Interactive comment on “Bayesian inverse modeling and source location of an unintended I-131 release in Europe in the fall of 2011” by Ondřej Tichý et al

1. Evaluation of the meteorology: The largest concern I have with this manuscript is the lack of meteorological evaluation. The authors use two different particle dispersion models (FLEXPART & HySplit) but both are driven by the same meteorology (GFS at 0.5 ◦ × 0.5 ◦ resolution). Obviously, if the meteorology is incorrect then the authors will obtain erroneous results. Surely there are observations of windspeed and direction the authors could use to evaluate. Further, the authors assume that all of the I-131 was release in particulate form and, as such, will undergo both dry and wet deposition. How well does GFS simulate the clouds and precipitation? It seems that this would be crucial to accurately representing the dry and wet deposition. Particle dispersion models are strongly dependent on the accurate simulation of the mixed layer heights because this typically dictates the sensitivity of the particles to surface fluxes, how well does GFS simulate mixed layer heights? A systematic bias in mixed layer heights could easily lead to SRS matrices that are too sensitive (or too weak), this would then manifest itself in a bias in the source magnitude.