Cooling by Cyprus Lows of Surface and Epilimnion Water in Subtropical Lake Kinneret in Rainy Seasons
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper about Cooling by Cyprus lows of surface and epilimnion water in subtropical Lake Kinneret in rainy seasons has a interesting topic nut before be accepted for publication in this journal needs important modifications.
1. the structure of the paper is not clear. The study area part must be relocated at the materials and method part as a subchapter
2. all the introduction part must be rewritten. Here the authors must corelate their objectives to other research made in the field. Also some important references are missing. At the end of this part the authors must clearly specify the novelty of their approach and the novelty of the methodology used.
3. The text from row rows 36 to 93 is just a description of some geographical characteristics of this lake not a introduction in the problem studied.
4. in figure 2 the b part is the same like in figure 1 b part. why the authors used the same figure?
5. in figure 1, 2 and 3 the authors put latitude and longitude text...it is obviously that in those axes is latitude and longitude degrees
6. the entire part of materials and methods must be restructured. is not clear what method used the authors to reach the results obtained.
7. In the discussion part the authors must clearly expressed the limitation of the methodology used
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article deals with a hot topic that may suit Remote Sensing. However, the current analysis is insufficient. The effect of precipitation and temperature on lake cooling is essentially the change of the lake's net energy budget, but it is not discussed in the manuscript. In addition, the conclusions obtained by the manuscript relying only on statistical analysis methods are far-fetched and lack a scientific explanation. "Significant" is used several times in the manuscript, but no statistically significant data supports it. The reviewer recommends that this manuscript should be resubmitted after major revision.
Minor revision:
(1) Figure 1 recommends that the macro location comes from the continent to geologically locate the readers.
(2) The study area should be marked in Figure 3 to facilitate the reader's understanding.
(3) Please check the format of the references to meet the journal requirements.
(4) Precipitation data mainly come from satellite products. Is the quality of satellite products evaluated by local station observation?
(5) The figures legend/caption is not self-explanation, which should be improved.
(6) The authors should acknowledge the limitations.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Add five test points of seawater temperature change chart with water depth change in different seasons, and explain the relationship between winter and other seasons.
2. Remote sensing monitoring is the surface temperature of seawater, and what is the relationship with the temperature of seawater changing with depth. Please add.
3. The low pressure is the main reason for the formation of the rainy season. The paper analyzes the influence of the rainfall in the rainy season on the seawater temperature from the data, which is the superficial phenomenon, please deeply explain the reason.
4. Supplement the common sense content of the relationship between low pressure and rainfall, and the main reasons for the formation of Cyprus lows.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Specific Comments for Authors
Page 1 line 36
“Lake Kinneret is a subtropical lake located in the northern section of the Jordan Rift valley. Lake Kinneret is isothermal ... "- I suggest information about Lake Kinneret should be included in point 2, while point 1" Introduction "should be complemented with the results of research by scientists from other countries .
Page 3 Fig 1
For the clarity of the manuscript, the names of lakes (e.g. Dead Sea), mountains (e.g. Mount Hermon, Golan Heights) and others used in the manuscript - should be marked in Figure 1
Page 4 line 136
“In the hot season (June - September), there is no precipitation in the Kinneret region. However, in the rainy season (December - May) rainfall of ~ 400 mm ... "- I suggest complementing with information from October, November
Page 5 point 3
There was nothing mentioned about the homogeneity of the hydrometeorological data - I suggest adding the information at the manuscript
Page 5 line 161
“We focused on the winter, spring and summer months, when solar radiation varies from its minimum to its maximum” - why September, October and November are not included? (about September mentioned: page 4 line 136 “In the hot season (June - September), there is no precipitation in the Kinneret region”)
Page 6 line 197
“For each year during the study period, we estimated annual precipitation over the Kinneret watershed area, during the rainy season…” - what about the data from October and November?
Page 6 line 205
"... Because of that we used measurements of water levels in Lake Kinneret in order to specify highest and lowest precipitation years ..." - the notation is not clear, it is necessary to provide information about the amount of evaporation, as well as other processes such as retention, infiltration that participate in the transformation of precipitation into runoff.
Page 7 line 214
“In particular, a lake water level difference (WLD) between the end (May) and the beginning of the rainy season (December) was used as a proxy of annual precipitation “- the notation is not clear - it raises doubts. There is lack of information on precipitation in the October, November
Page 7 line 220
“Moreover, the created scatterplots between annual precipitation values and WLD showed a statistically-significant linear fit between the two parameters…” - I suggest adding a significance level and the test used for the examination statistical significance.
Page 7 line 227
“Therefore, in our study, we used WLD as a selection criterion of the years with high and low precipitation ...” - the notation is not clear
Page 8 line 245
“Hereafter the years with the highest WLD will be called high precipitation (HP) years, while the years with the lowest WLD will be called low precipitation (LP) years” - requires comments and attention to other hydrological processes in the water cycle. The method and degree of the catchment development, which affects the water level in the river and lake, is also important.
Page 10 line 285
“To investigate cooling of Kinneret water by Cyprus lows, we compared SWT, averaged over HP and over LP years, in every month from December to August…” - why December - August were included - needs a comment? I suggest taking into account the whole year
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
We read the new manuscript attached by the author and we agree with most of the modification made, but in the introduction part is missing the novelty of the approach made. What is the difference between this study and other studies made using the same methodology.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer #1 for his helpful comments on our manuscript. Below we present our answer (A1) to his comment (C1):
C1: We read the new manuscript attached by the author and we agree with most of the modification made, but in the introduction part is missing the novelty of the approach made. What is the difference between this study and other studies made using the same methodology.
A1: The novelty of our approach to the investigation of effects of Cyprus lows on Kinneret water temperature (WT) is the simultaneous use of both satellite-based MODIS 1 km × 1 km resolution records and in-situ shipboard measurements of WT vertical profiles. Satellite MODIS 4 km × 4 km resolution records were used to investigate the effect of Cyprus lows on sea surface temperature in the Eastern Mediterranean. The above information about our approach is mentioned in the Introduction section of our manuscript. (Lines 81 – 85).
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the revisions made by the author, I think the present manuscript is ready for acceptance. However, before that, it is necessary to add the limitation of this study. Because the method adopted in this study is only the traditional statistical analysis method and lacks the physical model, it is slightly insufficient in explaining some physical processes.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer #2 for his helpful comments on our manuscript. Below we present our answer (A1) to his comments (C1):
C1: Thanks to the revisions made by the author, I think the present manuscript is ready for acceptance. However, before that, it is necessary to add the limitation of this study. Because the method adopted in this study is only the traditional statistical analysis method and lacks the physical model, it is slightly insufficient in explaining some physical processes.
A1: We understand the Reviewer’s concern. However, we consider that our analysis, based on satellite and in-situ data, was sufficient for producing our results. Modeling of the cooling effect of Cyprus lows on Kinneret water temperature was beyond the scope of our study.
Reviewer 4 Report
I thank authors for their comprehensive answers.
The article had been greatly improved taking into account comments.
However, notation: ‘Moreover, similar patterns of WT differences between HP and LP years at the same five in-situ monitoring sites were obtained at a depth of 5 m (Figs. 12 a to e). The obtained similar patterns of the WT difference between HP and LP years at various depths at five in-situ monitoring sites (Figs. 11 and 12) is evidence of the homogeneity of the hydrometeorological data influencing WT’(page 14 line 404-408) - the notation is not clear, I suggest adding information about the study of homogeneity of data (e.g. statistical tests which were used) to point 2.2
Author Response
We thank Reviewer #4 for his helpful comments on our manuscript. In the revised version, the text has been updated according to the Reviewer’s comments. Below we present our answer (A1) to his comment (C1):
C1: The article had been greatly improved taking into account comments. However, notation: ‘Moreover, similar patterns of WT differences between HP and LP years at the same five in-situ monitoring sites were obtained at a depth of 5 m (Figs. 12 a to e). The obtained similar patterns of the WT difference between HP and LP years at various depths at five in-situ monitoring sites (Figs. 11 and 12) is evidence of the homogeneity of the hydrometeorological data influencing WT’(page 14 line 404-408) - the notation is not clear, I suggest adding information about the study of homogeneity of data (e.g. statistical tests which were used) to point 2.2
A1: In the revised version, the following sentences have been updated, in accordance with the reviewer’s comments.
“In our study, we found that a decrease in solar radiation (due to an increase in cloudiness) was the main factor contributing to the Kinneret water cooling by Cyprus lows. Therefore, the obtained similar patterns of the WT difference between HP and LP years at various depths at five in-situ monitoring sites (Figs. 11 and 12) is evidence that the cooling by a decrease in solar radiation was evenly distributed within the lake.” (Lines 407 – 412).
