One Algorithm to Rule Them All? Defining Best Strategy for Land Surface Temperature Retrieval from NOAA-AVHRR Afternoon Satellites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) In situ validation data mainly distributed from April 4th and May 20th 1990 in Australia, how to archive a comprehensive and persuasive validation with the absolute accuracy test?

(2) Why the ERA5 atmospheric dataset is not considered and employed for this validation task

(3) 50 algorithms or 50 running coefficients for a split-window algorithm? which one is fit for the paper title?

(4)  For the validation of historical LST production from NOAA satellites and optimization of employed running coefficients from different atmospheric versions, implemented work seems hard  to support all arguments of the paper's point.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for their comments. Our replies can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pl see the comments above

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is ok but needs improvement

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for their comments. Our replies can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the article submitted for review, I can say the following:

1.           The article is interesting and useful, giving practical information on the different data sets used for simulation and validation of the Earth's surface temperature.

2.           The datasets used are mentioned, but there seems to be little more explanation about them. Only literature sources are listed, which makes the paper difficult for the user. I suggest to expand this part a bit in order to better understand the data

3.           In my opinion, "Figure 1. Distribution of the satellite validation data through 1981-202" is a bit unclear, it seems that the graph is not of very good quality either and if possible could be improved

4.           Concerning the methodological part I can say the same as in point 2- i.e. it is a bit difficult to understand the methodology, other cited sources should be used for justification, which makes it difficult for the reader

5.           The discussion could also be expanded to make it more informative

Overall the paper is good but rather "economically" written. It includes a lot of references, which generally makes it difficult to read. The authors could improve these parts by including more text with justifications and more detailed descriptions at the expense of just references to external sources.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for their comments. Our replies can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions were accepted or well responded.