Reply on RC1 [peer_review]

Niklas Blum
2021 unpublished
The Authors present and evaluate an approach to derive cloud-base height (CBH) from a network of seven upward looking all-sky imagers (ASIs). The analysis focusses on a region in NW Germany during summer and shoulder seasons. The authors demonstrate that a network approach outperforms individual pairs of ASIs. The manuscript is generally well-written, and the figures complement the main text appropriately. I recommend publication of this article after resolving several general and few minor
more » ... l and few minor comments. C1 AMTD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper 0.0.2 Authors' response: We would like to thank the reviewer a lot for the time and effort spent on providing feedback to our manuscript and for the insightful comments. We believe that these led to valuable improvements of our manuscript. We addressed all comments and have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewer as good as it was possible to us. In the following, we will address the reviewer's further comments point-by-point. Changes are extracted from the adapted manuscript within which changes were highlighted using latexdiff. Blue indicates insertions, red indicates deletions. Please note, that the order of Sect. 3.3 and Sect. 3.4 has been reversed as suggested by General Comment 5. This change has been excluded from the markup, as it would have obscured all other changes. Further, please note, that Sect. 3 and Sect. 4 have been reworked strongly, based on Reviewer Comment 2, Major Comments 1, 2. We recommend viewing the PDF version of this response (supplement) which contains the changes to the manuscript.
doi:10.5194/amt-2020-430-ac1 fatcat:owdpsgle6rdydig4epzicswtei