Answer to Andreas Dörnbrack

Thank you for the review and valuable suggestions.

The paper has been revised and recommendations have been considered.

The new title is now:

A 300-Year History of Understanding and Classifying Clouds, from a German Language Perspective.

The link to the actual international cloud atlas is included as well as all doi’s which I could identify.

Many of the references are accessible in digital form in large libraries like BSB, German Weather Service, LMU and others About half of the references I could download to my computer. Whether large libraries will allow to store them as an annex of my MS on a HGSS-Server is not known to me. I will ask the editor, whether this matter can be made accessible. The simplest way would be to ask me for titles of interest and I will send these on a direct way.

The third suggestion is very special and I hesitate to include a new satellite research program which is recommended for funding. While I agree that it is necessary to collect material for a better cloud climatology, I think that contemporary weather models adequately capture the large‑scale circulation. Deficiencies remain, however, in the representation of cloud formation at small scales: besides the three‑dimensional distributions of temperature and humidity, orography, radiative forcing, local wind systems, gravity waves, and heterogeneous soil moisture are of importance for cloud formation and interact in a complex manner. Satellite sensors that sample a region only once per day or less frequently cannot provide the temporal resolution needed to capture these processes comprehensively. It is unclear for me whether the WIVERN project will resolve vertical transports within clouds with sufficient reliability for process studies.

I will leave it to the editor to decide whether a corresponding hint on the WIVERN project should be included in the manuscript.

From my point of view view, a fractal description of cloud forms would currently be more trend-setting, but it is not apparent for me whether the planned WIVERN observations will permit investigation of fractal aspects.

This  comment appeared unintended and duplicates the reply to the editor. 

Thus it dan be deleted

Answer to the review of Stephen Burt:

Tank you very much for valuable comments and marking formulations leading to misinterpretations.

The title has been changed to highlight the focus on German-language sources. The new title is:

A 300-Year History of Understanding and Classifying Clouds, from a German Language Perspective.

I have thoroughly revised the manuscript, tightened the phrasing, and removed less significant material. The length of the manuscript was greatly reduced.

Numerous passages were reworded to (hopefully) resolve earlier ambiguities.

Adiabatic charts are now briefly mentioned because they promoted theoretical thermodynamic insights that improved and facilitated the understanding of cloud formation. I also mention the tephigram and the MINTRA-line as a threshhold for contrail formation.

The number of footnotes has been reduced to the absolutely necessary number.

Special answers and remarks:

Microphysical aspects were not discussed; instead, the reader is referred to the classic textbook by Mason (1957) for those aspects. 

Artistic depictions of clouds are likewise not treated here, since an extensive literature already exists; had I expanded the manuscript too much. I should have mentioned not only Constable but also Goethe, Georg Dillis, Caspar David Friedrich, and many others. The special reason why watercolors of Mylius are presented is that Köppen and Wegener intended to edit an cloud atlas with his pictures in 1917.

It remains uncertain whether Halley knew of von Guericke’s “Experimenta nova” in detail: Halley did not quote Guericke and some scholars infer from that omission that he may not have been familiar with the Latin language. But you are right, as a member of the Royal Academy he should have had knowledge of the review and report of Guericks book.

Glaisher’s well‑known balloon ascents were omitted from discussion because his temperature and other measurements of meteorological parameters were considered insufficiently for reliable conclusions on atmospheric states and cloud formation. This has been extensively discussed in Assmann et al. 1900.

Figure 13 (now Figure 11) was selected because the 1917 photograph clearly documents the breakup of a cloud deck above the course af a river, a pattern comparable to that reported by Erk from a balloon observation in 1898. I have not found a comparable photograph.

Douglas’s cloud photographs were taken as an extra work during routine meteorological flights rather than as a dedicated observational campaign; consequently, they provide no demonstrable evidence of orographic interaction on the observed cloud layers.

“It seems odd not to include in this section more recent publications”:

I concentrated on the historical development and on the numerous efforts required to resolve the long‑standing ambiguities in the correct classification of cloud types. Recent literature recommending cloud observation for interested persons were therefore omitted.

Stratospheric and mesospheric clouds were included  because I was asked in advance to mention these cloud types and provide illustrations for reasons of completeness.

Regarding satellite imagery, it can be assumed that not only Wexler but the whole meteorological community recognized the huge advance achieved by satellite cloud imagery; satellite cloud pictures provided synoptic information over the oceans, where in situ observations were sparse.

I have addressed the comments of both reviewers in the revised version of the manuscript. Below I summarise the principal changes and the editorial improvements I have made.

Title and scope

The title has been changed to: A 300‑Year History of Understanding and Classifying Clouds, from a German Language Perspective.

The length of the text has been substantially reduced; marginal material has been omitted and numerous dispersed passages have been consolidated, although this was not possible in all cases.

I repeatedly draw attention to the recurring obstacles in the correct nomenclature of cloud types, a historical difficulty that is no longer widely appreciated.

I emphasise the shortcomings of illustrating cloud types in atlases, notably the limitations of printing technology and the longstanding deficiencies of early photography.

A close reading shows that misclassifications were only overcome once meteorological flights provided sufficient knowledge of the atmospheric state to enable a coherent understanding of cloud formation and the emergence of distinct cloud forms that could be taught.

Specific responses to reviewers suggestions

• I decided to mention adiabatic diagrams briefly in accordance with R. Burt’s suggestion. The literature shows that Hertz’s first graph (1884) prompted W. von Bezold in his work on thermodynamics, to examine the issue more closely and to introduce the concept of potential temperature.
• I incorporated only a small portion of the further litrature recommended by Burt because many of those works are of a popular‑scientific nature.
• For the microphysics not treated in this manuscript I refer the reader to Mason.

To my knowledge, Britain placed early and strong emphasis on weather forecasting and on improving forecasts from cloud observations. The purely scientific aim of characterising cloud forms through accurate measurement of atmospheric state variables was of secondary importance there.

On A. Dörnbrack’s recommendations:

1. Inclusion of historical literature in an archive

I hold digital copies of at least half of the cited literature. However, I am aware from the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek that copyright issues must be observed, and I cannot assess whether it is permissible to upload digital scans to the HGSS server.

Uploading would also duplicate storage effort, since most digitised items are already available elsewhere.

I could indicate in the references which libraries provide digital scans, but this would entail considerable additional work. I offered A. Dörnbrack that I can send him literature being of interest directly..

1. Reference to the ESA WIVERN project

I do not consider it appropriate to mention the WIVERN funding programme of ESA in this manuscript, because other funding programmes would then arguably need to be mentioned as well.

I leave it to you, the editors, to decide whether Dörnbrack’s suggested reference to WIVERN should be included.

Answer to the review of Stephen Burt:

Tank you very much for valuable comments and marking formulations leading to misinterpretations.

The title has been changed to highlight the focus on German-language sources. The new title is:

A 300-Year History of Understanding and Classifying Clouds, from a German Language Perspective.

I have thoroughly revised the manuscript, tightened the phrasing, and removed less significant material. The length of the manuscript was greatly reduced.

Numerous passages were reworded to (hopefully) resolve earlier ambiguities.

Adiabatic charts are now briefly mentioned because they promoted theoretical thermodynamic insights that improved and facilitated the understanding of cloud formation. I also mention the tephigram and the MINTRA-line as a threshhold for contrail formation.

The number of footnotes has been reduced to the absolutely necessary number.

Special answers and remarks:

Microphysical aspects were not discussed; instead, the reader is referred to the classic textbook by Mason (1957) for those aspects. 

Artistic depictions of clouds are likewise not treated here, since an extensive literature already exists; had I expanded the manuscript too much. I should have mentioned not only Constable but also Goethe, Georg Dillis, Caspar David Friedrich, and many others. The special reason why watercolors of Mylius are presented is that Köppen and Wegener intended to edit an cloud atlas with his pictures in 1917.

It remains uncertain whether Halley knew of von Guericke’s “Experimenta nova” in detail: Halley did not quote Guericke and some scholars infer from that omission that he may not have been familiar with the Latin language. But you are right, as a member of the Royal Academy he should have had knowledge of the review and report of Guericks book.

Glaisher’s well‑known balloon ascents were omitted from discussion because his temperature and other measurements of meteorological parameters were considered insufficiently for reliable conclusions on atmospheric states and cloud formation. This has been extensively discussed in Assmann et al. 1900.

Figure 13 (now Figure 11) was selected because the 1917 photograph clearly documents the breakup of a cloud deck above the course af a river, a pattern comparable to that reported by Erk from a balloon observation in 1898. I have not found a comparable photograph.

Douglas’s cloud photographs were taken as an extra work during routine meteorological flights rather than as a dedicated observational campaign; consequently, they provide no demonstrable evidence of orographic interaction on the observed cloud layers.

“It seems odd not to include in this section more recent publications”:

I concentrated on the historical development and on the numerous efforts required to resolve the long‑standing ambiguities in the correct classification of cloud types. Recent literature recommending cloud observation for interested persons were therefore omitted.

Stratospheric and mesospheric clouds were included  because I was asked in advance to mention these cloud types and provide illustrations for reasons of completeness.

Regarding satellite imagery, it can be assumed that not only Wexler but the whole meteorological community recognized the huge advance achieved by satellite cloud imagery; satellite cloud pictures provided synoptic information over the oceans, where in situ observations were sparse.

Answer to Andreas Dörnbrack

Thank you for the review and valuable suggestions.

The paper has been revised and recommendations have been considered.

The new title is now:

A 300-Year History of Understanding and Classifying Clouds, from a German Language Perspective.

The link to the actual international cloud atlas is included as well as all doi’s which I could identify.

Many of the references are accessible in digital form in large libraries like BSB, German Weather Service, LMU and others About half of the references I could download to my computer. Whether large libraries will allow to store them as an annex of my MS on a HGSS-Server is not known to me. I will ask the editor, whether this matter can be made accessible. The simplest way would be to ask me for titles of interest and I will send these on a direct way.

The third suggestion is very special and I hesitate to include a new satellite research program which is recommended for funding. While I agree that it is necessary to collect material for a better cloud climatology, I think that contemporary weather models adequately capture the large‑scale circulation. Deficiencies remain, however, in the representation of cloud formation at small scales: besides the three‑dimensional distributions of temperature and humidity, orography, radiative forcing, local wind systems, gravity waves, and heterogeneous soil moisture are of importance for cloud formation and interact in a complex manner. Satellite sensors that sample a region only once per day or less frequently cannot provide the temporal resolution needed to capture these processes comprehensively. It is unclear for me whether the WIVERN project will resolve vertical transports within clouds with sufficient reliability for process studies.

I will leave it to the editor to decide whether a corresponding hint on the WIVERN project should be included in the manuscript.

From my point of view view, a fractal description of cloud forms would currently be more trend-setting, but it is not apparent for me whether the planned WIVERN observations will permit investigation of fractal aspects.

This  comment appeared unintended and duplicates the reply to the editor. 

Thus it dan be deleted

Lieber Herr Volkert,

der Einfachheit halber antworte ich in Deutsch:

aus meiner langjährigen Erfahrung al Reviewer habe ich Ihre Entscheidung zu einer zweiten Begutachtungsrunde erwartet und ich denke, dass das Manuskript durch die Hinweise der Gutachter sehr gewonnen hat. Ich werde das neue MS hochladen, sobald das vom System aus möglich ist.

Ihren Vorschlag, das WIVERN-Projekt zu erwähnen, habe ich übernommen.

Besten Dank und viele Grüße

Peter Winkler

PS.: Das Interaktionssystem von HGSS könnte nach meiner Meinung etwas intuitiver gestaltet werden: Als Autor arbeitet man nicht ständig mit dem System und fragt sich, was mit der Aufforderung, welche Antwort an die Reviewer und der Editor hochzuaden sind, gemeint ist. Wenn ich Reviewer 1 mit meiner Antwort verknüpft habe, werde ich erneut gefragt, ob ich ihm weitere Antworten zur Kenntnis geben möchte. Man glaubt daher, dass er auch die Antwort an Reviewer 2 erhalten soll. Hier wäre ein zusätzlicher Hinweis in einem Pop-up Fenster hilfreich, dass Reviewer 1 nur Antwort 1 zu erhalten braucht. Etwa: You must at least inform the reviewer of the reply intended for him, but you may voluntarily inform him of the replies to other reviewers. 

Ohne einen solchen i-Hinweis kann man nicht erkennen, warum das interaktive System erneut fragt oder welchen Knopf man anklicken soll, wenn man dem Reviewer keine weiteren Antworten zukommen lassen möchte. Da jede Zeitschrift ein anderes System verwendet, sieht man sich immer anderen Herausforderunge gegenüber.