.

8. Line 92: A comma “,” needs to be added in front of “respectively”.

9. Line 93: The subject “they” can be omitted.

10. Line 99: do the authors mean “from at least two levels”?

11. Line 101: “employ” should be “employs”.

12. Line 112: should “universe” be “universal”?

13. Line 183: add “were” before “measured”.

14. Section 3: It is my understanding that this study focuses on the impact of the surface flux parameterization on air pollution modeling. Therefore, the haze pollution case(s) or episode(s) should also be briefly described in this section.

15. Line 370: “results in” should be “result in”.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (17 Oct 2018) by Zhanqing Li

AR by Yue Peng on behalf of the Authors (26 Oct 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Nov 2018) by Zhanqing Li

AR by Yue Peng on behalf of the Authors (14 Nov 2018)

ED: Publish as is (27 Nov 2018) by Zhanqing Li

AR by Yue Peng on behalf of the Authors (28 Nov 2018)

Short summary

Two surface layer schemes are evaluated in eastern China based on observational flux data. The results indicate that the Li scheme better describes regional atmosphere stratification compared with the MM5 scheme, especially for the transition stage from unstable to stable atmosphere conditions, corresponding to PM_2.5 accumulation. Our research suggests the potential improved possibilities for severe haze prediction in eastern China by coupling Li online into atmosphere chemical models.