A Comprehensive Evaluation of 4-Parameter Diurnal Temperature Cycle Models with In Situ and MODIS LST over Alpine Meadows in the Tibetan Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My recommendation about the revised manuscript (that title is "A comprehensive evaluation of 4-parameter diurnal temperature cycle models with in-situ and MODIS LST over alpine meadows in the Tibetan Plateau) is "Accept in present form. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to my indication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have answered to my comments. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors compared nine 4-para Diurnal Temperature Cycles models for monitoring the DTC variations on alpine meadows in the Tibetan Plateau with half-hour observation data. They want to compare the performances of different models with in-situ data but also MODIS LST data to finally identify the best method.

The methodology proposed by the authors are really interesting, especially when testing MODIS LST to models and in-situ data, as the results. I especially appreciated the 4.1 § and the end of the discussion, about MODIS limits.

I have only minor comments, mainly on the English language and style, that should be checked by a native speaker (line 20 - 21 : a verb is missing ? ; line 40 - 43 : please make two sentences from this very long sentence ; line 131 : will be discussed instead of will discuss ; lien 329 : this is high likely should be replaced by this is most likely ; among others).

In the abstract, the parameters from line 33 to 34 have to be described (dT, ts, etc.).

The world's Thrid Pole (line 105) has to be explained a little bit more precisely for an international audiance.

line 136 : no obvious change in wind speed. How is that measured ?

fig. 1 : a map of Asia with the TP in it is needed to locate the study area, despite the coordinates given by the authors.

line 152 : I would add a reference to the figure 1, when refering to the Suli and Tanggula sites.

Reviewer 2 Report

Each DTC model dealt with in this manuscript has already been verified by the proposed researchers and their users, so it does not have to be re-verified. Of course, the adaptability of these models needs to be considered when applying to other target areas. At that time, sensitivity analysis of parameters such as emissivity is necessary. It is sufficient to have the accuracy for the surface energy balance and surface water-heat budged studies carried out using these models. In order for this manuscript to be accepted as a research paper, the surface energy balance and surface water-heat budged must be discussed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Determination of  DTC is very important by using in-situ  and remotely sensed data. Comparison of different models for DTC determination give significant inputs for local and global scale energy balance studies. The submitted manuscript gives information about 9 different DTC models with in-situ and MODIS LST data for diurnal variations of LST in TP.

My overall recommendation about the manuscript is reconsider after major revision. 

1) Many different studies have been published about different DTC models with in-situ data and different satellite images. The author should provide the significant differences of the manuscript than the published manuscripts.  

2) In literature, many studies have been conducted for different climate zones, different land covers and different elevations. In the manuscript, there is only one land cover types and three different elevation level with only five stations. The author should provide detailed information about limited conditions and data. 

3)Especially, the author should provide published studies related with  diurnal variations of LST  in TP region. The author should compare the manuscript with the published the other TP related studies. 

4) In line 176. The author should add a column for category such SEM or QPM.

5) The authors mentioned about MAE (Mean Absolute Error) in line 211 for statistical evaluation of different models. The author should check this because there is no information about MAE in results section. This statistical parameter not included in the results and the related figures such as figure 2 and figure 3. The authors should provide MAE results and modified results section and related figures. 

6) The author should provide Figure 6 in the manuscript before figure 6 itself. 

7)The author should explain clearly why the scientific community needs the results that gathered from the manuscript ( the performance comparison of nine different DTC model with in-situ and MODIS LST (half hour) for different season and different stations in TP alpine meadows. 

8) The author should improve the conclusion.  

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of DTC models with in-situ and MODIS LST over alpine meadows in the Tibetan Plateau. The topic is interesting and suitable for the Journal. The paper has several figures, reasonably necessary and it is easily readable. The paper is generally well written, however, there are some unclear aspects that should be revised. I suggest the authors to address the following: In the 2.1 Data subsection the authors could include some descriptive statistics of the in-situ and the MODIS data. In the 2.2 subsection of the manuscript the authors could consider to add a small paragraph that describes the applied methodology of the paper for the readers’ convenience. The 2.3 subtitle should be changed for example to “Evaluation Metrics”. In the results section the authors could consider the following: Although a comprehensive assessment of model performance is presented in the paper, I propose some minor suggestions for improving the quality of the paper and the results interpretation. 1. The calculation of the model performance metrics for different ranges of LST values (i.e. low, medium, high). This could provide further insight to the 3.3 subsection of the paper. 2. A really good method for model comparison is the use of Taylor diagrams that facilitates a comparative assessment of different models based on R, RMSE and standard deviation. In Figure 3, I propose the use of bar diagrams. Lines 299-301: The Figure 5 results indicate that the performance of the models is lower in winter but not poor as it is stated in these lines for all models. In general, where it is possible, the authors should use the same axis ranges for better comparison. The authors could also highlight with a separate paragraph in the conclusions’ section some recommendations for future work. In general, the authors should check the manuscript for grammar errors.