Wind Farm Wakes from SAR and Doppler Radar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
The abstract and introduction need to be reviewed for grammatical edits as parts are difficult to read. I found the remainder of the paper easier to read. Please review the abstract and introduction sections. Example: Page 2, Line 46: “Wakes extend between few and tens of kilometers behind wind farms depending on atmospheric conditions are commonly observed in these images.” Many of the figures lack titles. Please correct.
Comments:
Abstract Page 1, Line 13: Consider revising "we can retrieve the structure of the wind farm close to the wind farm from SAR" to "we can retrieve the structure of the wake field close to the wind farm from SAR" Introduction Page 1, Line 40: change "with" to "within" Page 2, Line 42: airplane should be one word
Page 2, Line 51: "due to a lack of in situ observations" seems contradictory as you go on to list experiments that compare satellites to surface remote sensing measurements or SCADA. Consider revising or adding some additional text to define what you mean by in situ. Location and Data Figure 2 is referenced in the text prior to Figure 1, which seems odd to me. Figure 1: It is hard to see the turbine clusters, at least from my printed copy. Consider highlighting the turbines somehow.
Page 3, Line 118: Reference not found.
Page 4, Line 130: It is not clear what determines "sufficient coverage". It becomes clear later in the paper, but it is not clear at this stage of the document. Please add text to describe the coverage limitations.
Page 4, Line 141: CFSR is not defined at this point (acronym). Please define. This section also seems very small. Consider combining the previous subsection and leaving the parent section titled Ancillary Data Methods
Page 5, Line 149: CMOD is not defined (acronym). In the SAR wind retrieval section, you refer to the GFS model for wind direction, however, you mention earlier that you use SCADA for classifying SAR images. This is confusing to this reader and it is unclear how the wind direction is determined for the purposes of this study. Please clarify.
Page 5, Line 162: “Wind retrievals within a buffer of 500m …” It is not apparent from the images that this is the case. Nor does it agree with some of the qualitative analysis later (Page 7, Line 213), which states that the deficit is visible between rows of turbines.
Page 5: Equation is not labeled. Also, please denote in the equation that the [*] is for the ‘up’ region in this case. Case Studies
Page 6, Line 188,189: Section 0 does not exist.
Page 8, Line 267: ‘x’ is not defined in the text but is in the caption of Figure 6. Please add the definition to the text. Figure 6: Since the Udr at 50 meters is not available, consider removing from 6c or grey out the text in the legend.
Page 10, Line 292: “measurements Doppler measurements”, double word Page 11, Line 340: “locates peaks” is not accurate. Peaks are apparent in the data after the alignment process. Could you show or discuss the distance between the peaks to indicate that they are correlated with the turbine separation distances?
Page 13, Line 348: “and the wind direction are very similar”
Page 14, Line 380: Please include some references regarding the power law and assumptions about the stability (greater than or less than 1/7). Page 14, Line 384: Without some additional context, it is difficult to understand how 0.07 is near neutral or unstable and -0.02 is unstable. The general guidance provided indicates that anything below 1/7 (or 0.14) is unstable. Both values appear to be well below this threshold.
Page 15, Table 2: VD is not defined (acronym). Overview Figure 13: There appears to be a small negative bias in the deficit for the upstream/side DR and SAR cases. Thoughts on why that would be?
Page 18, Line 493: “while being displaced farther downstream”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attached answer to your comments.
Best regards,
the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
This manuscript with titled “
Wind farm wakes from SAR and Doppler radar”. I have read and I believe that this manuscript will be needed major revision before waiting for the next step. Please see the details below.
In general
Table 1 should be improved quality
Line 118: check mistakes
Figure 6 should be cited before Figure (Line 275)
The poor literature review so it needs to add more information about Sentinel 1 that have applied in other fields as well as detection of Windfarm. Why did the authors use Sentinel 1 to detect wind farms? How about other Satellite images? It needs to show the advantage of using Sentinel compare to other Radar images also. By the way, I did not clear your objectives although the authors showed the structure of the manuscript so that please make it clear.
Conclusion: The authors should concentrate on what should your study have done. It needs to make the sense of your completion of the study, is it useful for what/whom? The poor discussion and I still confuse about your result it maybe not completely …..
Questions
Did the authors identify vertical atmospheric boundary layer flow? The authors should show a sketch of wind turbines includes an atmospheric boundary layer flow concept. Please make a clear concept of your study. How did the authors calibrate or validate the wind turbine between SAR data and Doppler? Only it was shown in the charts? It needs to quantify how good it fitness between them (for example RMSR, NASH, etc.)Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attached answer to your comments.
Best regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
