Evaluation of the J-OFURO3 Sea Surface Net Radiation and Inconsistency Correction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper “Evaluation of the J-OFURO3 sea surface net radiation and in-2 consistency correction” access the sea surface net radiation product whit observation of 55 moored buoy from 1988-2013 at both daily and monthly scales. An inconsistency  in the  J-OFURO3 sea surface net radiation was found and corrected.  Finally a spatiotemporal trend analysis based on corrected J-OFURO3 was carried out.

The draft is in general well. The information is relevant for evaluate the energy balance of the Earth system. The organization of the manuscript is correct; however minor comments are highlighted in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of "Evaluation of the J-OFURO3 sea surface net radiation and inconsistency correction" by Chen et al.

This paper evaluates the sea surface net radiation product from the satellite-based Japanese Ocean Flux Data Sets with Use of Remote Sensing Observations, version 3 (J-OFURO3). The product was evaluated by using 55 global buoy sites.  The overall daily and monthly accuracy was satisfactory. In addition, a correction method was developed and conducted in the long-term variations. This correction had a beneficial impact on the daily product.

The paper is clear and reasonably well written, and the methodology and evaluation are rigorous. The weakness of the model has been identified, analysed and a correction is proposed.  I recommend a minor revision to address the following comments:

Specific comments

L96-97: I suggest giving a couple of examples of those "other studies".

L167: Do Jiang et al.  arrive to the same conclusion based on the same scores? Please be more precise here.

L292. The sentence is incomplete.

L295-297: This explanation is not clear. I think the reason why Rn is decreased is partially because the enhancement of the reflected shortwave radiation.

L303-307: Check and rewrite these sentences. It is confusing.

The figures appear to have poor resolution. Please check that the figures have the sufficiently high resolution (minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher).

Minor comments

 

L101: Use superscript for the units of radiation (Wm^-2).

Figure 1: Use the 90^oN and 90^oS limits in the Y-axis.

L141-142: Write the meaning of R² in the same way as it was done for RMSE.

Figure 2: Use subscript for the sea surface net radiation (R_n).                                   

Figure 4a and 4b. Same as Figure 1.

L185. "black line" instead of "black dotted line"

Figure 7, 10, 11.  Please use subscripts for R_ns, R_li, and R_n.

L287. "ERA5" instead of "EAR5".

Figure 14/1. The color for the significant decrease does not match the the color in the map.

Figure 14/2. I think the authors meant "Non-significant decrease" instead of  "Nonsignificant increase".

L332. "J-OFURO3" instead of "J-OFUOR3".                                                                                                                                                                    

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript titled 'Evaluation of the J-OFURO3 sea surface net radiation and inconsistency correction' has interesting work but minor changes are required.

1. Please explain more about the procedure in the 'Methodology' chapter instead of explaining it in results.
2. Discuss more about the results in results itself under the chapter 'results and discussions' instead of doing it in conclusions.
3. Make conclusions shorter by giving only the crispy points of your study.
4. Please also use confusion matrix for evaluation. If not possible, explain why?
5. In chapter 3.3, spatiotemporal analysis, please compare three figures (14a, 14b & 14c) with numerical instead of just giving the explanation.

Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is purely technical and deals with the inconsistency of J-OFURO3 sea surface net radiation and correction.

The authors show some convincing arguments (e.g. plots in Fig.5) for this inconsistency. The method of the correction is very simple, based on the regression of data Rns or Rli value from the corresponding CERES-3A dataset from 246 2001 (predictor variable, dependent variable)to 2009 and Rns or Rli value from the ISCCP-FD dataset from 2001 to 245 2009 (independent variable). This way the Authors calculate the linear regression parameters and apply them correct J-OFURO3 data from 1988 to 1999. It is worth noting that the period of the observations was changed. However, the authors validated their correction methodology using observations from 55 global moored buoy sites. In this light their statement "The objective of this paper is to inform the data users of the comprehensive performance of the J-OFURO3 sea surface Rn data and present an effective inconsistency correction scheme for this product." is fully justified.

The sea surface net radiation is an important parameter worth studying. This is why, on reflection, I decided to accept the paper for publishing after a minor revision. In general, the paper is tidy and well written however, there are some typos or faults. Just 2 examples: in one place author write "sea surface net radiation (Rn )" and in another place "sea surface Rn values" or the like.

In line 355 there is a word PATENTS and nothing about them. Therefore, read again the paper carefully and eliminate such weaknesses, please. I do not need anymore the manuscript. Do it with the editors, please.

Sincerely yours,

The reviewer. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx