Comments on JGR Reviews of the joint paper

Revisions to the paper not done.
This is to let the Asian Dust group know that the revisions to the paper will have to wait a few days. The Memorial weekend was just too nice, too much tennis....
Submitted by Husar Rudolf on 5/30/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar3

Suggestions for re-organizing the manuscript
Here are some suggestions for re-organizing the manuscript.

1) The contents of section 2.1 (Background on East Asian Dust) could be included in the introduction, as well as the second paragraph of section 2.2 (i.e., the paragraph about the community effort).

2) Section 2 could be entitled simply: 2. Observations of the April 1998 dust events. Sub-sections or sub-headings are not necessary. Delete the paragraph about modeling of the event.

3) Section 3 could be entitled: 3. Formation of the Dust Clouds.

4) Sections 4 and 5 could be regrouped into a single section, Section 4: 4. Distribution and transport. This section would include 2 sub-sections: 4.1 Horizontal and 4.2 Vertical.

5) Section 6 could become Section 5: 5. Transformation and dissipation.

6) Section 7 would become Section 6: 6. Physical, chemical, and optical characteristics.

7) Sections 8 and 9 could be blended into Section 7: 7. Discussion and recommendations. Describing efects of the dust in that section would be appropriate. Blending the last two sections also would make the last section stronger (right now it's too short and weak).

Submitted by Frouin Robert on 5/29/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RobertFrouin1

On the 'dissipation' of the dust cloud
I have looked at the comments that you prepared. The tone seems ok to me. The main theme of both reviewers seemed more to do with organizing all of the various contributions into a relatively seamless story and you appear to address this well. With respect to reviewer B, you mention something about having a section on the dissipation of the dust cloud. It is probably a good idea, but, again, since many of us "observers" were really doing other things, about the best that probably can be done here is somewhat anecdotal. For example, here in the Pacific Northwest, the following could be pieced together from various bits that I learned about - either talking with our chief pilot (who keeps pretty regular contact with the aviation community).

After arrival over the Pacific Northwest, the elevated dust cloud subsided. Initially the depth was of the order of 4-5 km from the ground. (This was on the weekend. I know this because I was driving up to Pullman to visit my son on Sunday, April 26 and was quite aware of the remarkable whitish haze and wondered what that was all about.) The layer depth remained about 4 km for the next few days (according to pilot reports during landings at Pasco airport), but gradually began diminishing by mid week. On Friday, May 1, when our group did a test flight to check out instruments for an upcoming study in Phoenix, the layer was about 2 km thick. (The size distribution data I gave you is from this flight.) During most of the week, the weather conditions were rather stable and quiet - not much wind. However, late Friday, May 1, a front came through and apparently pushed the dusty airmass to the east. What is not clear is what happened to it after that. It could have been greatly diluted with the clean air moving in from the Pacific or it could have been scavenged by precipitation during passage over the mountain ranges (Cascades, plus those farther east before the main crest of the Rockies). That part I have no information on. What I do remember is that Saturday, May 2, was the remarkably clean air - horizontal visibility was very good, in spite of the general high cloudiness that prevented any good radiometric data on AOD. But like I mentioned above, mostly this is anecdotal without much in the way of hard references. Maybe it is useful to you.

Submitted by Laulainen Nels on 5/26/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.NelsLaulainen

Reorganization along a timeline is OK.
I agree with reviewer B that a reorganization along the lines suggested would improve the clarity of the paper-- i.e., develop a better integrated time line through the creation and transport of the dust. Perhaps even a schematic diagram of the transport across the Pacific could be used (in addition to the satellite data, where the boundaries are vague), like the one on your web page. By the way, with reference to the reviewers comment on "dissipation", where did the dust layer go? I think this deserves some discussion.

As for my small contribution, I suggest that it be stressed that this data marks the first detection of the leading edge of the dust as it penetrated the western US states. (Thus it should be mentioned before the JPL observations in the text.) The model or satellite results may not show it quite overhead of Utah on 24-25 April, but this is likely because the aerosol layer was still optically thin. Since the figure you now have is only temporary, I want to provide you with an improved version that extends up to 12 km and shows the weak aerosols aloft up to 10 km; the depolarization values are also a bit off, and actually the lidar return is not a log scale. I'll correct these things and send you the figure and a new caption electronically next weak. Small text change for my data discussion- pg 8 line 25, ...particles in the 1-2 um diameter size range "or greater" [Mishchenko and Sassen, 1998].

Submitted by Sassen Ken on 5/26/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.KenSassen

Response to JGR reviews
(1) Rudy and I have fleshed out some parts of it over the last day or two with the suggestions of Pierre Biscaye, regarding the long-distance transport.

I have also pointed out to Rudy the work of T. Takemi on understanding the meteorological processes of the China dust storm genesis, recently published in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences: Vol. 57, No. 11, pp. 1718-1740.

There is also some info which can be "mined" from the original press reports and weather observer reports in China which can shed some light on the initial meteor- ological processes and meteorological evolution of the dust cloud. Some of this info is in the CNN video, which I believe is archived on the Asia/Fareast web page under "resources" or "reports" at The actual video (which I think is still archived somewhere) shows a black haboob- like cloud advecting in, with dust probably entrained up into the atmosphere by convective processes (the "arid region squall lines" researched by Takemi et al.)

(2) I agree that it is no problem to remove "modeling" as a separate heading, but to instead subsume any modeling comments within the overall body of the paper elsewhere. I agree with Dan Jaffe that those sentences should stay in, just not as a separate section, add them elsewhere.

(3) I also agree that a lot of the required changes were a result of editorial/organizational minor "glitches" that were a result of the haste of making sure something was submitted on time.

(4) With regards to the sections on Dust Processes, Dust Characteristics and Effects it is fine to retain them as is since they are not part of the chronological evolution, however, I do suggest that each of those sections (processes, characteristics, effects) be organized chronologically where feasible within each of those three sections. -i.e. it would be good for each section to have a parallel and chronological structure.

-Tom Gill

Submitted by Gill Tom on 5/25/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.TomGill

Tentative response to Reviewer B
Here is a tentative response to reviewer B. As you see, I am ready to give pretty much everything what they asked for because the suggestions are pretty good. What do you think? Just click on the 'Respond' button below.
Submitted by Husar Rudolf on 5/25/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar2

Tentative response to Reviewer A
OK, here is a tentative response to reviewer A. Does this have the right flavor? Dont be shy, I can take it!
Submitted by Husar Rudolf on 5/25/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar1

Well, I agree with David and Ian here. I think these few sentences should stay in, but perhaps you can appease the reviewer by taking out the subheading "modeling" and just putting the references into teh text. Really, this is what is important.
Submitted by Jaffe Dan on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.DanJaffe
Re: modeling
OK, "Modeling" subheading is OUT. After all, this paper does not deal with modeling. We will then incorporate the references to the modeling papers in a more organic (context-sensitive) and less conspicuous way.
Submitted by Husar Rudolf on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CFBody.RudolfHusar5.CF.DanJaffe.RudolfHusar

What to do with the modeling section?
This is a note to the 'dust modelers': We will have to do something about the modeling section in the Asian Dust paper. Reviewer B said we either expand it or dump it. Any ideas? I would like to keep at least the references to your works...without necessarly belaboring it or making it a section. FYI, the existing model section is below.

"Modeling of the dust event.

The April 1998 Asian dust event was simulated by at least four modeling groups. The dust models have provided valuable insights into the emissions, transport and removal process that governed the life cycle of such events [Westphal, 2000]. Also, the data from field observations were used to "test and validate" the performance of dynamic global scale aerosol models [Nickovic et al., this issue; Uno et al., this issue). The details of the dust subsidence over British Columbia were further investigated with the aid of a mesoscale transport model [McKendry et al., this issue]. "

Submitted by Husar Rudolf on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar
Re: What to do with the modeling section?
I don't think I am being mercenary by suggesting that the modelling studies together form an important part of the story and should somehow be incorporated into the narrative whether it be in one paragraph or, as you suggest, at least cited in the appropriate sections Synoptic/time-line/dissipation as suggested by reviewer B.

I should add that our paper has undergone minor revisions after positive reviews (I sent it away yesterday). The main change is that the modelling has been reworked and looks much better (i.e. the hotspot in central Washington is captured). The meteorological mechanisms are also nailed down a bit better.

Submitted by McKendry Ian on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CFBody.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar.IanMcKendry

Re: What to do with the modeling section?
For me its ok to put references to our articles (expecting they will pass the referee procedure). I would only remove quotations in .. test and validate..
Submitted by NICKOVIC Slobodan on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CFBody.RudolfHusar5.CF.RudolfHusar.SlobodanNICKOVIC

More cleaning, polishing
Looking at the reviews it seems to me that most of the deficiencies resulted simply from our haste in trying to get the thing out in time. I think they should be easily enough rectified and I'll certainly be willing to do some proof-reading.
Submitted by Tratt David on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.DavidTratt

Needs reorganization
I think the reviews are generally positive, even B's. B's points are more about re-organization than anything else.
Submitted by Frouin Robert on 5/24/00
RecID: Body.RudolfHusar5.CF.RobertFrouin

New entries to this page can be added by the users. Fill out the submission form and observe your new entry on the top of the list.