Observation-driven model for calculating water-harvesting potential from advective fog in (semi-)arid coastal regions

Lobos-Roco, Felipe; Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, Jordi; del Río, Camilo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-109-2025

Articles | Volume 29, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-109-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-109-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 29, issue 1

Research article

|

13 Jan 2025

Research article |

| 13 Jan 2025

Observation-driven model for calculating water-harvesting potential from advective fog in (semi-)arid coastal regions

Felipe Lobos-Roco, Jordi Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, and Camilo del Río

Download

Final revised paper (published on 13 Jan 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Apr 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-110', Peter A. Taylor, 19 May 2024

My review attached. Peter Taylor

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-110-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Felipe Lobos Roco, 18 Jun 2024
  
  Dear reviewer, in the document attached "Reply to reviewer#1.pdf" you will find our reply, indicating major changes in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-110-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2024-110', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jul 2024

Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 9 July 2024. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-110-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Felipe Lobos Roco, 23 Aug 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  We thank you for your thorough revision of our manuscript. We have taken every comment seriously and replied to them accordingly in the attached file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-110-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (29 Aug 2024) by Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis

AR by Felipe Lobos Roco on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Sep 2024) by Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Sep 2024)

RR by Peter A. Taylor (08 Oct 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments.
Most of my concerns with the initial version have been addressed and the AMARU model appears to be useful for practical estimation of water harvesting. There are some places in the revised manuscript where minor changes could be made to improve clarity and some suggestions are given below. One concern would be Equation 12. Once cloud or fog has formed I would expect 100% relative humidity and, with rv = rs, Eq (12) would give zero liquid water mixing ratio. I think we are to assume that rv is the surface level (z1) mixing ratio and represents the mixing ratio of the air before the stratus cloud had formed.

Detailed comments
line 8 "is ≤50 cm−350 cm−3 " repetition.
line 56 "how well-mixed (<3.1 x 10-3 K-1) the MBL.." Make it clear that this is ∂θ/∂z, and introduce "potential temperature".
line 59 "As the latter increases, the liquid water content progressively..." The LCL or just height?
line 90 If Fin is a flux it should be per unit area"
line 97 Why add in std?
line 119 "through"
line 124 "devices"
line 140 maybe ".. the potential temperature gradient (∂θ/∂z)" ...
line 142/3 Is q the (water vapor) mixing ratio or specific humidity? Virtually the same but best to be consistent. Also well mixed potential temperature.
Figure 3 Units for ∂θ/∂z and ∂q/∂z thresholds.
line 150 Case 4 is a dewpoint depression of 1.15K, not 1.5 K?
line 159/160 If there is no fog ∂q/∂z could have any value and once fog is formed q = qs (saturation mixing ratio), but T dependent and not well mixed. I am nor sure what to read into "not contingent"
line 179 I suspect a typographical error in Equation (8), One of the "1-" expressioins should probably be removed!
line 189/190 the "uplifting" in Fig 2C will depend in part on the topography - airflow over the mountain or through gaps? Is the 3D terrain structure taken into account?
p10,11 CB estimates seem better than CT. CT will depend on many factors, such as the initial humidity profile when the stratus clouds were forming.
line 242 Need more explanation of the basis for Equation(12).
-----------------------------------------------

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (24 Oct 2024) by Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis

AR by Felipe Lobos Roco on behalf of the Authors (31 Oct 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (08 Nov 2024) by Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis

AR by Felipe Lobos Roco on behalf of the Authors (10 Nov 2024)

Short summary

Water resources are fundamental for the social, economic, and natural development of (semi-)arid regions. Precipitation decreases due to climate change obligate us to find new water resources. Fog harvesting (FH) emerges as a complementary resource in regions where it is abundant but untapped. This research proposes a model to estimate FH potential in coastal (semi-)arid regions. This model could have broader applicability worldwide in regions where FH could be a viable water source.