Influence of Wave-Induced Radiation Stress on Upper-Layer Ocean Temperature during Typhoons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language in the text requires significant improvement, as there are numerous obvious mistakes that were repeated from the previous round. I strongly suggest a thorough review of the grammar to avoid such errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Accepted on the basis of the adopted revisions

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. We have polished the whole paper and fixed language errors.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The revised paper looks much better than previous one. Unfortunately, it needs some additional corrections before its publication in the journal.

 

Corrections needed.

 

Use ‘Equation (1)’ instead of ‘Equation 1’, ‘Equation (2)’ instead of ‘Equation 2’, and so on.

Add a blank between value and its dimension in the text.

Please, use the same font size for the main text.

Please, provide the following link for reference [29]: http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/MITSG_12-25.pdf.

Please, prepare references exactly in accordance with the journal template.

 

After detailed consideration of the manuscript, I have found that the results obtained are new and significant for the field. The manuscript is written well but needs some corrections before its publication in the journal.

 

 

So, the paper needs at least a minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

The influence of wave-induced radiation stress on upper-layer ocean temperature under typhoon conditions was investigated in this study. The results are reasonable, and the manuscript is well organized. There are some minor issues that need to be addressed.

1.      Line 9, “conditionsas” should be “conditions as”.

2.      Line 66, please move Ref. [17] to the end of the sentence.

3.      Line 168, “extremly” should be “extremely”.

4.      The tracks of two typhoons were plotted in both Fig. 1c and Fig. 2. Also, water depths are plotted in both Fig. 1a and Fig. 3. I suggest presenting Figs. 1-3 in a more concise way. For example, merge Fig. 1a with Fig. 3, or merge Figs. 1b and 1c with Fig. 2.

5.      The meaning of the legend in Fig. 10 should be clearer if the authors change the words “unadded” and “added” to “without” and “with”. The locations of typhoon can be marked with another color instead of the red color similar to the current vector.

6.      The language of the article can be further improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “Influence of wave-induced radiation stress on upper-layer ocean temperature during typhoons” of Q. Wang et al. used the FVCOM-SWAVE model to simulate the influence of wave-induced radiation stress under the double typhoons LEKIMA(L) and KROSA(R).  FVCOM-SWAVE is based on the simpler wave model SWAN. In particular, the influence of the wave-induced radiation stress on the upper layer ocean temperature under typhoon conditions was investigated. An important part of the paper is chapter 3.3, which contains the verification of the simulated results with Jason-3 satellite data.

The paper is clearly written and deals with the mathematical details of the FVCOM-SWAVE model and its numerical setup in equations 1 - 11. The study is of great practical importance to nations as neighbours of the South Pacific with typhoon incidence. I recommend the paper for publication with the following corrections:

Major comments:

The following points should be added to the abstract: 1) The simulated results have been verified with the Jaso-3 satellite and ARGO data. 2) The FVCOM-SWAVE model is based on the SWAN model, which has been improved.

Throughout the paper there is no mention of the following possible questions from readers 1) Which programming language was used for FVCOM-SWAVE? 2) What is the computer time for the calculations mentioned in the paper? 3) Are the computer code and user manuals of the FVCOM-SWAVE software free of charge?

Minor comments:

Line 80: Mellot et al. [16]

Line 138: accuracy (0.033 m)

Line 140: please enter as a tip (UTC = coordinated universal time)

Line 186: please insert a common reference for sigma-coordinate transformation, such as e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_coordinate_system

Line 222: Consistently use RHS for “the right-hand side” or omit the abbreviation RHS throughout the paper

Line 229: please insert a common reference for the Ursell Number, such as e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursell_number

References: Some author names are written in capital letters, such as the references 31, 39, 41. Please correct this.

   

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attachments.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

 

The paper is dedicated to investigation of the wave-induced radiation stress influence on upper-layer ocean temperature under typhoon condition.

 

 

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?

 

The topic is original and relevant in the field. The study of the wave-current interaction in the Northwest Pacific Ocean (WNP) under typhoon conditions is of great significance to accurately forecast the ocean state of WNP.

 

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

 

Analysis of the characteristics of LEKIMA (L) and KROSA (R) typhoons has shown that the airflow of L rotated from the northwest toward R, which restricts the development of the significant wave height (SWH) and reduces the cooling range. Comparing the surface current field with and without radiation stress, the authors have found that the wave radiation stress enhances the surface current and causes certain rightward deviation. The variation of surface current field caused by radiation stress has obvious correlated with the distribution of SWH. The changes of surface current field caused by radiation stress are continuous diffusion, and do not disappear immediately after the typhoon passes; there is certain delayed response. The wave-induced radiation stress affects the simulation of the sea surface temperature (SST), reducing the simulation error of SST. Therefore, the effect of wave-induced radiation stress should be taken into account under SST simulations.

 

 

4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?

 

There is no need to make any improvements or something else. The authors outlined shortly the current achievements in the field in the introduction, and provided detailed description of the materials and method, as well as the obtained results, their discussion, and conclusions. The results obtained are based on simulations using FVCOM-SWAVE model.

 

 

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

 

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the manuscript and address the main questions of their study. Nevertheless, authors should also indicate where the obtained results can be used and outline the future research perspective in Conclusions.

 

 

6. Are the references appropriate?

 

The references are appropriate. Nevertheless, authors should prepare the References section exactly in accordance with the journal template, provide missing DOIs, date of access to the internet sources, and dates and places of the conferences and similar events.

 

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

 

All the tables and figures are appropriate. They show well the research and experiment details and results.

Please, increase resolution in Figure 2, 7, 9, and 10.

 

 

8. Other comments.

 

Please, move the links presented on page 3 to section References.

Use ‘Equation ()’ instead of ‘Eq. ()’ in the text.

 

 

After detailed consideration of the manuscript, I have found that the results obtained are new and significant for the field. The manuscript is written well but needs some corrections before its publication in the journal.

 

 

So, the paper needs at least minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf