Response to Comments by Reviewer#1

We are very much thankful to the referee for helpful suggestions and encouragement. The
manuscript now stands significantly revised. We have also put to use the available
opportunity to improve upon the method of identifying BV periods (Results and
Discussion). The manuscript incorporates the suggestions given by the other referee as well.
Point-by-point response to comments by Reviewer#1 is given below.

1(a). With respect to the first point, presumably the vertical resolution of this technique (as
distinct from the vertical interval between retrieved values) will be somehow related-to/limited-
by the vertical distance that the sonde travels in one BV period, i.e. by the size of the influence
cone (Farge, 1992) at the appropriate scale? Some discussion of this should be given.

We appreciate referee’s keen observation and agree with him that the vertical resolution is
limited by the ‘vertical scale’ of the BV oscillation.

1(b).With respect to the second point, the polynomial fitting procedure is itself a form of high-
pass filtering. Why, therefore, use this two step procedure? Presumably to provide an enhanced
level of filtering. However, this should be clarified. Incidentally, I agree with the authors (line
210) that the polynomial fit used here is probably not the most
appropriate method - the BV period would typically be expected to exhibit a step change at the
tropopause - not a smooth change over all heights. However, I do not regard this as a limiting
factor in the context of a short communication. The results
indicate that the method used is acceptable for the purposes of demonstration.

As rightly pointed out by the referee, the polynomial fit is for detrending the raw data, to
remove the ‘secular componen’ of the balloon motion. High-pass filtering is performed on
the fluctuating component. The same is clarified now in the revised manuscript.

2) On line 169 (in relation to Figure 2) the authors state that "it is now a straightforward process
to extract the dominant oscillations at each height". Is this done objectively? Since this is a key
part of the retrieval process it should be described in more detail. It might also be useful to
overlay the profile of retrieved Brunt-Vaisala periods (shown in Figure 1) on these plots since
the eye tends to be drawn to secondary maxima. For example, in Figure 2a my first inclination
would be to identify the peaks (at altitudes above 10 km) which lie between 10 and 15 minute
periods. However, it is clear from Figure 1a that it is the peaks around 5 minutes which are used.

Significant change is incorporated in the revised manuscript to describe the new procedure
adopted to select the maxima from the wavelet spectra. The diagrams also stand modified.

3. Although the temperature and ascent rate profiles in Figure 3 show an overall agreement, there
is little qualitative agreement for the small vertical scale (up to a few km) tropospheric features.
These features are admittedly of small amplitude. Do the authors have any Chennai radiosonde
profiles with larger amplitude tropospheric features, such as those suggested in Figure 4, which
would give a better indication of how well the new method performs?

Yes, we do have profiles showing large amplitudes in the troposphere. However, as other
referee also has some reservation about the comparison, we have done a thorough
reanalysis. Now we show the comparison of BV period rather the BV frequency squared
parameter, no doubt helped by following a more refined procedure to select BV periods.

4. Since there is no independent way of verifying the accuracy of the profiles shown in Figure 4,
they do not appear to add anything useful to the manuscript. It would be better to use this figure
space for an additional temperature/ascent rate comparison as for
Figure 3. Refer to my point 3 above.

We totally agree with the referee. All the diagrams are redone to support the improved
procedures. In figure 2, for example, we illustrate the procedure adopted for choosing the
peak from wavelet spectra.

8. Do the authors have any examples of balloon ascents under gravity wave conditions which
modulate the ascent rate to see how this affects the N^2 retrieval. This is likely beyond the scope
for a short communication but should be considered if the work is taken any further.

Right now, we don’t have the balloon ascents under detectable gravity wave conditions,
though some results hint at the presence of larger periods in the amplitude spectra.

13) I am assuming that the blue profiles in Figure 5 are derived from integrating the squared BV
frequencies derived from the ascent rate method. However, I am not entirely sure what is shown
by the black lines. Are these derived from the squared BV frequencies arising from the
temperature gradient method? If so, why is this shown? Is it not just showing errors resulting
from differentiation followed by integration?

The black line in the figure 5 (old manuscript) showed the temperature profile estimated
from equation 3 using N2 profile derived from the radiosonde temperature profile. This
profile was shown to validate equation 3. However, to avoid confusion the figures are
redone in the revised manuscript.

All other minor comments suggested by the referee are incorporated in the revised
manuscript.
 Reply to Reviewer#2’s comments

We are thankful to the referee for his comments. The manuscript now stands significantly
revised. The manuscript incorporates the suggestions given by the other referee as well.
Point-by-point response to comments by Reviewer#2 is given below.

In this paper, the authors presented a method of deducing the Brunt Vaisala (BV) frequency
profile from the oscillations in the ascent rate profile of radiosonde balloons. And there from the
temperature profile. While gravity wave motions could affect the balloon ascent rate profile
among many other factors (as mentioned in the paper itself), deducing the BV frequency from it
rather far fetched and is totally unconvincing. This is borne out by the results presented by the
authors. The BV frequency obtained from the ascent rate and that from the temperature profile
(Fig 3) differ widely, even by as much as a factor of two at some altitudes. So, the approach is
not useful for deducing temperature profile. As the basic approach of deducing the BV frequency
from the balloon ascent rate is not at all convincing.

One of the results reported by Kitchen and Shutts [1990], and quoted in the
manuscript, is that the wave period experienced by the ascending balloon is often close to
the average Brunt-vaisala period in the layer in which waves were observed. Even though
the balloon motion is influenced by the gravity wave, if present with significant strength, by
employing wavelet transform one can deduce the underlying oscillations with their
respective time histories. This is one of the great advantages of wavelet analysis.

We have extended our analysis for more days and we are confident enough to retrieve the
BV period employing the CWT technique and a newer procedure in identifying the BV cut-
off. In the revised manuscript, we replace figure 3 with BV period and 5-point smoothing
rather than the earlier N2 profile (to avoid presenting small scale features in N2). The
comparisons show good agreement between the observed and estimated BV period profiles
as shown by the RMS error values. The text also comments briefly on the sources of
disagreement.