Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Surface Urban Heat Island and Canopy Layer Heat Island in Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The abstract of the article is not well organized. The sentence "we analyzed the spatial and temporal" is not suitable for a scientific article. In my opinion, the abstract part of the article should be rewritten.
- Keywords are sorted alphabetically. Also SUHI; CLHI are not suitable keywords.
- The innovation of the article is not well expressed. Also, research objectives should be mentioned one by one at the end of the introduction section.
- In the methodology section, without the slightest explanation, an equation is given. What exactly do you mean?
- The used equations are not referenced.
- The discussion section needs to be deepened.
- The quality of English grammar used needs a lot of improvement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
- The quality of English grammar used needs a lot of improvement.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, SUHI and CLHI in Beijing were analyzed using remote sensing data. The addition of the following explanations are requirements for re-review.
1. Why is the intensity of SUHI and CLHI at night strong in the cold season and weak in the hot season? Please explain the reason for this.
2. Why is the intensity of SUHI and CLHI during the day strong in the hot season and weak in the cold season? Please explain the reason for this.
3. Why are the centers of SUHI and CLHI concentrated at night and moved eastward and weakly northward during hot seasons, and are scattered during the day? Please explain the reason for this.
4. Why are the centers of SUHI and CLHI moved eastward and northward during hot seasons, and are moved westward and southward during cold seasons? Please explain the reason for this.
5. Why are the monthly average ellipse area of daytime SUHI and CLHI varied greatly among months, while nighttime values varied slightly? Please explain the reason for this.
6. Why is the average area as a whole on the rise? Why is the annual average area of SUHI and CLHI steadily increased over time? Please explain the reason for this.
7. Why is the center of the heat island moved eastward, and is the direction of the heat island slowly deflected to the northeast–southwest direction? Please explain the reason for this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript "Spatiotemporal Analysis of Surface Urban Heat Island and Canopy Layer Heat Island in Beijing" comprehensively investigates the effects of the urban heat island phenomenon on the city of Beijing. The article presents intriguing findings, meticulously documenting the spatial and temporal distribution of surface and canopy layer heat island phenomena, providing a clear and detailed depiction of the temperature distribution.
The overall content of the manuscript is promising but it could benefit from some improvements:
1. Including a table with nomenclature would significantly improve the manuscript's readability.
2. It is highly recommended to include an introduction to the surface and canopy layer urban heat island phenomenon to enhance the readers' comprehension of the study. Therefore, the introduction section of the paper should be revised to include this information.
3. I suggest arranging the keywords alphabetically. In addition, it is recommended to use either the abbreviation or the full form of keywords, but not both together as it is considered inelegant.
4. In the introduction of the document, it is imperative to provide a comprehensive account of the disparities between Surface Urban Heat Island and Canopy Layer Heat Island phenomena. It remains unclear how the monitoring system, MODIS, was used to identify both Surface Urban Heat Island and Canopy Layer Heat Island events. Therefore, it is essential to explicate the methodology used to differentiate between the two phenomena to ensure clarity and accuracy.
5. An important aspect to consider before writing Equation 1 is introducing it in the methodology section and emphasizing its usefulness. This choice will provide context and understanding of the equation and highlight its relevance to the topic at hand.
6. The bibliography provided does not seem comprehensive enough and might not cover all the relevant sources that could have been consulted for the topic. As such, it is recommended that the bibliography be expanded to provide a more complete and informative reference list for the readers.
7. In the conclusion section, it would be beneficial to emphasize and elaborate on the areas requiring further investigation and development in the research. Providing clearer guidance on future research directions can enhance the overall impact of the paper.
8. Typos need to be checked and corrected.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite the relative improvement in the revised version of the article, there are still significant flaws in the article:
- Writing errors are not only not corrected, but new errors are also seen. For example, in line 170 it is written:
The figure 1 and figure 2 shows that the analysis results for the SUHI and CLHI in terms of heat island intensity 𝑧0, heat island footprint ellipse area S, and average suburban background temperature are relatively consistent. The urban heat island signal retrieved by the Gaussian capacity model is correlated with the urban heat island signal of the original image.
While the revised version of the text should be as follows:
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that the analysis results for the SUHI and CLHI in terms of heat island intensity 𝑧0, heat island footprint ellipse area S, and average suburban background temperature are relatively consistent. The urban heat island signal retrieved by the Gaussian capacity model correlates with the original image's urban heat island signal.
The poor quality of English grammar in the text of the article is considered a major problem.
- In line 161, it is stated that this "images captured on September 5, 2014, were used in this study." Why is a newer photo not used? 10 years is a long time.
- In lines 205 and 207, the units should be corrected.
- In my opinion, figures 3 to 8 should be divided into sections A, B and C and named. Then discuss and review each part one by one from the discussion section.
- Table 1 is not placed in the right place at all. It is recommended to express it as a nomenclature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDespite the relative improvement in the revised version of the article, there are still significant flaws in the article:
- Writing errors are not only not corrected, but new errors are also seen. For example, in line 170 it is written:
The figure 1 and figure 2 shows that the analysis results for the SUHI and CLHI in terms of heat island intensity 𝑧0, heat island footprint ellipse area S, and average suburban background temperature are relatively consistent. The urban heat island signal retrieved by the Gaussian capacity model is correlated with the urban heat island signal of the original image.
While the revised version of the text should be as follows:
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that the analysis results for the SUHI and CLHI in terms of heat island intensity 𝑧0, heat island footprint ellipse area S, and average suburban background temperature are relatively consistent. The urban heat island signal retrieved by the Gaussian capacity model correlates with the original image's urban heat island signal.
The poor quality of English grammar in the text of the article is considered a major problem.
- In line 161, it is stated that this "images captured on September 5, 2014, were used in this study." Why is a newer photo not used? 10 years is a long time.
- In lines 205 and 207, the units should be corrected.
- In my opinion, figures 3 to 8 should be divided into sections A, B and C and named. Then discuss and review each part one by one from the discussion section.
- Table 1 is not placed in the right place at all. It is recommended to express it as a nomenclature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs indicated below, unfortunately, each response has not been considered in depth and may be confusing to the readers. Therefore, I have determined that this manuscript is not suitable for publication.
Regarding Answer 1, you answered that the temperature difference between urban and suburban areas is larger at night during the cold season due to slow heat dissipation, but many readers are not convinced by this explanation because radiative cooling is generally larger in winter when water vapor is less than in summer.
Regarding Answer 2, you answered that the temperature difference between urban and suburban areas is larger during the daytime in the hot season due to strong solar radiation and rapid warming of the urban surface. However, many readers are not convinced by this explanation because cities, which are generally composed of concrete and asphalt with large heat capacities, are less prone to high temperatures.
Regarding Answer 3, you answered that during the daytime, cities are heated unevenly and the heat island centers are dispersed due to solar radiation and human activities. However, this is inconsistent with Answer 2, where it was explained that solar radiation causes higher temperatures.
Regarding Answer 4, you answered that the high temperature area moves due to heat advection. However, that is the temperature of the air, and what this sensor is measuring is the temperature of the ground surface. Many readers are not convinced by explanations that confuse surface temperature with air temperature.
Regarding Answer 5, you answered that the hot area differs depending on the amount of solar radiation, but at the same time, the effects of wind speed, wind direction, and weather conditions were also pointed out. Therefore, it is not clear whether the solar radiation is dominant or not. Quantitative analysis of the relationship between these factors is the subject of research.
Regarding Answer 6, you answered that changes in urban heat capacity and thermal inertia caused temporal changes, but many readers are not convinced by this explanation, because as the heat capacity and thermal inertia increase, the surface temperature of the city during the daytime decreases.
Regarding Answer 7, you answered that the high-temperature area changed in response to spatial changes in land use, but it is necessary to discuss this after presenting the situation of land use changes. Quantitative analysis of the relationship between these factors is the subject of research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
The manuscript is still need English grammar polishment.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the reviewer's question about the manuscript still needing English grammar touch-ups. We found a good English teacher to help us revise the whole text, details can be found in the red revision section of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have prepared responses to the reviewers' remarks, but as indicated below, they are not validated by the evidence-based discussion. Therefore, I have determined that this manuscript should not be published.
In Response 1, the effects of seasonal changes in NDVI and solar reflectance were discussed; the distribution of NDVI and albedo should be presented and the relationship between them and surface temperature should be quantitatively analyzed.
In response 2, it was pointed out that this is due to high albedo (bare ground, snow and ice, etc.) on the ground surface during the cool season. The actual situation needs to be clarified.
In response 3, it was pointed out that NDVI and solar reflectance affect surface temperature, which is qualitatively correct, but the effect needs to be discussed quantitatively by presenting the surface heat balance components.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
