Sea-Breeze Front Research Based on Remote Sensing Methods in Coastal Baltic Sea Climate: Case of Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have determined that the rise in the differential heating between land and sea could have an effect on how far the sea breeze can go. They revealed, using Lithuania's mainland as a case study, that the sea breeze has an impact there. I found this study interesting. I suggest this work may be published because of the significance of sea breeze to seacoasts' renewable energy resources, heat waves, recreational resources, and organizing people's commercial and tourism activities. Below are the minor suggestions.

To give a better perspective of the information shown in the figures, the quality of the figures (fonts connected with the axis, color, etc.) must be increased.

Please add more information on “after defining the polygons and transects from the coast to the borders of the sea breeze fronts.” Readers would be more interested in knowing this in detail.

Please elaborate on this “Remote methods can be applied to more detailed studies of the dynamics of sea 499 breezes and their fronts in the Southeast Baltic.” Not clear. Please clarify what you want to say here.

Replace “The main theses of this study:” to “The main findings of this study are listed below.”

The use of English needs to be carefully reviewed once more.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for the evaluation and advice, which strengthens this work. We have made corrections accordingly and added answers:

1. To give a better perspective of the information shown in the figures, the quality of the figures (fonts connected with the axis, color, etc.) must be increased.

The pictures have been adjusted - the font has been re-adjusted, the colors have also been re-adjusted, the description has been added. Figure 4 – selected axes, supplemented with (R) description.

2. Please add more information on “after defining the polygons and transects from the coast to the borders of the sea breeze fronts.” Readers would be more interested in knowing this in detail.

More detail about the transects has been added (lines 265-272).

3. Please elaborate on this “Remote methods can be applied to more detailed studies of the dynamics of sea (line 499) breezes and their fronts in the Southeast Baltic.” Not clear. Please clarify what you want to say here.

Thanks for the advice. We have added an explanation (conclusion): „Remote methods help to assess the dynamics of sea breezes winds and their fronts in more detail. The network of meteorological stations is not dense enough to sufficiently describe the distribution of sea breezes fronts in the territory of Lithuania.“

4. Replace “The main theses of this study:” to “The main findings of this study are listed below.”

Name has been changed to Conclusions. We have taken your advice and that of another reviewer into consideration. We have received a similar comment.

5. The use of English needs to be carefully reviewed once more.

We checked the English carefully.

 

Thank you again for your positive review and helpful advice.

Kind regards.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 203-204. How did you determine the propagation of wind circulations and their fronts by combining meteorological data and remore sensing? A more detailed explanation should be included.

Lines 214 – 215. Which resolution and tigh time frace if the satellites are enough to determine the circulation of the southeast Baltic Sea breezes and their fornts?

Lines 223 – 224 why do you just select the photos with Cu and Cb and do not consider other cloud genders?

Figures should be called before they appear in the main text.

Figure 4. The wind direction axis needs units, the air temperature (ºC) axis will have a better appeal without decimals. The R value seems to be R2 instead of R.

Line357 should be replaced by ……cumulus (Cu) and ...

Tables 2 and 3. The parameter mean should also have units (km).

Line 400. These results are consistent with previous studies of midlatitude breezes. Some examples are needed and a deep revision among the other studies and yours.

Line 401. Why they can travel more km? How many km can they travel?

Line 423 – 425. How much can they increase?

Line 427. How the Planetary Boundary Layer Height can influence the breeze during the day/night? A more detailed study should be recommended taking into account this atmospheric variable.

A more detailed discussion should de recommended, comparing your main results with other recently published in JCR journals.

The conclusion section should be separated from the discussion section. The conclusions could start from line 485.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for the evaluation and advice, which strengthens this work. We have made corrections accordingly and added answers:

• Lines 203-204. How did you determine the propagation of wind circulations and their fronts by combining meteorological data and remote sensing? A more detailed explanation should be included.

 

More detailed explanation has been added further in the article (lines 270-278).

 

• Lines 214 – 215. Which resolution and tigh time frace if the satellites are enough to determine the circulation of the southeast Baltic Sea breezes and their fronts?

 

Clarification on resolution and timeframe of satellite imagery added (lines 214-215).

 

• Lines 223 – 224 why do you just select the photos with Cu and Cb and do not consider other cloud genders?

One of the main criteria for selecting photos is clearly visible cloud lines marking the boundary of air mass convection. The cloud line in the remote sensing pictures was basically of Cu type.

Added link to (figure 1) portraying the situation of seabreeze convective line (line 224) and a more detailed explanation (lines 252-257).  

• Figures should be called before they appear in the main text.

Thank you for the note. This has been adjusted.

 

• Figure 4. The wind direction axis needs units, the air temperature (ºC) axis will have a better appeal without decimals. The R value seems to be R2 instead of R.

Figure 4 has been adjusted according to recomendations. More details has been added (lines 308-309).

 

• Line 357 should be replaced by ……cumulus (Cu) and ...

Thank you for the note. This error has been corrected.

 

• Tables 2 and 3. The parameter mean should also have units (km).

Tables 2 and 3 have been corrected.

• Line 400. These results are consistent with previous studies of midlatitude breezes. Some examples are needed and a deep revision among the other studies and yours.

Line 401. Why they can travel more km? How many km can they travel?

Line 423 – 425. How much can they increase?

Line 427. How the Planetary Boundary Layer Height can influence the breeze during the day/night? A more detailed study should be recommended taking into account this atmospheric variable.

Thank you for the helpful advice and comments. Addition to the discussion section (lines 412-414, 418-419, 422-424, 444-466).

• A more detailed discussion should de recommended, comparing your main results with other recently published in JCR journals.

Thanks for the recommendations. We have added more comparisons/recommendations for further research in the discussion section. Three publications (marked in red) are included in the bibliography.

• The conclusion section should be separated from the discussion section. The conclusions could start from line 485.

Thank you for the advice. The Discussion section was separated from the Conclusion section.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 After considering all the comments from the previous report I consider the paper should be considered for publication in the current form.