Forecast of Hydro–Meteorological Changes in Southern Baltic Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of Hydro-Meteorological Changes Forecasts of Southern Baltic Sea

Authors: Ewa Dabrowska and Mateusz Torbicki

The manuscript describes a new method to predict marine hydro-meteorological conditions and applies the method to the southern Baltic Sea.  The newly developed method is described in detail by the authors. The analysis is presented in a clear and succinct fashion.  The results can provide guidance for local weather and climate prediction.  This paper is suitable for readership of this journal.  However, major revision is needed before it can be published.  

Major comments

1.     The authors provided redundant background materials.  Please reduce background knowledge limit the background knowledge to the Introduction section. 

2.     Discussion is needed about Fig. 7 since it shows one of the major results by the authors.

3.     More detailed analysis is required to show the importance of this work.  In the current format, it is not obvious how useful this work can be for weather and climate prediction.

4.     Section 4 Discussion of Results and Further Developments can be merged into Section 3, to make section 3 solid.

5.     The authors should strive to improve upon the writing style.

Minor comments:

The use of English can be polished.  For example, in line 104 “it reaches to” should be “It reaches”.  

2^nd line in Abstract: by “at marine area” what are the authors referring to?  The coastal regions?

3^rd line: “Initially ….”can be changed to “First”.

5^th line: “sea water area”?  Do the authors refer to ocean surface?

Introduction:

Lines 3-4: change “In aim to” to “In order to”

Line 4: change “currently” to “current” or “present”.

Fig. 4 What do the authors mean by “own elaboration”?  If the figure is created by the authors, the source info is not needed.

Discussion about Fig. 7 should be included in section 4.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor comments:

The use of English can be polished.  For example, in line 104 “it reaches to” should be “It reaches”.  

2^nd line in Abstract: by “at marine area” what are the authors referring to?  The coastal regions?

3^rd line: “Initially ….”can be changed to “First”.

5^th line: “sea water area”?  Do the authors refer to ocean surface?

Introduction:

Lines 3-4: change “In aim to” to “In order to”

Line 4: change “currently” to “current” or “present”.

Fig. 4 What do the authors mean by “own elaboration”?  If the figure is created by the authors, the source info is not needed.

Discussion about Fig. 7 should be included in section 4.

Author Response

Please find the attached document containing our response. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. While the paper provides detailed descriptions of meteorological, hydrological, and hydrodynamic conditions, it lacks sufficient contextualization of these factors within the broader field of climate science and maritime studies. Without a deeper exploration of how these conditions interact and their implications for marine ecosystems and human activities, the significance of the findings may be limited.

2.The paper mentions the use of "authors' own written software and statistical methods for data analysis" but lacks transparency regarding the specific methodologies employed. Without clear documentation of the software algorithms and statistical techniques used, readers may question the validity and reproducibility of the results

3.The study focuses exclusively on the southern Baltic Sea region, which may limit its applicability to other marine areas with different geographical and climatic characteristics. It is essential to acknowledge the regional specificity of the findings and discuss potential variations in hydro-meteorological patterns in other marine environments.

4.While the paper presents forecasts and trends in hydro-meteorological parameters, it does not adequately address the uncertainties associated with these predictions. Variability in climate models, measurement errors, and natural variability could significantly impact the accuracy of the forecasts, and it is essential to acknowledge and quantify these uncertainties.

5.The paper lacks comparative analysis with existing literature or similar studies conducted in other marine regions. Comparative analysis could provide valuable insights into common trends, regional differences, and potential drivers of hydro-meteorological changes in marine environments.

6.Although the paper briefly mentions the significance of adaptive strategies and integrated coastal zone management, it does not delve into specific recommendations or implications for policy and decision-making. A more extensive discussion of how the findings can inform marine resource management and adaptation strategies would enhance the practical relevance of the study.

Author Response

Please find the attached document containing our response. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made great efforts in revising the manuscript.  The quality of the manuscript has been improved significantly.  It is suitable for publication in this journal.  Just minor revision is needed before final submission.  

The use of English is formal and adequate to convey authors' messages.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept