Interannual Variability of Salinity in the Chukchi Sea and Its Relationships with the Dynamics of the East Siberian Current during 1993–2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for Authors:
In this paper, Interannual variability of salinity in the Chukchi Sea and its relationships during the ice-free period of a years were observed. Two kind of data sources were used one from Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite measurements and second from GLORYSv12 reanalysis data to conduct this research. Similarly, two configurations of Bering Sea waters (BSW) propagation: "western" and "eastern" for the analysis of salinity measurements performed. These configurations are easily affected by Pacific waters and the East Siberian Current. These factors directly related to changes in the salinity of Chukchi Sea. The authors have done useful work to highlight the relationships between different configurations with salinity of Chukchi Sea as well as its surrounding areas and with various other relationships during 1993-2019. However few comments have been made given as follows:
- How the authors perform this research during the years of 1993-2019, as the SMAP data is only available for the years between 2015-2020.
- There is not mentioned how authors perfume this experiment what kind of software have been used in analysis. It is suggested to add one more sub-section in methodology to tell in the detailed procedure of the study, currently mostly data resources used in this study are presented.
Technical corrections:
- Line 14: remove the word ‘north of’
- Line 18: Kindly confirm if this is Bering Sea or Bering Strait
- Line 26: Write ‘psu’ in capital or small letters and follow that trend throughout the article.
- Line 41: Use comma instead if semicolon between citations.
- Line 43: Citations with continuous numerical order may write like this [9, 13-15] and follow this trend throughout the article.
- Line 66: Write in-situ like this instead of in situ and follow this trend throughout the article.
- Line 70: Insert full stop sign at the end of sentence.
- Line 101: Rewrite this sentence ‘Data set have 0.25° spatial resolution and since July 2015’.
- Line 103: Quoting of authors must be like this ‘Fournier et al. [34]’ instead of ‘authors of [34]’ and follow this trend throughout the article.
- Line 105: Write the units of RMSD and bias.
- Line 106: Write this ‘Fournier et al. [34]’
- Line 106 Write full form of RSS
- Line 110: GLORYS12v1 is different than that the mentioned in abstract. Follow similar trend throughout the article.
- Line 113: Wite full form of CMEMS.
- Line 116: Write full form of CORA
- Line 117: I suggest you to rewrite this sentence because the words ‘is the ability’ are not suitable to use here.
- Line 120: Confirm this is this is Barents Sea of Barents Strait.
- Line 129: Write the units of numerical values.
- Line 130: Write the units of numerical values.
- Line 130: Follow the trend which I have suggested in above comments about ‘authors’.
- Line 133: Remove the space after the word ‘Formulas’
- Line 136: Write calculated instead of calculate
- Line 151: Remove the word north
- Line 157: In the caption of figure write (a) and (b) in front of their titles instead of at the end and follow this trend in other figures.
- Line 164: Write ‘until’ the word south
- Line 168: Confirm the name ‘Chukotka’.
- Line 171: Use black dotted line in the figure as well as the caption.
- Line 173: Write mean instead average.
- Line 190: 100 km area or length?
- Line 200: Use the degree sign.
- Line 202: Use hyphen between ice melting
- Line 226: Write the word ‘and’ between the west and north degrees.
- Line 230: Remove ‘ure’
- Line 235: Write like this (Figure 6a,b), follow this trend
- Line 237: Remove the word west as well brackets.
- Line 256: Remove ‘full stop’ and write ‘and’ between years.
- Line 273: Remove the word north
- Line 287: The word resulting is not suitable, correct this sentence.
- Line 301: Is there any statistical analysis performed to show ‘insignificant’
- Line 309: Correct the words between brackets and use word ‘mean’ instead of averaged.
- Line 371: Confirm the word positive
- Line 392: Remove the word ‘last’
- Line 440: Remove the word ‘north’
- Line 519: Remove the word ‘north’
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is fine only, few minor corrections are required to correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally, the Introduction is quite fragmented and lacks fluidity; it contains numerous elements that require modifications and improvements. Materials and Methods section can be substantially improved, while Discussion section should be rewritten for better fluidity. Moreover, worldwide readers are unfamiliar with the locations that are mentioned; thus, it is essential to reference a figure that highlights them: Chukchi Sea, Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Gyre position, Bering Strait, Yukon River, and Herald Canyon (should bathymetry be considered?), Laptev and East Siberian Seas, Lena River, Wrangel Island, Long Strait. Lastly, you should provide guidance on the creation of the figures, the type of code you used, and other information useful for the reproducibility of the work. Please, also remind to compile the Aknowledgments section, and remove the template format.
keywords:
- 'Salinity' and 'transport' do not make sense as keywords. I strongly suggest modifying them.
Introduction:
- line 42: "Alaskan Coastal" what?
- line 46: "several authors", then provide references
- lines 48-50: why using a new paragraph for this?
- line 52: "distribution and of the region". ??
- line 70: "Arctic Ocean Particularly", what is that?
- lines 81-82: This sentence should not be in the Introduction
Materials and Methods:
- line 101: the sentence must be improved
- line 126: the acronyms BSW and ACW were already mentioned at first in the Introduction
- line 136: In my opinion, the procedure for using TEOS-10 should be elaborated upon and explained more clearly. Not everyone understands its operation, the conversion of parameters, and the integration of the water column. Additionally, it is not specified if you use the entire H or only certain levels.
Results:
- 156-168: 4 paragraphs in just 10 lines? It seems like a copy and paste from notes. All of this needs to be reformulated; it's not presentable in its current state.
- line 230: "Figure ure"
Discussion:
- line 474: "our previous work", ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attachments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See examples in the comments above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of “Interannual Variability of Salinity in the Chukchi Sea and its Relationships with the Dynamics of the East Siberian Current during 1993-2019” submitted for publication in Remote Sensing.
Used the SMAP sea surface salinity data and reanalysis data, the study introduced the two salinity scenarios in the Chukchi Sea and investigated how the different scenarios can be linked to the strength of the East Siberian Current and in turn the Bering Strait inflow. It is known that due to data limitation the western pathway of the Pacific water that goes towards the western Chukchi Sea remains unclear. Although the study entitled by “interannual variability”, I think it is more important that this study shed light on the western pathway, which could help complete the story of the propagation of the Pacific water in the entire Chukchi Sea.
I am confused by the two configurations of the sea surface salinity. Besides the brief descriptions in the page 5, I think however as the key point the two configurations should be clearly defined in the paper. Also many times they have reported the 1997 and 2015 are the “western” years while 2012 and 2016 are the “eastern” years (e.g. Fig. 5). But since the paragraph from the line 291, they stated an opposite way: “western” in 2012 and “eastern” in 2015, and eventually concluded that western configuration is caused by a strong ESC while the eastern one is associated with absence of ESC. It does not make any sense. I would think the stronger ESC weakens the Bering Strait inflow to the west and induces inflow toward the east, which is more close to an “eastern” mode. I think the authors messed up their analysis and made an opposite (wrong) conclusion.
It is good that the paper tended to investigate how the ESC affects on the Pacific water pathway. Note that many previous studies have demonstrated that the Bering Strait inflow can be driven by the local wind and the pressure head forcing driven by the along-coast wind along the Siberian Sea (e.g., Peralta-Ferriz and Woodgate, 2017). It suggests that the strengths of ESC and Bering Strait inflow are eventually controlled by the winds. This study is lack of discussion of the winds.
In my opinion this paper was not particularly well written. There are many typos (see the specific comments below), and at times one paragraph was broken into a couple of short paragraphs (e.g., page 5).
Specific comments.
It is stated in the abstract that two configurations of Bering Sea waters (BSW) were revealed. In the main text, the two configurations are for the sea surface salinity, rather than for a particular water mass. Note that in the section 2.3, the BSW is for the Bering Summer Water. I am confused what the BSW is short for.
Section 2.1. they used SMAP data from 2015-2020, then in the title why the time period was up to 2019?
What is the Sw in the equation 2? Salinity in the water column? Please explain in the text.
Line 136. Were the TEOS-10 used only for density or for all the water mass properties used in the paper? If only for density, to be consistent, the other properties should use TEOS-10 too. If it was already applied to all properties, then the salinity (temperature) should be absolute salinity (conservative temperature) instead practical salinity (potential temperature).
Line 144 and the other places, “the basin” was stated at times. I think they meant the Chukchi Sea shelf, right?
Line 146 and the other places, “in the eastern part of Bering Strait”, I think they meant the eastern Chukchi Sea, right?
Figure 1. Don’t understand the caption. SSS STD averaged for the period? Get the SSS STD for each year and then take the mean? Please explain clearly how to compute the SSS STD.
Line 168. Chukotka Peninsula, while in the figure1 it is named Chukchi Peninsula. Please be consistent.
Lines 179-180. It is not quite remarkable.
Line 188. Where is the Wrangel Island? It would be easier for the readers if they could mark every single geographic name that used in the paper on the map.
Line 212. Specify the range of the average calculation.
Line 221. It says “surface” in the text, while “subsurface” in the figure 5 (caption and legend).
Figure 5. I thought the salinity in all western years would be higher than the ones in the eastern years. There were some outliers, e.g., the salinity is lower in 2010 (western) than in 2009 (eastern). Any reasons?
Figures 6 and 7. What do the blank areas represent for? No such water presented in the year? It is hard to believe that in all four years shown in the Fig. 6, no BSW signal was found in the eastern Chukchi Sea. If the calculation was correct, I think it could be due to the monthly mean dataset used in the study. The hydrographic properties can be largely smoothed out by the monthly average, which can potentially cause the disappearance of BSW in the eastern Chukchi Sea.
Line 267. Do you mean Figure 7c-d?
Line 278. “Figures 2-4”. Use plural, same for the other places.
Line 341. “in”
Figure 10. What is the depth of the velocity? Surface?
Lines 371-372. Positive values from -0.05… ?
The discussion is long and repetitive.
Line 512. Did the paper discuss the surface versus subsurface in the main text?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
please see my comments above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the authors’ responses, and they have addressed most of my concerns. However, several typos, grammar errors, and inconsistencies still need to be corrected. In the first round, I advised the authors to be patient in correcting readability issues. Unfortunately, the revised manuscript does not demonstrate any improvement in this regard. While the scientific content in this manuscript certainly warrants publication, readability may be an issue.
I will provide some examples, and it is the authors’ responsibility to review the rest of the manuscript and correct any similar errors. I want to emphasize that the concerns I have listed below are mainly due to the authors’ carelessness rather than “grammar”.
Minor Concerns:
1 On line 11, it is mentioned as “GLORYSv12,” while on line 240, it is stated as “GLORYS12v1.” The correct and standard version is the latter, as indicated in the link (https://data.marine.copernicus.eu/product/GLOBAL_MULTIYEAR_PHY_001_030/description). Please locate all of “GLORYSv12” throughout the manuscript and correct them accordingly
2 Line 39 “cold ... warmer”, please use “cold ... warm”
3 Lines 43-44 “Most of the studies ... Chukchi Sea” What do these studies focus on? What do they convey? Please be specific.
4 Line 88 “...the reason for such difference ...” I suppose the author means “interannual changes in the salinity” instead of “difference”.
5 Line 111 uses respectively instead of “accordingly”.
6 On line 117 and line 544, it states “from 1993 to 2019.” However, the latest GLORYS12v1 data is available up to 2020. If the authors intend to keep this sentence unchanged, please include the access date for GLORYS12v1 on lines 117 and 544, separately.
7 Lines 144 use “code” instead of “functions”.
8 Lines181-180 The sentence “There are shows...”. contains two verbs, Please correct this error.
9 Line 183 “In the central part, values rarely reach 1...” It is acceptable to use unitless to express salinity values. However, in other sections of the manuscript, salinity values are followed by the unit ‘psu.’ This lack of consistency needs to be revised.
10 Lines 190-191 “both signs of ... types appeared.” The eastern and western have only one sign respectively. “signs” is not used correctly here.
11 Line 204 Based on the context, the phrase ‘investigate the reasons for such variability’ is not appropriate in this paragraph
12 Lines 228 and caption in Figure 6. How “subsurface ” and “depth-averaged” is defined in this study? If the author is referring to the top layer of GLORYS12v1 as the subsurface, it may not be correct from a bulk perspective.
13 Line 232 “depthsSalinity” Please correct grammar.
14 Line 240 “Figure 6 .... June to October” and caption in Figure 6 “July -October”. They are not consistent.
15 Line 241 The statement ‘These maps show the thickness of the layer occupied by these waters in the Chukchi Sea’ is incorrect. Figures 6 and 7 display the maximum vertical extent of the two water masses, but they do not represent the actual thickness of the layer as the surface layers can sometimes be occupied by other water masses. Additionally, the author’s response in the letter stating that ‘changes are observed in the vertical structure of the water masses’ is also incorrect, as these water masses do not always occupy the sea surface.
16 Lines 257-259 Lables in Fig.6 show “1997, 2015...” and caption shows “2011, 2012”. These are not consistent.
17 Line 282 In the caption for Fig.7, it should be “Fig.6 but for ACW”.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe inconsistency issue significantly hampers the readability of the manuscript. See examples above.
Author Response
We attach the revised manuscript based on your comments.
Response to reviewer’s comments
I have reviewed the authors’ responses, and they have addressed most of my concerns. However, several typos, grammar errors, and inconsistencies still need to be corrected. In the first round, I advised the authors to be patient in correcting readability issues. Unfortunately, the revised manuscript does not demonstrate any improvement in this regard. While the scientific content in this manuscript certainly warrants publication, readability may be an issue.
I will provide some examples, and it is the authors’ responsibility to review the rest of the manuscript and correct any similar errors. I want to emphasize that the concerns I have listed below are mainly due to the authors’ carelessness rather than “grammar”.
Minor Concerns:
1 On line 11, it is mentioned as “GLORYSv12,” while on line 240, it is stated as “GLORYS12v1.” The correct and standard version is the latter, as indicated in the link (https://data.marine.copernicus.eu/product/GLOBAL_MULTIYEAR_PHY_001_030/description). Please locate all of “GLORYSv12” throughout the manuscript and correct them accordingly
Response: Corrected.
2 Line 39 “cold ... warmer”, please use “cold ... warm”
Response: Corrected.
3 Lines 43-44 “Most of the studies ... Chukchi Sea” What do these studies focus on? What do they convey? Please be specific.
Response: We changed this paragraph in the introduction for better readability.
4 Line 88 “...the reason for such difference ...” I suppose the author means “interannual changes in the salinity” instead of “difference”.
Response: Corrected.
5 Line 111 uses respectively instead of “accordingly”.
Response: Corrected.
6 On line 117 and line 544, it states “from 1993 to 2019.” However, the latest GLORYS12v1 data is available up to 2020. If the authors intend to keep this sentence unchanged, please include the access date for GLORYS12v1 on lines 117 and 544, separately.
Response: Corrected.
7 Lines 144 use “code” instead of “functions”.
Response: Corrected.
8 Lines181-180 The sentence “There are shows...”. contains two verbs, Please correct this error.
Response: Corrected.
9 Line 183 “In the central part, values rarely reach 1...” It is acceptable to use unitless to express salinity values. However, in other sections of the manuscript, salinity values are followed by the unit ‘psu.’ This lack of consistency needs to be revised.
Response: Thank You. Corrected.
10 Lines 190-191 “both signs of ... types appeared.” The eastern and western have only one sign respectively. “signs” is not used correctly here.
Response: Corrected.
11 Line 204 Based on the context, the phrase ‘investigate the reasons for such variability’ is not appropriate in this paragraph
Response: Corrected.
12 Lines 228 and caption in Figure 6. How “subsurface ” and “depth-averaged” is defined in this study? If the author is referring to the top layer of GLORYS12v1 as the subsurface, it may not be correct from a bulk perspective.
Response: Thank You. Corrected. "Subsurface" is replaced with "at a depth of 0.5m". Depth-averaged values are defined as follows. The analysis data is interpolated on a grid with a depth step of 1 m. Then the average of this grid (in section/area) is calculated. We added this description to the section 2.3.
13 Line 232 “depthsSalinity” Please correct grammar.
Response: Corrected.
14 Line 240 “Figure 6 .... June to October” and caption in Figure 6 “July -October”. They are not consistent.
Response: Corrected.
15 Line 241 The statement ‘These maps show the thickness of the layer occupied by these waters in the Chukchi Sea’ is incorrect. Figures 6 and 7 display the maximum vertical extent of the two water masses, but they do not represent the actual thickness of the layer as the surface layers can sometimes be occupied by other water masses. Additionally, the author’s response in the letter stating that ‘changes are observed in the vertical structure of the water masses’ is also incorrect, as these water masses do not always occupy the sea surface.
Response: As a rule, ACW is above BSW. Thus, the combined analysis of the maps in Fig.6 and 7 gives a representation of the main features of the vertical water structure during the ice-free period. However, the sentence is rephrased for better readability: “These maps illustrate the characteristic areas of BSW propagation in the Chukchi Sea”.
16 Lines 257-259 Lables in Fig.6 show “1997, 2015...” and caption shows “2011, 2012”. These are not consistent.
Response: Corrected.
17 Line 282 In the caption for Fig.7, it should be “Fig.6 but for ACW”.
Response: Corrected.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no major concerns. Therefore, I recommend it for publication. However, there are minor concerns that could be addressed during the proofreading process.
Minor concerns:
Line 424, 425 and 529 Please clarify the meaning of the units “t/s”.
Reference lists are out of order.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
