A Space-Time Variational Method for Retrieving Upper-Level Vortex Winds from GOES-16 Rapid Scans over Hurricanes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Specific comment
Line 55. … “squared” gradients of estimated velocity components …
General Comments:
It is clear that the new method does indeed generate much more dense air motion vectors than the previous method. However, the Figures 3-5, 7-9, showing the radar, suffer from very small scale, such that the differences mentioned in the text body are not discernible on the figures. Suggest a much smaller scale plot to highlight these differences. Other than that, the MS is in good condition.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the introduction, it would strengthen the argument on the methodology if it would be clearly stated what is innovative about this specific methodological development. In line with the latter, also balance and articulation of the methodological approach needs to be improved so that the application can be actually demonstrative of the validity of the methodology. Improve the title. Use different keywords from title. Improve the keywords. I propose to the authors to be more specific, explanatory and simplified in order to be easily understandable from the readers. Introduction section is short that need to add some information with current references. Results and discussion is too short. Need the exact discussions section. Conclusion section is not much clear and need to improve. Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal's format.
Comments on the Quality of English Language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes a space-time variational method for retrieving upper-level vortex winds from geostationary satellite rapid infrared scans over hurricanes. The new method is computationally efficient for real-time applications and potentially useful for hurricane wind nowcasts. It is overall a good piece of work to be publshed, though major modifications still need to be addressed during the revisions.
Major comments:
1. The abstract needs to be rewritten from lines 24 to 31. The current version is given too complicated to read.
2. Around lines 45 to 60, I think it is meaningless to illustrate the shortcomings of the optical flow technique in detail.
3. In Figure 1, it is difficult to distinguish the red, purple, or pink (or other color?) lines. I suggest the authors to give more distinguished colors of the profiles. And it is necessary to explain every line with different color in the content and the figure legend.
4. The conclusion needs to be concise. The section 5 is too long for a conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writting of the abstract and introduction need to be modified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors described how they derive wind vector fields from the cloud temperatures derived from satellite images.
If the temperatures derived from satellite images are from the clouds at different heights, how do you process the data to make sure the derived wind vectors are at the same height? If the wind vectors are not at the same height, what does these derived wind fields mean?
Can the authors provide more data comparisons to statistically show the difference between their derived wind vectors and the radar-observed wind vectors?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLine 55: “squired” should be “squared”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors:
The manuscript is very interesting and fits the Journal’s aim and scope. Still, I consider major revisions, and I have some comments and suggestions, listed below.
Introduction:
1. The objectives of the study are not very clear; please develop.
2. Please indicate briefly why the Laura and Ida Hurricanes were chosen as case studies, and describe their characteristics (could be presented in section 3) with appropriate references.
3. Line 40: Please indicate what “HWRF” means.
Description of the method:
Please indicate at least one book or paper to support the equations and method presented in Section 2.1. The authors indicate only reference [16], which is a self–citation published in 2021. Some of the References [4- 8] are also self-citation.
Please clearly present what is new - if there is any update – in the method presented in this manuscript compared to the one published in 2021.
Results:
1. It was not clear how the authors validated the new method. Please develop the results Section with some discussions.
2. It was not clear what are the advantages and disadvantages of the new method; please clarify.
Conclusions:
This section is too long. Usually, there are no citations, so those paragraphs could be included in the results Section.
Please indicate what are the conclusions of the paper and the contribution to the hurricane hazard (eg. quick and more accurate forecast related to path and wind velocities).
References:
1. There are too many self-citations; usually, authors indicate their own publications up to 10% of all references listed. Please replace some of your work or add more references.
2. NOAA has many publications, reports, online information, and data. I’m surprised the authors did not indicate at least one of their references. Please include at least the references of the data used for the case studies presented in the paper: Laura and Ida Hurricanes.
3. Please check the MDPI layout format to indicate the list of references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor grammatical errors should be addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors clarified their method details. It is expected to see more validation cases in their future work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The manuscript has improved and you have revised the text according to the suggestions.
I think the paper is ready for publication.
My only final comment is that the authors do not state anything about emergency planning and improving the hurricane forecast to save people and their possessions, since it is part to the part of the Funding Project.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
