Satellite Oceanography in NOAA: Research, Development, Applications, and Services Enabling Societal Benefits from Operational and Experimental Missions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very well written and easy to follow. The sequence of chapters is presented in a very straight way and the figures are well placed, although all of them need better resolution before the paper comes out. The work will add very good knowledge to the general public and show an amazing history of achievements which need to be studied and understood by any satellite oceanographer or institution dealing with the same issues in the future. I recommend publication after very few modifications listed below.

lines 46-47: perhaps is worth to mention the synergy with modeling data too...

lines 97-98: please mention the applicability to weather prediction too...

lines 182-183: Chlorophyll concentration estimates (and its anomalies) can be related to phytoplankton biomass (and its fluctuations) but they are not the same estimates! please rephrase. Please use estimates instead of measurements.

line 264: perhaps it is worth mentioning that the obscured features are at the oceanic meso- and submesoscales.

line 291: North Brazil Current rings...

lines 290 and 294: preferably use "mesoscale" instead of "meso-scale".

line 306: use 1.5 km.

lines 672-673: NRCS acronym already expanded in line 657.

line 737: use "in situ" always in italic, as here, throughout the entire text.

line 753: use either air-sea interface or air-sea boundary layers...

line 1052: the developing El Niño of 2023-2024...

 

Author Response

• The paper is very well written and easy to follow. The sequence of chapters is presented in a very straight way and the figures are well placed, although all of them need better resolution before the paper comes out.
  • All figures have been updated
• lines 46-47: perhaps is worth to mention the synergy with modeling data too...
  • Reference to modeling data added
• lines 97-98: please mention the applicability to weather prediction too...
  • Earth-system predictions includes weather prediction; therefore, the authors choose to retain the broader reference framework, given that the paper spans many disciplines and spatiotemporal scales, as well as ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere domains.
• lines 182-183: Chlorophyll concentration estimates (and its anomalies) can be related to phytoplankton biomass (and its fluctuations) but they are not the same estimates! please rephrase. Please use estimates instead of measurements.
  • Wording clarified as suggested, noting estimation versus measurement
• line 264: perhaps it is worth mentioning that the obscured features are at the oceanic meso- and submesoscales.
  • Revised as suggested
• line 291: North Brazil Current rings...
  • Corrected as noted
• lines 290 and 294: preferably use "mesoscale" instead of "meso-scale".
  • Revised as suggested, replacing “meso-scale” with “mesoscale”
• line 306: use 1.5 km.
  • Revised as suggested
• lines 672-673: NRCS acronym already expanded in line 657.
  • Revised as suggested
• line 737: use "in situ" always in italic, as here, throughout the entire text.
  • Per the MDPI Layout Style Guide Section 3.6. Italics, “Foreign words do not need to be highlighted or italicized, including Greek/Latin terms, such as i.e., e.g., etc., et al., vs., ca., cf., in vivo, ex vivo, in situ, ex situ, in vitro, in utero, ad hoc, in silico, ab initio, vice versa, and via.”
• line 753: use either air-sea interface or air-sea boundary layers...
  • Revised as suggested, using “interface”
• line 1052: the developing El Niño of 2023-2024...
  • Revised as suggested

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces STAR/NOAA's activities and data services regarding satellite-based ocean remote sensing. It is informative to readers who are not only scientists based on satellite ocean remote sensing but also potential end users. The manuscript is well-written and easy to read; thus, it can almost be accepted in its present form. However, I would like to recommend adding further references in section 2.1 in terms of providing information on the specifications of the listed sensors. I believe the additional references may be helpful to potential end users who are unfamiliar with this satellite data.

 

Author Response

• However, I would like to recommend adding further references in section 2.1 in terms of providing information on the specifications of the listed sensors. I believe the additional references may be helpful to potential end users who are unfamiliar with this satellite data.
  • Additional references added for:
    • GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) series
    • JPSS Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) series
    • Jason series / Sentinel-6 satellite altimeters
    • Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) series
    • Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission
    • Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT)
    • RADARSAT Constellation Mission
    • Sentinel-1 mission

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a review of on NOAA’s STAR efforts in advancing satellite oceanography research and operational applications for the benefit of society and supporting informed decision making. The paper is well-written, and the figures are well presented. I recommend minor modifications. My two specific comments are listed below:

 

- Section 2.2.2 (SST data and products) I recommend adding a paragraph on how / if STAR R&D efforts envision to explore the new opportunities in AI and Machine Learning techniques such as generation of super high resolution of SST fields (i.e., retrieval of high-resolution data from low-resolution images to capture small-scale features) minimising the over smoothing due to existing optimal interpolation in obtaining gap-free images. What would be the potential implications on Coral reef watch (section 4.3.1) service for example.

 

- Discussion section:

I recommend for the authors touch upon potential plan with ocean colour data from the upcoming PACE mission and how that would potentially improve the services provided by STAR for ecosystem monitoring.

 

Author Response

• Section 2.2.2 (SST data and products) I recommend adding a paragraph on how / if STAR R&D efforts envision to explore the new opportunities in AI and Machine Learning techniques such as generation of super high resolution of SST fields (i.e., retrieval of high-resolution data from low-resolution images to capture small-scale features) minimising the over smoothing due to existing optimal interpolation in obtaining gap-free images. What would be the potential implications on Coral reef watch (section 4.3.1) service for example.
• Additional text added to Section 2.2.2.1 SST data and products:
• Discussion section - I recommend for the authors touch upon potential plan with ocean colour data from the upcoming PACE mission and how that would potentially improve the services provided by STAR for ecosystem monitoring.
  • Addressed

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, 

In my personal opinion, the manuscript appears more like a report than a scientific review research paper.

Best regards,

 

Author Response

• In my personal opinion, the manuscript appears more like a report than a scientific review research paper.
  • This manuscript was solicited by the Guest Editor for this journal’s Special Issue on “Oceans from Space V,” explicitly seeking “interesting review of missions, satellites, sensors, as well as models, assimilation, cal/val, applications and other research issues, including society, policy and economics ... the works ...” to “provide a summary of the point of view from the western side of the Atlantic, balancing that of the eastern side ….” The authors believe that the submitted manuscript provides that which was communicated by and is sought by the Guest Editor.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello,

The editor will let you know.

Best regards,