Comments on the paper entitled

The early meteorological network of the Societas Meteorologica Palatina (1781–1792): Foundation, organization, reception.

Author: P. Winkler

General Comments.

The “Societas Meteorologica Palatina” was one of the most venerable, prestigious, and successful meteorological societies of the Eighteenth Century. It provided an early exemplar of the desiderata for an organization purposed to measure, compile and examine from a scientific standpoint the data acquired systematically and contemporaneously from a network of observing stations.

During and after its heyday the Society attracted the attention and assent of interested parties both nationally and internationally. It is therefore not surprising that the Society’s history has already been the subject of numerous studies, and these form a formidable backcloth to the present work.

In this context the manuscript appears to straddle and intermingle two objectives. On the one hand the manuscript has been given a somewhat general title that would suggest another general overview of the Society’s activities.  On the other hand the author states that his specific aim is (lines 45-47) to highlight ‘less emphasized’ issues that were integral to forging the Society’s scientific character, and in particular he pinpoints three themes :- the prevailing and evolving intellectual motivation for such an activity; the challenge posed by the extant instrumental deficiencies; and the necessity to ensure adequate data quality. In reality the author provides a grand and highly detailed survey of the Society’s development, activities, and notable achievements, whilst concurrently drawing attention to and discussing the forementioned three themes. The author is certainly to be commended for providing such a richly referenced history and to setting out the available details of the three themes. However, the reader might benefit from the author providing a clear distinction between, or the linkage of, these two parts.

For the most part, but with some notable exceptions, the author overviews the Society’s development in isolation. However during the period under consideration here many other societies and individuals had been or were pursuing related goals (Accademia del Cimento, Royal Society, Societe Royale de Medicine). Even Jefferson, who is mentioned in the text, had embarked upon a vastly more limited but similar venture. Likewise contemporary studies of the terrestrial magnetic field also required organizations and networks and data (e.g. Gauss in Gottingen). It would perhaps be appropriate to also at least in part set the history of the Societas Meteorologica Palatina in relation to these contemporaneous activities and initiatives. This would in no way diminish the Society’s contributions, but rather emphasize its scope, thoroughness and distinctiveness.

Minor Comments

Line 64:                      “Everybody believed” does not equate to the “accepted view”

Line 258-310:             It might appear to some that this part of the text (here and in some other places) reads more like a catalogue of events than an historical synthesis and analysis of the tremendous efforts and success of the venture.

Line 345-353 &          The author records the setting up of the Society and its activities

        428-434:              extensively but devotes rather less space to its demise. He attributes it to the death of Hemmer, the lack of a suitable successor and the partial destruction of the castle in Mannheim during the Napoleonic Wars. From the standpoint of historical analysis, it would be interesting to learn whether there were other factors. For example, was the organization highly dependent upon Hemmer’s undoubted charisma, persuasive powers and energy? Was he not able to mentor successors?

                                    Were there other regional political factors that rendered untenable the continuation of the Organization in an effective and vibrant state. 

Technical Queries:

Figure 5 & 12:            The two panels in Fig. 5 that indicate the stations of the network do not 

match. In particular the two stations of Marseille and Rome are absent in the enlarged panel. This deserves clarification because some of the details of surface meteorological features in Fig. 12 are crucially dependent upon observations from these stations.

Abstract

Line 14                        “Antiquated explanations” do not necessarily mean that they are inadequate or incorrect

Lines 15, 17                Pedantic point for the Editors Is the noun ‘data’ singular or plural?

Summary

This is an interesting article that conveniently outlines the achievements of early meteorological network of the Societas Meteorological Palatina. This society has covered significant part of the Western Europe and have formed one of the benchmarks in the historical meteorological observations. Even today, their datasets have been widely used in multiple fields including climatology and space science. In this regard, this summary will significantly benefit scientists who wish to use their data and know their activity too. Therefore, I am positive for their potential publications, whereas I have several comments to improve the manuscript quality. 

Major Comments

1) Referencing

The authors have presented numerous important facts without references. The authors should justify their references with external references -- especially in the introduction. Here are some examples.

-- P3 L23 Galileo’s aphorism “Measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be” => Please clarify the exact reference among Galileo’s publication.

-- P3 L23-24 Are the scholars and the instrument makers motivated by Galileo’s statement? If so, please clarify the reference.

-- P3 L26-28 Please clarify representative references (e.g., reviews) for the meteorological measurements in the contemporaneous academies and their lack of calibrations.

-- P3 L45 The purpose of the present work is to report on less emphasized aspects which played a role in the implementation of the Societas Meteorologica Palatina including the preceding mental development, instrumental deficiencies and data quality. => Have these aspects been completely overlooked in the scientific community? If so, please be explicit. Otherwise, please clarify who described what for these aspects.

-- P3 L49 Please clarify references for lightening rods and drainage of moors.

2) Figure captions

The figure captions are not sufficiently informative for the readers to understand their meaning and provenance. The authors should clarify them more explicitly.

-- Figure 1: Please clarify the source page number.

-- Figure 2: Please clarify the reference.

-- Figure 3: Please clarify the reference and explain this figure.

-- Figure 5: Please clarify the date of this map.

-- Figure 6: In the figure caption, please clarify where these data are derived and what different data points indicate.

-- Figure 7: Please clarify where this photo was taken.

-- Figure 8: Please set the y-axis to °C. Please clarify the differences of the thin line and the bold line.

-- Figure 9: Please clarify their source page numbers. Please also explain the right-hand diagram more explicitly.

-- Figure 10: Please show the y-axes in these panels.

-- Figure 11: Please clarify the unit in the y-axis.

-- Figure 12: Please clarify their source page numbers. Please also explain these diagrams more explicitly.

-- Table A1: Please add one more column to explain where their observations are published.

-- Figure A1: Please clarify references for individual portraits.

3) Image credits: The author is showing numerous archival images in this manuscript. The author needs to provide their permission letters to clarify that he is free from copyright violations. This is especially important, as the manuscript is already exposed online.

4) Footnotes

There are some footnotes just showing their references. They should be moved to the main text.

6) Modern reuse of the scientific results

As explained in Sections 6 and 8, the SMP has published the scientific results in the annual Ephemerides. These results have benefitted the scientific community even for the modern discussions. The authors should introduce some of their prominent cases for their reuses and reanalyses, including those for weather observations (DOI: 10.5194/cp-17-2361-2021), temperature observations (DOI: 10.1007/s10584-017-1931-2), and auroral observations (DOI: 10.1093/pasj/psab079).