the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Full-scale spectra of 15-year time series of near-surface horizontal wind speed on the north slope of Mt. Everest
Abstract. Wind speed spectral analysis is of great importance for understanding boundary-layer turbulence characteristics, developing atmospheric numerical model, and assessing wind energy. 15-year time series of near-surface horizontal wind data from the national Observation and Research Station for Qomolongma Special Atmospheric Processes and Environmental Changes (QOMS) on the north slope of Mt. Everest has been used to investigate the full-scale wind spectrum in the frequency range from about 10 yr-1 to 5 Hz. The annual average wind speed showed almost no detectable trend from 2006 to 2018 at the QOMS station. Three peaks were identified in the full-scale spectra at the frequencies of 1 yr-1, 1 day-1, and 12 hr-1, respectively. The 12 hr-1 peak is evident in spring and summer but disappears in winter, indicating the seasonal differences in local circulations at the QOMS station. The spectral density was the highest on the low-frequency side of the diurnal peak and in the microscale frequency range (f ≥ 1×10-3 Hz) in winter, indicating frequent synoptic weather events and vigorous turbulent intensity generated by shear due to strong wind during winter. An obvious spectral gap around the frequency of 4.5×10-4 Hz was observed in the composite seasonal and daily spectrum in winter, while the spectral gap disappeared in summer. The combination of low spectral density in the mesoscale frequency range, high spectral density in the microscale frequency range, and strong turbulence intensity contributes to the spectral gap in winter.
- Preprint
(3706 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 07 Jan 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4642', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Oct 2025 reply
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4642', Michael Tjernström, 26 Dec 2025
reply
This manuscript was originally submitted to ACP as egusphere-2024-1963 in December 2024. A revised manuscript was finally rejected based on recommendations by two reviewers. It was later resubmitted as egusphere-2025-4642. The previous reviewers were contacted and one of these agreed to review the new revised version; the report is available on the interactive discussion. It has however been very difficult to recruit a second reviewer; a dozen requests have gone out but has been either ignored or declined. I have now decided to abandon any further attempts to get a second review on the current manuscript.
Reading the quite extensive review that is available, plus the previous two rounds of reviews from 2024, it appears to me that the paper still has some major flaws and that the authors have still not managed to satisfactorily respond to all the comments from the reviewers. If the authors wish to submit a new revised version of their manuscript, accompanied by an item-by-item response to the previous two reviews and that now available on the interactive discussion I will take a decision based on all of the available material and my own review of the paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4642-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Cunbo Han, 29 Dec 2025
reply
Thank you very much for your time and efforts in handling our manuscript. The revisoin work is almost done. We will submit a revised version of the manuscript and the point-to-point responses to all reviewers as soon as possible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4642-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Cunbo Han, 29 Dec 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 209 | 81 | 30 | 320 | 24 | 24 |
- HTML: 209
- PDF: 81
- XML: 30
- Total: 320
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Regarding question about significance -- the data has potential to be very significant. However, I'm not even sure that the data processing was done correctly for the sonic-anemometer data.
Regarding scientific quality. There are several inconsistencies, as noted in review.