Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean–Atmosphere–Continent

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with an interesting topic, but in its current form I cannot recommend it for publication.

1. The Introduction chapter is disproportionately short and does not fulfill the role that is assigned to it. That is, it does not find here a broad review of the literature - only six items of which five are publications by one of the co-authors. Did no one else cover this topic? Against this background, as a reader, I do not know what the results obtained in the article bring new to the current state of knowledge.

2. The article lacks the purpose of the research and, further, it is impossible to assess whether this purpose has been achieved.

3. The classic layout of scientific articles includes a Materials and methods section. Here, the dataset on the basis of which the research was conducted should be clearly indicated. Similarly, questions of methodology. What tools were used, what are their limitations.

4. Similarly, the lack of a chapter Results- giving the reader an easy perception of the most important achievements of the article.

5. Figures are of low quality: gray background and white pixels are visible (for example: Figure 6, 7, 11,15, 16, 17). In the case of Figure 12, 13 the scanned text is shine through.

6. Chapter Conclusions. Refer to the limitations encountered during the research and this further (possible) prospects.

Author Response

The authors thank the Reviewer for useful comments, which allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Comments and responses

1. The Introduction chapter is disproportionately short and does not fulfill the role that is assigned to it. That is, it does not find here a broad review of the literature - only six items of which five are publications by one of the co-authors. Did no one else cover this topic? Against this background, as a reader, I do not know what the results obtained in the article bring new to the current state of knowledge.

The section “Introduction” has been revised taking into account the reviewer’s comments. The review on numerical modelling was added concerning the area under study, and the paper aims were pointed out.

2. The article lacks the purpose of the research and, further, it is impossible to assess whether this purpose has been achieved.

In addition to the sections “Introduction”, “Abstract”, have been extended

3. The classic layout of scientific articles includes a Materials and methods section. Here, the dataset on the basis of which the research was conducted should be clearly indicated. Similarly, questions of methodology. What tools were used, what are their limitations.

We added the sections “Materials and methods”.

4. Similarly, the lack of a chapter Results- giving the reader an easy perception of the most important achievements of the article.

The section “Results” has been added.

5. Figures are of low quality: gray background and white pixels are visible (for example: Figure 6, 7, 11,15, 16, 17). In the case of Figure 12, 13 the scanned text is shine through.

The most of the figures in the manuscript were adapted from the books written by the authors more than 20 years ago and existing in the paper form only. Unfortunately, there is no initial data or better quality original figures available. In the scope of the revision, we made some more modifications with respect to the quality of the figures, but that is all we can do with it. We also inserted information on the sources of the figures into the respective captions.

6. Chapter Conclusions. Refer to the limitations encountered during the research and this further (possible) prospects.

The section “Conclusions” has been extended according to the reviewer’s comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Report on manuscript jmse-2951939

“Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere-Continent”

The main issue with this manuscript is that the presentation is not clear enough. The authors started the manuscript without being clear about the motivation of the study. The manuscript is more review-like rather than a full paper. Authors need to revise the introduction to better state the importance of the study and how it adds to the literature.

-        Where do you read “the presence of relatively warm transformed waters of the main meander of the northern Kuroshio jet”, please elaborate!

-        In addition to reading the features in the plots (for instance figure 3), it is also important to provide potential reasons for these observations.

-        L169: “This is due to the penetration ….” What is the effect of such behaviour! Please elaborate.

-        Same comment about Figure 6, authors listed their reading of the plot but did not provide their explanation of the observed behaviors.

-        The resolution of most figures is questionable!

-        Figures 9 and 10: write a full caption and it is not recommended to just refer to the previous figure.

-        The conclusion is very general and should, instead, give an overview of the findings of the manuscript.

Author Response

The authors thank the Reviewer for useful comments, which allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 2

1. The main issue with this manuscript is that the presentation is not clear enough. The authors started the manuscript without being clear about the motivation of the study. The manuscript is more review-like rather than a full paper. Authors need to revise the introduction to better state the importance of the study and how it adds to the literature.

The sections «Abstract», «Introduction» and «Conclusions» were extended, the review on numerical modelling was added concerning the area under study, and the paper aims were pointed out. The sections «Materials and methods» and «Results» were added.

2. Where do you read “the presence of relatively warm transformed waters of the main meander of the northern Kuroshio jet”, please elaborate!

In the paper

Byshev V.I. On the relationship between current fields and temperature in the zone of the subarctic front of the Pacific Ocean (according to measurements at Megapolygon-87). In The experiment “Megapolygon”; Moscow: Nauka, 1992; pp. 242-250. (In Russian).

3. In addition to reading the features in the plots (for instance figure 3), it is also important to provide potential reasons for these observations.

The measurements presented in Fig. 3, make it possible to have information about the background hydrological conditions of the water area in which a network of 177 autonomous buoy stations was deployed to measure currents and temperature

4. L169: “This is due to the penetration ….” What is the effect of such behaviour! Please elaborate.

This penetration shows traces of transfrontal exchange, which is the process of horizontal mixing of waters.

5. Same comment about Figure 6, authors listed their reading of the plot but did not provide their explanation of the observed behaviors.

The isotherm 20°C (Fig. 6) well tracks the southern boundary of the subarctic front, and its variability characterizes the transfrontal exchange, the direction and intensity, which is indicated by lines I, II, III. As follows from a joint consideration of Fig. 3 and Fig. 6, marked in Fig. 3 the invasion took place along line II (Fig. 6).

6. The resolution of most figures is questionable!

The most of the figures in the manuscript were adapted from the books written by the authors more than 20 years ago and existing in the paper form only. Unfortunately, there is no initial data or better quality original figures available. In the scope of the revision, we made some more modifications with respect to the quality of the figures, but that is all we can do with it. We also inserted information on the sources of the figures into the respective captions.

7. Figures 9 and 10: write a full caption and it is not recommended to just refer to the previous figure.

Captions for Fig. 9, 10 were corrected.

8. The conclusion is very general and should, instead, give an overview of the findings of the manuscript.

The section “Conclusion” has been revised taking into account the reviewer’s comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the manuscript entitled " Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent.”

General comments:

The manuscript “Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent” analyzed the multidecadal climate shifts based on 100-150 years. It highlights the significance of the results, revealing that the features of the present-day climate are of exceptional scientific and practical interest and deserve the development of methods for predicting the timing of the forthcoming climate shift.

The overall writing is okay but has a significant deficiency in the journal format used to present the manuscript. Firstly, numerous concerns are seen.

I am not sure if it is a review or an original article. The abstract is difficult to follow as the style makes it difficult to follow the key points in the manuscript. This section must highlight the objective, material and methods, results, and conclusion.

Nonetheless, the conclusion was informative because it only had sections highlighting and following the work. I suggest the authors follow the journal structure to capture sections such as material and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank the Reviewer for useful comments, which allowed us to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 2

The manuscript “Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent” analyzed the multidecadal climate shifts based on 100-150 years. It highlights the significance of the results, revealing that the features of the present-day climate are of exceptional scientific and practical interest and deserve the development of methods for predicting the timing of the forthcoming climate shift.

1. The overall writing is okay but has a significant deficiency in the journal format used to present the manuscript. Firstly, numerous concerns are seen.

The article was structured according to the recommendations (rules) of the journal

2. I am not sure if it is a review or an original article. The abstract is difficult to follow as the style makes it difficult to follow the key points in the manuscript. This section must highlight the objective, material and methods, results, and conclusion.

We declare that the authors’ article is original. We modified the “Abstract” and “introduction” to formulate our purposes more clear.

3. Nonetheless, the conclusion was informative because it only had sections highlighting and following the work. I suggest the authors follow the journal structure to capture sections such as material and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

The purpose of the work was critically revised, sections “Materials and Methods” and “Results” were added, and the section “Conclusions” was drawn up.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is my second review. The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1

This is my second review. The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments. I have no further comments.

The authors thank the Reviewer for high evaluation of their work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors need to highlight the changes in the revision to see what has been changed from the first version.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2

Authors need to highlight the changes in the revision to see what has been changed from the first version.

The authors apologize for their forgetting of usage “trackchanges” utility. We restored the process of revision. It should be noted that this PDF is of purely informative application for reviewers to appoint in general, where the corrections were applied. This utility has some usage limitations. e.g. it is incompatible with most types of cross-references in TeX, such as bibliography citations, references to sections/figures and other environments. Therefore, the priority should to be given to the document submitted to the Editorial Board via standard resubmission interface at the MDPI web site.

The version containing track changes is attached to the Reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Revised version of manuscript titled " Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent.”

General comments:

This a revised version of manuscript “Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent” analyzed the multidecadal climate shifts based on 100-150 years.

The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions satisfactorily. The manuscript significantly. I have no issues at this stage. I recommend accept.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3

Reviewer 3

This a revised version of manuscript “Multidecadal Phase Changes in the Thermodynamic State of the System: Ocean-Atmosphere – Continent” analyzed the multidecadal climate shifts based on 100-150 years.

The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions satisfactorily. The manuscript significantly. I have no issues at this stage. I recommend accept.

The authors thank the Reviewer for high evaluation of their work.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The modification in the revised version covers my comment in the previous report. I think the manuscript is sufficiently improved and can be accepted from my side.