Assimilating Satellite-Derived Snow Cover and Albedo Data to Improve 3-D Weather and Photochemical Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article presents valuable information, and it is well-modified and improved. However, there are specific major points that need modifications and corrections. Additionally, the absence of a discussion section is a critical point, as this section is crucial for interpreting and summarizing the findings and suggesting future research directions. Therefore, I recommend that the article undergo major revisions to address these issues before it can be considered for publication.

Major comments:

·         Regarding the plagiarism report, I do not have access to any report; therefore, please ensure and check that the matching percentage does not exceed 20% or aligns with the journal's author guidelines.

·         The format of all tables must be revised and modified according to the author's guidelines.

·         Did you verify and validate the data used in this research? This is a critical point.

·         The text within the manuscript must be justified.

·         The captions of the figures are too lengthy. Revise and summarize them.

·         There is no discussion section. There are only 3^rd and 5^th sections. The discussion section must be added to cover the previous studies, limitations, and future implications.

·         The conclusion section should be more concise, providing a brief summary of the article followed by the key findings listed point by point. Kindly revise the conclusion accordingly to streamline the presentation and enhance the clarity of the main outcomes.

·         Please avoid repetition within the manuscript to enhance clarity.

·         Ensure that the article format is according to the guidelines.

Minor comments:

Figure 1: Its quality must be better. Add a legend with the general location of the study area.

Lines 145 – 151: Please revise this paragraph.

Revise equations 1, 2, and 3.

Lines 191 + 192: revise and correct the font type and size.

Line 352: Check the reference number 13.

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Major comments:

Regarding the plagiarism report, I do not have access to any report; therefore, please ensure and check that the matching percentage does not exceed 20% or aligns with the journal's author guidelines. The original work for this paper comes from a preprint report on our website. This paper has been revised and formatted into a peer-reviewed publication. We have received previous approval from the editor

The format of all tables must be revised and modified according to the author's guidelines. We have reformatted all tables according to the MDPI’s table format guidelines.

Did you verify and validate the data used in this research? This is a critical point. We have added a new section (now Section 2.2) to delineate the sources of data used in this study.  We note that none of the input data used for this work was original to this study.  We used data from the MODIS satellite instrument, which is validated prior to its distribution to the public.  We also used standard input data for WRF and WRF-CAMx, which are products available from and validated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  We did comparisons against meteorological and ozone data that were also produced in separate studies. 

The text within the manuscript must be justified. We applied the text justification to the entire manuscript.

The captions of the figures are too lengthy. Revise and summarize them. The captions of the figures have been shortened and revised.

There is no discussion section. There are only 3^rd and 5^th sections. The discussion section must be added to cover the previous studies, limitations, and future implications. I am not sure about missing the discussion section. The discussion section is in the document, and it is in section 4. We reformatted the numbering to make sure the section numbering is easily able to be followed.

The conclusion section should be more concise, providing a brief summary of the article followed by the key findings listed point by point. Kindly revise the conclusion accordingly to streamline the presentation and enhance the clarity of the main outcomes. We have shortened the conclusion and reordered the content to streamline and enhance the clarity of the main outcomes.

Please avoid repetition within the manuscript to enhance clarity.

Ensure that the article format is according to the guidelines.

Minor comments:

Figure 1: Its quality must be better. Add a legend with the general location of the study area. Figure 1 has been reformatted to increase the quality.

Lines 145 – 151: Please revise this paragraph. This paragraph was reworded for clarity.

Revise equations 1, 2, and 3. We aren’t sure how the reviewer would like these equations to be revised.  To our understanding, they are correct.

Lines 191 + 192: revise and correct the font type and size. Font type and size was revised and corrected.

Line 352: Check the reference number 13.  We believe the reviewer is referring to the caption in Figure 8, which says “Comparison of ozone at Ouray as simulated by CAMx using the default configuration (REF) and MODIS. . .”  REF is the name used for the base model output, rather than a reference that is missing. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I see that you have made many changes compared to the previous version of your work. First of all, thank you for that. Your work title is more appropriate in its current form. In my previous revisions, I stated that especially the introduction section was quite limited and that it should definitely be improved. Now I see that very serious additions have been made to the introduction section, which is very nice. Again, in the previous revision, I mentioned that you should add the Discussion section to your work, and I see that you have added this section. Please place the Discussion section on a separate line, I did not see such a section at first. 

Author Response

I see that you have made many changes compared to the previous version of your work. First of all, thank you for that. Your work title is more appropriate in its current form. In my previous revisions, I stated that especially the introduction section was quite limited and that it should definitely be improved. Now I see that very serious additions have been made to the introduction section, which is very nice. Again, in the previous revision, I mentioned that you should add the Discussion section to your work, and I see that you have added this section. Please place the Discussion section on a separate line, I did not see such a section at first. We have reformatted the numbering of the discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts and work. They addressed most of my concerns and questions. The revisions made to the manuscript have significantly enhanced its quality and clarity. However, I have specific points that require further clarification or adjustment. I kindly request that you consider addressing these points in your final revisions.

·       Improve the quality of Figure 1.

·       Check the font type of the caption of the Table 4.

·       In Table 4, what is the star? “Domain 3 (*)”

·       Line 356: Move the “4. Discussion” section to the next line.

SSincerely,

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1: Improve the quality of Figure 1.

Response 1: We have already revised Figure 1.  The figure has more than 4000 X 2000 pixels and is 8 Mb in size, so we don't think there is any problem with the image resolution, if that is what is meant by "quality".  We have also added additional information to the image--we have included locations of oil and gas wells.  We believe the figure is of more than sufficient quality for publication.

 Comment 2: Check the font type of the caption of the Table 4.

Response 2: We double-checked the format for the font of Table 4

Comment 3: In Table 4, what is the star? “Domain 3 (*)”

Response 3: We removed the *

Comment 4: Line 356: Move the “4. Discussion” section to the next line.

Response 4: We added an extra line before 4. Discussion.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the article presents valuable information, it is like a technical report rather than an academic research article. Also, the methodology section must be improved, which requires further clarification and simplification to enhance its comprehensibility. Additionally, the absence of both a discussion and conclusion section is a critical point, as these sections are crucial for interpreting and summarizing the findings and suggesting future research directions. Furthermore, upon comparison with a technical report published by Utah State University in 2021, it appears that the content of the article may overlap significantly, raising ethical considerations regarding originality. Therefore, I recommend that the article undergo major revisions to address these issues before it can be considered for publication.

Major comments:

·         According to the iThenticate report, the plagiarism percentage for the article is 63%, indicating significant similarities with the "FINAL REPORT: IMPROVING WRF/CAMX MODEL PERFORMANCE USING SATELLITE DATA ASSIMILATION TECHNIQUE FOR THE UINTAH BASIN" published by Utah State University in 2021. While some overlap between research articles may occur due to common methodologies or data, a plagiarism percentage of 63% raises concerns about originality and ethical considerations. Identifying and addressing the main differences between the two documents, such as research questions and objectives, methodologies, and findings, is essential to ensure that each publication contributes unique insights to the academic field. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly revise the manuscript to address the identified similarities and ensure the originality of the research.

·         The methodology section reads more like a report and lacks the clarity expected in an academic manuscript. It would greatly benefit from a revision to ensure that each step of the methodology is clearly outlined and explained. Additionally, incorporating a flowchart to visually represent the methodology would enhance the readers' understanding of the methodology.

·         The research article should encompass a discussion and a conclusion section to thoroughly analyze the research findings and their implications. The discussion section allows for a detailed interpretation and comparison of the results with existing literature, highlighting the significance of the findings and addressing any limitations. On the other hand, the conclusion section serves to summarize the key findings. Therefore, an article without either a discussion or conclusion section would be incomplete, as it would lack a critical component necessary for thoroughly presenting the research findings.

·         Kindly write the abstract to cover the literature's main gap/research questions and the objectives, main methodologies, and key findings.

·         The last paragraph of the introduction is a critical component of the article, summarizing the study's objectives, contributions, and novelty. To enhance the introduction section, this paragraph must be expanded to provide a comprehensive overview of the study's aims, highlighting its innovative approach and potential contributions to the academic field.

·         Revise the reference section to meet the MDPI guidelines.

Minor comments:

·         In general, using acronyms in the title (WRF, CAMx, MODIS) is not recommended.

·         In the affiliations section (Lines 5 - 9), please ensure the full affiliation name includes each author's department, city, and country.

·          

·         In academic writing, it is advisable to minimize the use of first-person pronouns such as "we," "our," etc. Instead, the preferred approach is to refer to the research or study itself. For example, lines 91, 93, 95. Etc. Kindly revise the whole article and modify it accordingly.

·         Figure 1: This figure is difficult to understand. Simplify it without mentioning any equation. Just mention the main methods.

·          Line 153: "Parameters for 6SV model". Needs more explanation.

·         Table 2: what is the source of each value in this table? This statement needs a reference.

·         The paragraphs preceding tables 3, 4, and 5 lack sufficient context and explanation regarding the data presented in the tables. It is essential to provide additional details and information in these paragraphs to help readers understand the significance and implications of the data displayed in the tables.

·         Figure 2 must be added to the study area section.

·         Figure 7: This figure is unclear. Kindly revise and improve its quality.

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

In this paper, you improved to performance of WRF and CAMx models by incorporating surface albedo and snow cover data from MODIS satellite products. Overall, MODIS data assimilation had a limited impact on meteorological quantities and ozone production. Although the results obtained in terms of the method used show limited impact, the study is appropriate in terms of its planning. However, the paper overall seems somewhat incomplete. The literature review used in the paper is quite limited, and although results are provided under the "Results and Discussion" section, the discussion part of the study is almost nonexistent. Only one or two referenced pieces of information are provided in this section regarding studies conducted using similar methods found in the literature. This section needs to be significantly developed. Additionally, it would be more appropriate to provide two separate headings for "Results" and "Discussion." Furthermore, many major and minor revisions need to be made in other sections of the paper as well. Below, you can find the mentioned revisions listed in bullet points.

 

1.     In the paper, texts should be justified on both sides. Please ensure this throughout the entire paper.

2.     The introduction section needs to be expanded. Please provide more examples from recent articles.

3.     You have provided references next to the bold names given under the Dataset column in Table 1. Please place these references immediately after the information provided in the Descriptions column. Alternatively, you can add an additional column on the right for references.

4.     You have bolded Equations 1, 2, and 3. Please refrain from bolding them. Additionally, leave a space between Equations 1 and 2. Ensure that all parameters given in the equations are explained in the text.

5.     The font style of Table 2 is different; please make it consistent with the rest of the text. Also, the last row of the table is cut off, leaving information hanging. Please revise the table accordingly. Don't forget to provide references for the information presented in the table.

6.     Apply the revisions given for Table 2 to Table 4 as well.

7.     Please add a discussion section to your paper. The paper feels incomplete without it, especially before the references.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved Weather Research and Forecasting performance by assimilating surface albedo and snow cover data from MODIS satellite observational datasets. They have developed and streamlined a process to assimilate MODIS satellite data into WRF and CAMx models and demonstrated its impacts on the models’ performance. However, the improvement from MODIS data assimilation had a small impact on meteorological quantities and ozone production. Thus, the reviewer concludes that not so much valuable results have been included in the paper.