Response to Reviewer B
November 4, 2000
We appreciate Reviewer B’s acceptance of the paper and the suggested revisions. Our responses to the specific comments are summarized below.
1. Recommend a synoptic map for each dust event
A synoptic weather map of the Gobi Desert area (pressure, wind field was added to Figure 1.
2. In Figure 1, better resolution needed for the insert b.
3. Figure 2 is confusing. Separate the April 15 and April 19 images.
Yes, Figure 2 was very busy and confusing. We have separated the April 15 and April 19 images and used only two days (rather then 3) for each event. The images were also re-labeled.
4. Page 13, Sentence stating "This is supportive of the notion……This analysis should be corrected or deleted.”
The sentence was deleted.
5. Page 14, "The inset in Figure 2d should read 2e.
6. Page 18 and Figure 4b. Why is the elevated backscatter labeled ‘dust’ while the area 3-6 km as boundary layer aerosol?
Figure 4b was re-labeled. Also, the area above 5 km was called as ‘suspected dust layer’.
7. Page 19 and Figure 6a. Poor picture, no boundaries, distinguishing dust and cloud
Figure cleaned. Dust and cloud patches were labeled.
8. Figure 6c. Objection to combining daily averages with different number stations. Use the 25-station data set.
Figure 6c now uses the 25 station dataset only. The Y label was moved from the center to the Y axis.
9. Figure 8: Missing labels in inserts a, b, and c.
Insets a, b, c have been re-labeled.