Impact of Satellite Wind on Improving Simulation of the Upper Ocean Response to Tropical Cyclones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study developed a blended wind dataset by combining the surface winds observed by satellite-based microwave sensors with the CFSR analysis winds and investigated the impact of satellite winds on numerical simulations. The results obtained from the blended winds are significantly better than those from CFSR alone. In general, the manuscript is well organized and written. However, several concerns are listed below and I suggest a major revision. 

 

Main comments:

1 Multiple satellite winds were used to generate the blended winds. I am wondering which has the greatest contribution on correcting CFSR? Could the results be better by removing the satellites with small or negative contributions? 

2 Although the blended winds have a good performance within the core area of the storm, significant differences are still observed within the outer areas. How about the roles of the blended winds play in simulating ocean surface, sub-surface temperatures and current speeds?

 

Specific comments:

Figure 2: Please show the differences between satellite observed and the blended winds as fourth column.

Figure 6: Why are the temperature between 0-30 m always underestimated by the results simulated from the blended winds.

Please highlight the information (e.g. temporal span and resolution) of the blended winds in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

#1: The idea of improving the driving field of the model in the manuscript is feasible. However, the manuscript did not verify the differences between the improved wind field and the actual wind field, which should be added to the article.

#2: Why choose these two TCs when there are more tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere? Are there any typical features?

#3: Has the manuscript made any improvements or innovations to the blend wind method, which referred to Peng？

#4: The format of references should be standardized, such as 62.

#5: According to Figure 6, the improvement effect below 60 meters is not very good. Please provide an explanation.

#6: Is the GHRSST L4 product suitable as a temperature field for comparison, as it is an assimilated product?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

#1: Line 103 ‘in-situ‘    >     'in-situ'

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the Impact of Satellite Wind on Improving Simulation of the Upper Ocean Response to Tropical Cyclones.

 

The analysis and writing of the paper are very well done. The use of Hurricane wind, which is closer to observations, as an external forcing to realistically reproduce surface cooling, is a very promising result. With a few improvements, this paper is deemed publishable.

 

It is deemed necessary to merge HWIND and CFSR winds. However, due to the smaller spatial domain of HWIND compared to CFSR, it is anticipated that there may be discrepancies between the two datasets during the data merging process. The authors need to mention how they dealt with this issue in the process of creating input data.

 

Figure 6 lacks consistency in the colorbar scale, making the reference points ambiguous. It is deemed that applying the same colorbar for all three difference plots would make the distinction clearer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the current version to be possibly published.