the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 Dec 2024
A modular wind profile retrieval software for heterogeneous Doppler lidar measurements
Abstract. Retrieving wind profiles from Doppler lidar radial velocities requires processing software tools. The heterogeneity of Doppler lidar types and data acquisition settings, as well as scan patterns applied for wind profiling, make wind profile processing challenging. Addressing this challenge, a new modular open-source wind profile retrieval software is presented: the Atmospheric Profile Processing toolKIT (AtmoProKIT). The software calculates quality controlled wind profiles from heterogeneous Doppler lidar data, i.e. independent of the system type, data acquisition settings or the scan pattern applied. Ingestion of heterogeneous data is enabled by the definition of a standardized level 1 data format for the measurements, from which level 2 wind profiles are retrieved. Processing flexibility is enabled through the combination of modular processing steps in module chains. Modifications are possible by individually arranging modules, adding calculation modules or adjusting processing parameters. The documentation of the processing steps in the result’s metadata ensures the traceability of the results. A standard module chain is presented, which allows for straightforward wind profile retrieval for common Doppler lidar measurement scenarios without the need for coding. The results provided by the standard module chain are validated against radiosondes for three common Doppler lidar systems in differing atmospheric conditions. AtmoProKIT is provided as open-source Python code and includes demonstration examples, allowing for an easy use and future collaborative modification.
- Preprint
(4455 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-222 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 30 Jan 2025
reply
Dear authors,
After checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in a site that does not comply with our trustable permanent archival policy. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy. Also the Helmholtz Codebase that you mention in the manuscript, is not an acceptable repository.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repository used in your manuscript, with its DOI. The reply and the repository should be available as soon as possible, and before the Discussions stage is closed, to be sure that anyone has access to it for review purposes.Also, you state in the manuscript that the Swabian MOSES 2023 campaign data will be published later, and you cite a work in preparation. We can not accept this. You must publish all the data that you use in this manuscript with it. If you wanted to use such data in this manuscript and publish the data, the right way to proceed should have been to publish the data first and then submit your manuscript to our journal. Therefore, as I said, you must publish the data in one repository that we accept, in the same way that the code, and reply to this comment with the link and DOI.
Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section with all the information here requested.
Also, I have not seen a license listed in the web page that you link for your code. If you do not include a license, the code continues to be your property and can not be used by others, despite any statement on being free to use or that it will be "open-source" after publication. It must be free software at the submission time. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to the repository, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. Potential licenses are the GPLv3, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it so that it is available for the peer-review process, as it should be. In the meantime, I recommend the Topical Editor to stall the review process for your manuscript, as it should have not been accepted in Discussions given the problems mentioned, and we need to clarify the compliance with the policy before investing the time of referees on reviewing manuscripts that could have to be rejected because of other reasons.
Therefore, please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request could result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-222-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Anselm Erdmann, 11 Feb 2025
reply
Dear Prof. Añel,
we thank you for your comments on the Code and Data Policy and apologize that this issue slipped our attention before.
We have addressed the issue by making publicly available the code and data with persistent digital object identifiers (DOIs) now, and will include them in a potential revised manuscript. Further information can be found in our point-by-point replies below. We hope that the manuscript thereby conforms with the journal standards and that the review process can continue.
Please do not hesitate to contact us in case further clarification is needed.Kind regards
Anselm Erdmann and Philipp Gasch======================
Dear authors,
After checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our Code and Data Policy.
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
You have archived your code in a site that does not comply with our trustable permanent archival policy. Therefore, please publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories according to our policy. Also the Helmholtz Codebase that you mention in the manuscript, is not an acceptable repository.
In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repository used in your manuscript, with its DOI. The reply and the repository should be available as soon as possible, and before the Discussions stage is closed, to be sure that anyone has access to it for review purposes.
We have now made the code publicly and permanently available. The code is publicly available here https://codebase.helmholtz.cloud/KIT-KIAOS/KITcube/AtmoProKIT and a frozen version has been archived with a DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844633
Also, you state in the manuscript that the Swabian MOSES 2023 campaign data will be published later, and you cite a work in preparation. We can not accept this. You must publish all the data that you use in this manuscript with it. If you wanted to use such data in this manuscript and publish the data, the right way to proceed should have been to publish the data first and then submit your manuscript to our journal. Therefore, as I said, you must publish the data in one repository that we accept, in the same way that the code, and reply to this comment with the link and DOI.
We published the Swabian MOSES 2023 Doppler lidar measurement datasets.
- Doppler lidar WTX at Villingen-Schwenningen https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844019 (June 2023), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844229 (July 2023), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844286 (August 2023)
- Doppler lidar WLS200s
- at Schallstadt https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14842966
- at Titisee-Neustadt https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14843671
- at Fischerbach https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844362
- at Weil am Rhein https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14843822
- at Albbruck https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844518
Regarding Figure 11, the Doppler lidars with the numbers 101, 196, and 197 were operated by MeteoSwiss and the data is not yet published by them. Therefore, we suggest to remove these lidars from this figure in the future version of the manuscript.
Regarding the validation in Section 5 we published the radiosonde and retrieved Doppler lidar wind profiles used in the comparisons: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844888
Also, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section with all the information here requested.
We will add this information in a potential revised version.
Also, I have not seen a license listed in the web page that you link for your code. If you do not include a license, the code continues to be your property and can not be used by others, despite any statement on being free to use or that it will be "open-source" after publication. It must be free software at the submission time. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to the repository, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. Potential licenses are the GPLv3, Apache License, MIT License, etc.
We have published the code under the EUPL-1.2 license, which is compatible to the GPLv3 license referred by you. The Swabian MOSES 2023 measurements are available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Please, reply as soon as possible to this comment with the link for it so that it is available for the peer-review process, as it should be. In the meantime, I recommend the Topical Editor to stall the review process for your manuscript, as it should have not been accepted in Discussions given the problems mentioned, and we need to clarify the compliance with the policy before investing the time of referees on reviewing manuscripts that could have to be rejected because of other reasons.
Therefore, please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request could result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.
We made the code and the measurement data publicly available and therefore hope that the review process can be continued thereby.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Thank you for your effort and time invested. We apologize again for the oversight and inconveniences.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-222-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 12 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors,
Many thanks for addressing the mentioned issues. We can consider now your manuscript in compliance with the Code and Data policy of the journal.
Regarding the lidars operated by MeteoSwiss, it would be good if you can get them published; however, being third party data and which publication seems to be out of your control, it is not strictly necessary that their data are published to include them in the analysis that you present. Therefore, it is not necessary to remove them from the figure.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-222-CEC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Anselm Erdmann, 11 Feb 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 174 | 29 | 9 | 212 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 174
- PDF: 29
- XML: 9
- Total: 212
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1