Investigating Suppression of Cloud Return with a Novel Optical Configuration of a Doppler Lidar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors report on the transmitted and received rays with no interference using the polarizer for the suppression of cloud return. This paper is well written and well organised. Simulated and measured results are maintained. But, the following points should be addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication:
- The references list is not updated with the most recent and relevant work in the field.
- The conclusions are weakly supported by the data.
- Some equations are wrong, for example, (11) and (16). Please check again the whole equations in your paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the helpful comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We answered all the comments point by point in the attached file.
Thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript investigates how cloud return could be suppressed, and how the tails of the Lorentzian weighting function can change, based on the new set-up and configuration of a Doppler Lidar system. It is of practical interests, and the experimental results are somehow interesting. There are several points and areas that the authors should address, before this manuscript is considered for publication:
Major Points:
(1) Abstract: the scientific contribution is missing at the end of the abstract.
(2) Introduction (first two paragraphs) - the manuscript should include discussion on wind field retrieval, nonlinear properties of wind field etc. Further, in line 34, the authors should also discuss turbine wake. Some references are as follows:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/21/2522
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/4/8/2329
https://opg.optica.org/DirectPDFAccess/ECD5CECE-8F3A-4D2E-88FA18C3A0FC66B9_363587/oe-25-12-A515.pdf?da=1&id=363587&seq=0&mobile=no
(3) Introduction (Lines 52-59): The authors discussed wind speed estimation, they should also associate it with the approaches of wind field retrieval as listed in comment (2) above.
(4) Introduction (Lines 90-98): Any proper citations can be included? Or were these validated properly in previous studies? Were these implementation successful?
(5) Line 146: Should summarize the limitations of ray-tracing method here.
(6) Figure 6 caption: How do you justify that the beam is actually focused at z = 0?
(7) Lines 210-216: The differences between experimental results and theoretical results have to be explained in depth.
(8) Lines 233 and 237: About the distance 34.44 m, have you changed this distance and try out corresponding experimental results?
(9) Lines 297, 298, 307 and 309: Please quantify the wordings and terms: "cannot be improved very much", "both the experimental and theoretical results", "negligible improvement", "significantly reduce", by providing corresponding numerical values.
Minor Points:
Abstract (Lines 7-11): The changes of polarization and orientation should be discussed in brief. The abstract should contain more information on results and scientific impacts of this study
Line 151: What does the imaginary part represent?
Lines 154-the end of Equation (5): It would be better if the authors can include a figure with proper labelling.
Equation (10): Why? Do you mean x < 0 here?
Equation (16): A bracket is missing in the denominator of the exponential term.
After Equation (25): Please check the expression of b_0.
On top, some grammatical mistakes were found, for example the followings:
Line 85: comparable
Line 93: overlapping
Line 109: shifting
Line 117: In principle
Before Equation (6): basis in L^2 (R)
Line 168: overlapping
First line of Section 3.2 and the 4th line: overlap --> overlapping
Before Equation (24): integrating both sides
Line 212: slightly
Line 220: increment
Line 267: inconsistent
Line 281: reached --> obtained
Finally, the compilation of pdf document has some problems. All figure No./Table no. / Equation no. have been missing in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for the helpful comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. Really appreciate it. We have answered all the comments one by one in the attached file.
Thank you for your concern.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the points that I have raised in my review report. The manuscript is ready to go, except that another proper round of English editing should be conducted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your helpful comments. We have checked the manuscript carefully and found some errors and mistakes. We believe now the manuscript is much better. Appreciate it for your suggestion. Sorry, we couldn't make a list of all the changes, but showed them in the attached file. Thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
