Response to reviewer B

 

Reviewer B suggests that our paper is meant to present the summary of the dust events and to bring together all other studies conducted.

 

Our paper was not intended to present a summary of all studies conducted pertaining to these dust events. In fact, we did not even have access to most of the other papers since they were prepared and submitted in parallel with ours. Rather, this paper is intended as a self-sufficient research paper contributing original data and analyses. To our knowledge, all the data presented in this paper are original, unpublished contribution by the ‘virtual community’. The contributions were made by a large number of participants of the virtual workgroup. In that sense, it represents the summary of the original contributions from the virtual workgroup but not of the entire research community. Contributions by others are handled through standard cross-referencing of relevant pieces. It is true, however, that for the sake of completeness, we have attempted to include a large number of relevant cross-references. We recognize that the above clarification was missing from the paper and we thank the reviewer for raising this issue. This qualification is now added at the end of the Introduction.

 

Reviewer B requests clarification on how many dust storms were studied. We have analyzed two of the largest dust clouds in 1998, one emitted on April 15 and another on April 19. The April 19 cloud was followed across the Pacific to North America. The revised paper states the above more explicitly by presenting each dust event separately.

 

Reviewer B suggests restructuring the paper. Following reviewer B’s constructive suggestion, we have in fact restructured the paper into a chronological order, describing first the April 15 and then the April 19 dust cloud. For each event, the description followed the sequence (1) Formation (2) Transport and Spatial Distribution and (3) Dissipation.  The restructuring into a chronological order was unanimously supported by the co-authors as seen on the discussion page of the Asian Dust website. (http://capita.wustl.edu/Asia-FarEast/reports/JGR/AsianDustEpisodeApril1998RevJun26CommentFeedback1.html)     

 

Responses to reviewer B’s specific comments:

 

Figures are now numbered in order of appearance in the text

The captions have been expanded to make Figures more self-explanatory

Figure 5 has been modified to indicate which days are ‘full’ and which are ‘limited’ sampling days.

 

Overall, we find reviewer B’s suggestions to be helpful and constructive and the corresponding revisions have strengthened the paper in multiple ways.