Review Reports - Climate Change and Meteorological Effects on Building Energy Loads in Pearl River Delta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached review file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Upgraders are required. Please see the attached review file.

Author Response

Detailed response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer#1

Topic: This manuscript explores the influence of global climate change on energy consumption pa erns within indoors an outdoor environments of buildings. This is a valid important topic in today’s urban buildings design. The current manuscript can benefit from considering essential improvement as per the following points:

Responses to Reviewer#1:

Thank you very much for your careful reading. We appreciate you spending time reading and reviewing our paper and for giving me the opportunity to revise it. I treasure this opportunity, and all of your comments are valuable for improving the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We have taken them into serious consideration and have tried our best to improve and make some changes to the manuscript.

Comment 1: Title: Authors may consider altering the wording of the title to indicate ‘energy loads /

consumption’. Try to keep a short title for more ease of access.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. Your comments are very pertinent and are very important for improving our manuscript's readability. We have taken your comments on board and revised the title!

Climate Change and Meteorological Effects on Building Energy Loads in Pearl River Delta

Comment 2: Abstract: Authors are advised to give within the abstract a line or two to highlight the exact scientific methodology that they applied. The currently given description is not fully clear: “ four

typical meteorological years are established using meteorological data from Guangzhou over the past 60 years”.

Response 2: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice. The modifications of the abstract are as follows:

Abstract: Global climate change is significantly altering energy consumption patterns and outdoor environments of buildings. The current meteorological data utilized for building design exhibit numerous deficiencies. To effectively address the needs of future building usage in design, it is crucial to establish more refined meteorological parameters that accurately reflect the climate of specific geographical locations. In this paper, four typical meteorological years are established using meteorological data from Guangzhou over the past 60 years. Utilizing 60 years of meteorological data from Guangzhou, this study employs the Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) method to define four archetypal meteorological years, providing a robust foundation for subsequent analysis. The findings indicate a significant increase in the frequency of high temperatures and temperature values during the summer months, with an increase of nearly 20% in the cumulative degree hours (CDH) used for calculating a typical meteorological year (TMY4) over the past 30 years. Additionally, there has been an increase of 0.4-0.7°C in the air-conditioning design daily temperature. The statistics on outdoor calculation parameters for different geographical locations, as well as outdoor design parameters for varying guarantee rate levels in the Pearl River Delta, reveal a substantial impact on outdoor calculation parameters. The maximum difference in cooling load is approximately 9.3%, with a generally high cooling demand in summer and a relatively low heating demand in winter. Furthermore, the calculation values for different non-guaranteed rates can be applied flexibly to meet the needs of engineering applications. This study provides a valuable reference for updating meteorological parameters in building design.

Comment 3: Introduction section:

Line 49, line 53: remove ‘and’. Please revise the whole text to look for such errors.
What is the question(s) that this research is trying to answer. Is there any theoretical background to highlight for this research?

Response 3: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice. We have accepted your comments and revised the introduction, Statistical techniques for the analysis of meteorological data are well-documented. In this paper, we concentrate on the interpretation and discussion of statistical outcomes derived from these methods. Detailed explanations of the specific statistical methodologies used will be presented in the methodology section. We have refined our manuscript to include a concise overview of the research methodology and have cited new literature that employs comparable analytical strategies. (lines 47-50)

[14] Jiangbo Li, Zhihong Zhai, Haiyan Li, Yunfei Ding, Sihao Chen. Climate change's effects on the amount of energy used for cooling in hot, humid office buildings and the solutions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 442 (2024) 140967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140967.

[15] Yingni Jiang. Generation of typical meteorological year for different climates of China, Energy, 35 (2010) 1946-1953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.01.009.

Comment 4: Methods section:

Give solid specific details of the parameters under consideration, (i.e. temperature? Humidity? Ambient pressure? Rain fall measures? Etc.?)
Give full definition/ explanation of the term ‘typical meteorological year’, elaborate on how this concept may be used practically for buildings design.
Line 139: explain ‘solar radiation data’.
Section 2.5: explain the meaning of ‘load’ as it is used in the contexts of insolation, conduction, fresh air, infiltration, etc. The use of the word ‘load’ here in various contexts may bring some confusion for normal readers.
The calculations are done building on the assumption that the relation between these ‘loads’ is linear. Authors need to justify how far this assumption is still holding to the ‘real life’ context.
Avoid using first person’s voice and second person’s voice (I, ME, MINE, WE, US OUR, OURS, etc.) in academic writing. Always use passive voice.
Provide graphical illustration of the methodology steps in form of a block diagram or similar, from data acquirement to results interpretations.

Response 4: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments, which are very important to improve the rigor of our manuscript. The corresponding contents of the manuscript have already been revised following the reviewer’s advice. (lines 140-141)

Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice. Figure 2: Daily maximum, minimum, and average temperatures were analyzed to capture seasonal and diurnal variations. (lines 140-141)
Fully defined and explained in the introduction and nomenclature, this concept is commonly used in building analysis and is described in detail in the added citations [9,10].
Thank you very much for your careful reading, we apologize for these careless mistakes, here we have removed the solar radiation data for ease of understanding, which have been corrected in our revised manuscript. (line 139)
The concept of building load is thoroughly explained herein through the definition of formulas for each type of load. Building load, a fundamental term in the realm of energy consumption, refers to the amount of energy required to maintain optimal indoor conditions. By detailing the specific formulas for various loads—such as insolation, conduction, fresh air, infiltration, and internal loads—we provide a comprehensive understanding essential for accurate energy modeling and efficient design.
These equations are based on heat transfer science and are also widely used in practical applications.
Thank you for your careful reading, and we have taken your suggestions. The corresponding parts of the text have been corrected.
The data sources and processing of the full text are described in detail in the methodology, and no further flowcharts were added as the study area and site selection in Figure 1 reflect the study area.

Comment 5: Results and Findings section:

Lines 208 to 210, and again in lines 302 to 304, Lines 382 to 383, Lines 400 to 401, Lines 416 to 417: Please clarify ‘Reason: Improved clarity, readability, and technical accuracy while correcting grammatical and punctuation errors.” This is a bit confusing having the scientific context of the study. AUTHORS AND EDITORS ARE ASKED TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS NOT A BACKLASH OF SOME AI-POWERED TEXT-GENERATING SOFTWARE PLEASE,

AS THIS HAVE SOME ETHICAL CONCERENS.

Section 3.2, and all the text in fact: Use shorter paragraphs. A normal reader will most probably skip reading a paragraph that is more than 7 lines of length.
Clearly indicate if the current findings would vary with the type of buildings in terms of:
Purpose or use of the building (e.g. a school class would differ from a market store )
Material used in the buildings

iii. Design of buildings (areas, openings to ambient whether, no. of floors, etc.).

Number and activities of the occupants (large number of occupants requires higher loads for air conditioning for example).

Response 5: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments, which are very important to improve the rigor of our manuscript.

Thank you very much for your careful reading, we apologize for these careless mistakes, which have been corrected in our revised manuscript.
Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice, keep article paragraphs and sentences as simple as possible.
Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. In the conclusions section, particular emphasis is placed on the types of buildings that the study's findings are applicable to, alongside a critical examination of their inherent limitations. This analysis not only underscores the relevance of the research outcomes for specific building categories but also identifies areas where current practices fall short, thereby highlighting opportunities for improvement and further investigation. (lines 409-413)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the article title “ Impact Of Meteorological Parameters On Building Loads For 2

Refined Design In The Pearl River Delta Region Under Climate 3

Change” it is accepted for publication but with minor comments, please find the below my comments.

1- In the introduction section:

-please provide previous studies that used your same method (equation 21) and prove the efficiency of the method

-explain why the authors choose this method

2- In the method section

-in figure 2, identify which figure represents (a), (b),(c) and (d) results

-The research analyzed the temperature between the period 1960 till 2020, please increase the range till 2024

-After figure two the authors must analyze the data presented in the four figure and compares them

-please replace figure (3) a with the actual plan of the building instead of presenting zoning

-some equations are confusing, for example:to calculate the infiltration air we should use equations 11 or 12?

- the key map presented in figure 8 is not readable

-before presenting figure 9, please present the full names of the cities and their shortcuts that is used in the figure

-all the equations presented in this article depends on a very old reference (reference 24 who was published in 1981) please find updated reference which may present an updated equations

Author Response

Detailed response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer#2

After reviewing the article title “ Impact Of Meteorological Parameters On Building Loads For Refined Design In The Pearl River Delta Region Under Climate Change” it is accepted for publication but with minor comments, please find the below my comments.

Responses to Reviewer#2:

Comment 1: In the introduction section: please provide previous studies that used your same method (equation 21) and prove the efficiency of the method-explain why the authors choose this method

Response 1: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice. We have accepted your comments and revised the introduction, Statistical techniques for the analysis of meteorological data are well-documented. In this paper, we concentrate on the interpretation and discussion of statistical outcomes derived from these methods. Detailed explanations of the specific statistical methodologies used will be presented in the methodology section. We have refined our manuscript to include a concise overview of the research methodology and have cited new literature that employs comparable analytical strategies. (lines 47-50)

[15] Yingni Jiang. Generation of typical meteorological year for different climates of China, Energy, 35 (2010) 1946-1953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.01.009.

Comment 2: In the method section

-in figure 2, identify which figure represents (a), (b),(c) and (d) results

-The research analyzed the temperature between the period 1960 till 2020, please increase the range till 2024

-After figure two the authors must analyze the data presented in the four figure and compares them

-please replace figure (3) a with the actual plan of the building instead of presenting zoning

-some equations are confusing, for example:to calculate the infiltration air we should use equations 11 or 12?

- the key map presented in figure 8 is not readable

-before presenting figure 9, please present the full names of the cities and their shortcuts that is used in the figure

-all the equations presented in this article depends on a very old reference (reference 24 who was published in 1981) please find updated reference which may present an updated equations

Response 2: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments, which are very important to improve the rigor of our manuscript. The corresponding contents of the manuscript have already been revised following the reviewer’s advice.

Each figure is numbered in the upper left-hand corner of Figure 2 to differentiate.
While the most recent data available for our analysis is from 2020, the findings derived from this dataset continue to be of substantial research interest. The trends and patterns identified provide valuable insights that remain pertinent to current discussions and future studies in the field. The impact of the latest meteorological data will continue to be investigated in future studies.
The data for the four typical meteorological years counted are shown in Figure 2, but the pattern is rather haphazard, so a comparison is made in section 3.1 by means of the cumulative distribution and the data for the design day.
The building model used in the study is a simplified office building, not an actual building, and this study analyses the hypothetical building for the later study.
Equations 11 and 12 represent infiltration air and fresh air respectively.
We're sorry for the reading difficulties, but due to the small font size in the image, we've changed the corresponding Figure.
The results used in the study are based on the formula in literature 24, which is a classic calculation method used in most of the building design codes in various countries, so this older literature is deliberately cited here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the impact of change in meteorological parameters on building loads both in winter and summer season. The aspect of climate change and its influence on HVAC systems in buildings is crucial due to the energy consumption decrease requirements. Therefore the issue analyzed in the paper is essential and present for the building design aspect. The authors study the impact of the temperature increase for the typical meteorological years from over the past 30 years, which gives the reliable data. The results are employed to calculate heating degree days as well as cooling degree days that can be applied to heat transfer loads calculations. The results are presented in the diagrams that are readable. Firstly, the cumulative data is presented and secondly, the geographical comparison of climate change is presented in the Pearl River Delta Region. The air temperature and humidity distribution along the region is pointed resulting with the building energy statistics calculations. What is more distribution of meteorological parameters for outdoor design with varying guarantee rates is widely analyzed. All the data described in the paper can be applied in order to effectively design the engineering applications in the described region.

However, there are several minor imperfections that should be improved:

- Line 49, 53 “The and Air Conditioning Design Code for Industrial Enterprises”

- Equations 2,6,7,9,10 and Figure 8 are no aligned

- Line 189 results should be written with capital letter

- The sentence ” Reason: Improved clarity, readability, and technical accuracy while correcting grammatical and punctuation errors.” Is unclear; it appears 4 times in the text (e.g. line 303)

- Line 343-349 – the sentence is too long and therefore unclear

- Line 409 – no need to leave 1.5 without unit at the end of the line; 1.5 ⁰C should not be put separately

- Minor English revision needed e.g. line 420 “both the near and distant future”

Author Response

Detailed response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer#1

However, there are several minor imperfections that should be improved:

Responses to Reviewer#1:

Comment 1: Line 49, 53 “The and Air Conditioning Design Code for Industrial Enterprises”

Response 1: Thank you for your careful reading, and we have taken your suggestions. The corresponding parts of the text have been corrected.

Comment 2: Equations 2,6,7,9,10 and Figure 8 are no aligned

Response 2: Thank you for your careful reading, and we have taken your suggestions. The corresponding parts of the text have been corrected.

Comment 3: Line 189 results should be written with capital letter

Response 3: Thank you for your careful reading, and we have taken your suggestions.

Comment 4: The sentence ” Reason: Improved clarity, readability, and technical accuracy while correcting grammatical and punctuation errors.” Is unclear; it appears 4 times in the text (e.g. line 303)

Response 4: Thank you very much for your careful reading, we apologize for these careless mistakes, which have been corrected in our revised manuscript.

Comment 5: Line 343-349 – the sentence is too long and therefore unclear

Response 5: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have accepted the advice and this part has already been revised following the advice, keep article paragraphs and sentences as simple as possible.

Fig. 9(c) illustrates that the calculated temperature differences for the calendar year do not guarantee 50 hours (h) and 10 hours (h) of consistent conditions. Specifically, the maximum temperature difference is 1.5°C (in Macao), while the average calculated temperature decreases by 1.2°C. When comparing the results for the calendar year not guaranteeing 100 hours to those not guaranteeing 50 hours, the average temperature value is further reduced by approximately 0.6°C.

Comment 6: Line 409 – no need to leave 1.5 without unit at the end of the line; 1.5 ⁰C should not be put separately

Response 6: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comments, which are very important to improve the rigor of our manuscript. The corresponding contents of the manuscript have already been revised following the reviewer’s advice.

Comment 7: Minor English revision needed e.g. line 420 “both the near and distant future”

Response 7: Thank you for your careful reading and valuable comment. We have checked the syntax of the full text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf