Response
to Reviewer A
November 4, 2000
We appreciate Reviewer A’s
acceptance of the paper. Our responses to the specific comments are listed
below.
1. Some of the acronyms or unfamiliar terms are
not defined at their first use. For example Kosa and CAPITA on page 3.
2. It would be interesting to mention briefly
what are the main parameters driving the model (page8) and how those are
obtained (which meteorological fields
for example)
A sentence with additional references was added: “The NRL model is based on the Christensen [1997] hemispheric eulerian model. It uses the NRL forecast meteorological fields [Hogan and Rosmond, 1991] and customized emissions for sulfur, windblown dust and biomass smoke.”
3. On page 11, could mixing effect the
dissipation
Sentence
added: “Dispersion by vertical, axial and lateral mixing of air masses is
responsible for the dilution of dust mass concnetration”.
4. On page 22, I wouldn't call 5 cm/s a strong
subsidence
5.
The last paragraph of section 5.2 contains findings that I think should be more
emphasized, both in the abstract and conclusions.
Emphasis
has been added to the Abstract (“The yellow colored backscattering by the dust
eludes plausible explanation using simple Mie theory with constant refractive
index”) and Discussion (“find an explanation of the yellow dust color”)
6. On page 2, line 3., change is to are