Pipes to Earth's subsurface: the role of  atmospheric conditions in controlling air  transport through boreholes and shafts

Levintal, Elad; Lensky, Nadav G.; Mushkin, Amit; Weisbrod, Noam

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1141-2018

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1141-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-1141-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 9, issue 3

Research article

|

27 Sep 2018

Research article |

| 27 Sep 2018

Pipes to Earth's subsurface: the role of atmospheric conditions in controlling air transport through boreholes and shafts

Elad Levintal, Nadav G. Lensky, Amit Mushkin, and Noam Weisbrod

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Sep 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Apr 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interesting, but needs improvements', Andrew Kowalski, 04 Jun 2018
- AC1: 'Response to RC1', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018
  - AC4: 'Revised MS', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jun 2018
- AC2: 'Response to RC2', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018
  - AC5: 'Revised MS', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018
RC3: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 05 Jul 2018
- AC3: 'Response to RC3', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018
  - AC6: 'Revised MS', Noam Weisbrod, 15 Jul 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (20 Aug 2018) by Axel Kleidon

AR by Noam Weisbrod on behalf of the Authors (21 Aug 2018) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (24 Aug 2018) by Axel Kleidon

RR by Andrew Kowalski (06 Sep 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I believe that, following the revisions implemented by the authors, the manuscript should be accepted for publication. Nevertheless, in case they are of help when finalizing the paper, I offer the following suggestions (by page/line numbers in the revised manuscript):

1/13: I would change "3.4 m and 59 m, respectively" to "59 m and 3.4 m, respectively", such that the order of depth and diameter is consistent in this sentence.

1/19: Change "CO2 concentrations (~2000 ppm) were found" to "CO2 concentrations of ~2000 ppm were found"

2/9: I remain unconvinced regarding the terminology "thermal-induced convection (TIC)". The raison d'être of the virtual temperatre is that the density gradients that cause convection are not exclusively thermal, but can also be due to differences in air composition. Therefore, I suggest getting rid of the TIC terminology throughout the manuscript, and replacing it with something more appropriate. Perhaps "convective overturning (CO)" would work, since it is grammatically consistent with "barometric pumping (BP)".

2/28: As it is written, this sentence seems to suggest a lower limit of 10,000 ppm for soil CO2 concentrations, which is certainly not correct. I suggest changing "ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 ppm and above" to "ranging as high as 100,000 ppm", or something similar.

3/16: The negative sign (-80 m) is unecessary since the sentence says "below the ground".

3/30: I find it awkward that the authors have agreed to use "U" in equations to represent the relative humidity, but continue to refer to it as "RH" in the text. I would suggest simply defining the relative humidity (U) and consistently referring to it using this symbol.

4/9: Similarly, I would change this sentence to say "The absolute humidity, or water vapor density (rho_v) was used...", and then to use rho_v instead of AH throughout.

6/32: "when negative pressure changes occur"

7/21: change "two-" to "two"

8/7: Change "thermal-stability" to "stratification"

9/3: In mathematics, two variables are proportional if there is always a constant ratio between them. The constant is called the coefficient of proportionality or proportionality constant. Because the exponent relating the variables u and r is 1.85, I think it is incorrect to say that they are (inversely) proportional. The same applies to the sentence at page 9 line 15.

11/1: change "Methane, which is emissions" to "Methane, whose emissions"

12/10: Kowalski is misspelled.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (06 Sep 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Sep 2018) by Axel Kleidon

AR by Noam Weisbrod on behalf of the Authors (09 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (12 Sep 2018) by Axel Kleidon

AR by Noam Weisbrod on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (3525 KB)
Full-text XML