Towards a Traceable Climate Service: Assessment of Quality and Usability of Essential Climate Variables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a review on observational and model based climate data and involved organizations and groups. The extensive use of more or less useful acronyms makes it hard to read for a scientist, the list in the Appendix, however, is good. In some tables details on scientific
methods are provided but without further explanation. The paper is too general to fulfill what is promised in the title, to be a scientific paper also mathematical and physical methods, at least in example, should be presented. Now the focus is mostly on the organizational structure, including a comprehensive set of 'grey' references.

Details:
Line 57: EQC-function: Here should be already one or two sentences on what is scientifically behind it.
Line 67f: Spell out when first mentioned or refer to Appendix.
Line 72: A list or table of the ECVs would be useful here.
Line 133: Comma missing?
Line 142: 'evolving'? (improve sentence).
Line 163: 'is' missing.
Line 232ff: This paragraph is important and should be expanded, especially with respect to 'ontology' and maybe 'artificial intelligence'.
Table 1: This table mentions details on models and methods but without any explanation. Some more information would be useful here since the paper is not only addressed to atmospheric modellers. Here is also the chance to provide examples for EQC. Please expand text.
Line 332: Something missing here, be more specific here (or in caption).
Table 3: 'Temp' should be temporal but abbreviation is odd here since the table contains also temperature. Is there no information on 'Current'? Skip rows with '-' or add data.
Fig.7: Discuss the deviations near 23^oC, expand text on GEV, spell out QQ in caption.
Line 541: If not done earlier, examples for quality assurance  procedures should be given here.
Line 560: Do you mean 'coverage' here?
Line 571: Spell out correct?
Line 592: I suppose you mean 'data assimilation (4DVAR?) here.
Lines 792, 796, 798, 817, 821, 823, 825: Please provide years when created.
Line 964f: Which link is OK? Skip the wrong one.
Line 1064, 1074: font.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Main Concerns:

1. The paper is too general to fulfill what is promised in the title, to be a scientific paper also mathematical and physical methods, at least in example, should be presented. Now the focus is mostly on the organizational structure, including a comprehensive set of 'grey' references.

Responses: What we are trying to demonstrate is indeed presenting the structure/framework, towards a traceable climate services. Currently, the necessity is well recognized of evaluating climate services, nevertheless, there are not yet community-welcomed effective metrics, methodologies, and associated evaluation framework available for this purpose. Our manuscript is to review and identify what are needed for such an evaluation framework, meanwhile demonstrating/proposing some “best practices” for different components of such framework. It is important to note that the value chain of climate service is complicated, of which not every step/stage can be quantified with mathematical and physical methods. As such, the manuscript helps to establish a logical flow of the framework for addressing both quality (scientific & technical) and usability of ECV CDRs.

Minor Comments

Line 57: EQC-function: Here should be already one or two sentences on what is scientifically behind it.

Responses: Thanks on this comment. It is revised accordingly.

Line 67f: Spell out when first mentioned or refer to Appendix.

Responses: It is suggested to refer to Appendix at the end of the sentence.

Line 72: A list or table of the ECVs would be useful here.

Responses: It would be better to refer to the BAMS’ ECV paper and WMO reports.

Line 133: Comma missing?

Line 142: 'evolving'? (improve sentence).

Line 163: 'is' missing.

Responses: Thanks on these comments. They are revised accordingly.

Line 232ff: This paragraph is important and should be expanded, especially with respect to 'ontology' and maybe 'artificial intelligence'.

Responses: Thanks a lot. The paragraph has been extended. Nevertheless, as the purpose here is to demonstrate the traceability, we didn’t include too much ‘artificial intelligence’ here.

Table 1: This table mentions details on models and methods but without any explanation. Some more information would be useful here since the paper is not only addressed to atmospheric modellers. Here is also the chance to provide examples for EQC. Please expand text.

Line 332: Something missing here, be more specific here (or in caption).

Responses: We would rather just keep as it is. The main purpose of Table 1 is to demonstrate the importance of “descriptive product comparison”.

Table 3: 'Temp' should be temporal but abbreviation is odd here since the table contains also temperature. Is there no information on 'Current'? Skip rows with '-' or add data.

Responses: Thanks a lot. ‘Temporal’ has been added. On the second comment, we would rather to keep the rows. The information about ‘current’ refers to requirements of end-users. So, there is no specific data put there. When certain end-users have specific requirements, the information can be filled accordingly. As such, we will not skip rows with ‘-’. The Table 3 just demonstrates an example on what information should be collected for thematic ECV products.

Fig.7: Discuss the deviations near 23oC, expand text on GEV, spell out QQ in caption.

Responses: Thanks a lot. We’ve spell out QQ in caption. For the GEV, we added a citation.

Line 541: If not done earlier, examples for quality assurance  procedures should be given here.

Responses: Thanks a lot. We’ve added a citation.

Line 560: Do you mean 'coverage' here?

Responses: We mean the “production chain” here. Has been revised.

Line 571: Spell out correct?

Responses: “end-user” has been changed as “end user”.

Line 592: I suppose you mean 'data assimilation (4DVAR?) here.

Responses: What we would like to say is about the logical flows/architectures for climate monitoring from both space and in situ climate data records (currently, only the space-based architecture exists).

Lines 792, 796, 798, 817, 821, 823, 825: Please provide years when created.

Line 964f: Which link is OK? Skip the wrong one.

Line 1064, 1074: font.

Responses: Thanks a lot. We’ve revised accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

This manuscript is dedicated to quality assessment and usability of Essential Climate Variable (ECV) Products. It reviews the academic literature on the quality assurance of ECVs and provides an outline of ECV quality and usability evaluation procedures. The manuscript is well written and well-structured and there is no doubt that these procedures are absolutely necessary for the atmospheric scientists and for the climatological data users including policy makers, insurance companies and so on. My only concern regarding this manuscript is that I find it to be out of scope of the Remote Sensing journal. We have discussed this issue with the editors and they encouraged me to review it, but as the one who has been working in the field of remote sensing for quite a while and who serves as a reviewer for several remote sensing journals I still do not feel that this is the right journal to publish such a work. If both the authors and the editors feel that this is really needed and appropriate (as for me, I would submit it to “Climate”) then I would ask to add a section describing current ECVs coming from space-borne remote sensing (active/passive sounding, coverage, variables, etc).

Minor comments

Lines 39-40 and below: putting Web-links in the text breaks the flow. I would put them in the footnotes or in the references or, if the journal’s rules allow it, make them hyperlinks (for the first link this would be clickable “Copernicus Climate Change Service”).

Line 66: using “main” already implies that the list is not exhaustive.

Line 70: the appendix with acronyms could/should have been introduced earlier.

Lines 95-97: the sentence is difficult to read.

Line 177: in printed version, the figure looks fuzzy. It would be good to mark the beginning of the assessment cycle because there’s no entry point in the current version and the cycles on the left look endless. Line 181 states clearly what’s going on, so, please, make the plot consistent with the text.

Lines 204-206. I’m not sure that the “inventory” can be “consistently informed”

Lines 207-211: using nouns instead of verbs in this list would be less confusing. I would rephrase the whole paragraph for the sake of simplicity.

Line 240: can one add types of resources to this plot to better understand line 244.

Line 264: I believe that “future required” means “further required”

Line 278: The figure is overloaded with information and uses small fonts – consider sacrificing some text to make it readable.

Line 419: please, add “Maturity score” title to the color scale

Line 436: Why are the pictograms of sources, of the processor, of specialist, and of the receiver all the same? I would use different ones for the sources because this is more of a dataset rather than of a person providing the dataset.

Line 452: “EL Nino” -> “El Nino”

Line 459: The table comes from a graphic file and the text looks fuzzy. I would use standard means of the text processor to make this table.

Lines 473-493: we are moving even further away from remote sensing and towards some economic journal here.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Major concerns

1. My only concern regarding this manuscript is that I find it to be out of scope of the Remote Sensing journal. We have discussed this issue with the editors and they encouraged me to review it, but as the one who has been working in the field of remote sensing for quite a while and who serves as a reviewer for several remote sensing journals I still do not feel that this is the right journal to publish such a work. If both the authors and the editors feel that this is really needed and appropriate (as for me, I would submit it to “Climate”) then I would ask to add a section describing current ECVs coming from space-borne remote sensing (active/passive sounding, coverage, variables, etc).

Response: The manuscript is focusing on the logical flow of assessing quality and usability of ECV CDRs, which are mainly derived from space-based observations, but also from in-situ and reanalysis data. In the usability assessment example, we present the datasets from three different sources (i.e., satellite, in-situ, reanalysis), and demonstrate how different sources of data can lead to different financial impacts on reinsurance premiums. This helps readers to understand how the remote sensing data can be utilized for specific purposes, and what should be paid with attention when end-users are confronting to a vast diversity of sources of remote sensing data (and/or, in situ- or reanalysis-based data).

Minor comments

Lines 39-40 and below: putting Web-links in the text breaks the flow. I would put them in the footnotes or in the references or, if the journal’s rules allow it, make them hyperlinks (for the first link this would be clickable “Copernicus Climate Change Service”).

Response: Thanks a lot. This has been revised accordingly.

Line 66: using “main” already implies that the list is not exhaustive.

Line 70: the appendix with acronyms could/should have been introduced earlier.

Lines 95-97: the sentence is difficult to read.

Response: Thanks a lot. The comments have been taken into consideration and revised accordingly.

Line 177: in printed version, the figure looks fuzzy. It would be good to mark the beginning of the assessment cycle because there’s no entry point in the current version and the cycles on the left look endless. Line 181 states clearly what’s going on, so, please, make the plot consistent with the text.

Response: Thanks a lot. The cycle is indeed purposely there for indicating an evolving process.

Lines 204-206. I’m not sure that the “inventory” can be “consistently informed”

Response: Thanks a lot. Has been revised accordingly.

Lines 207-211: using nouns instead of verbs in this list would be less confusing. I would rephrase the whole paragraph for the sake of simplicity.

Response: Thanks a lot. Has been revised accordingly.

Line 240: can one add types of resources to this plot to better understand line 244.

Line 264: I believe that “future required” means “further required”

Line 278: The figure is overloaded with information and uses small fonts – consider sacrificing some text to make it readable.

Line 419: please, add “Maturity score” title to the color scale

Line 436: Why are the pictograms of sources, of the processor, of specialist, and of the receiver all the same? I would use different ones for the sources because this is more of a dataset rather than of a person providing the dataset.

Line 452: “EL Nino” -> “El Nino”

Line 459: The table comes from a graphic file and the text looks fuzzy. I would use standard means of the text processor to make this table.

Response: Thanks a lot. The comments have been taken into consideration and revised accordingly. We didn’t change the pictograms of sources/processor/actors. This belongs to one well-established project, and they are the same for certain reasons (e.g., highlighting different persons will select different sources, algorithms to process, different decisions etc.,)

Response: Thanks a lot. It is changed.

Lines 473-493: we are moving even further away from remote sensing and towards some economic journal here.

Response: I refer to our responses to reviewer’s major concern.

Reviewer 3 Report

I think this manuscript is well written. I agree that it is essential to assess the technical and scientific quality of the provided climate data and information product including its value to users, to establish the relation of trust between providers of climate data and information and various downstream users.

However, for readers who are not familiar with this field like me, it is difficult to understand in this manuscript what is newly proposed in this paper and what has been already done in previous studies. My impression is actualy that this study just reviewed existing studies and databases. If no, please clearly explain more about originality of this study.

Only qualitative descriptions make me difficult to understand the significance of this study. Any quantitative informations and examples would be helpful to understand this study.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Major Concern

1. I think this manuscript is well written. I agree that it is essential to assess the technical and scientific quality of the provided climate data and information product including its value to users, to establish the relation of trust between providers of climate data and information and various downstream users. However, for readers who are not familiar with this field like me, it is difficult to understand in this manuscript what is newly proposed in this paper and what has been already done in previous studies. My impression is actualy that this study just reviewed existing studies and databases. If no, please clearly explain more about originality of this study.

Responses: The current manuscript is indeed a comprehensive review on existing studies and databases, and propose an evaluation framework for assessing quality and usability of ECV CDRs in a consistent manner. Although the assessments of quality and usability have been reported separately/ discretely, our manuscript is proposing for a systematic, consistent evaluation framework, with detailed logical flows.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

Main Concerns:

1. This is a well written paper, although it is wordy in some spots (see below). My main comment is that there are more appropriate journals for this manuscript. I make this comment because the paper also covers in situ data (e.g. L110). I shared this comment with the section managing editor (Ms. Quenby Qu), who suggested that I complete the review

Responses: The manuscript is focusing on the logical flow of assessing quality and usability of ECV CDRs, which are mainly derived from space-based observations, but also from in-situ and reanalysis data. In the usability assessment example, we present the datasets from three different sources (i.e., satellite, in-situ, reanalysis), and demonstrate how different sources of data can lead to different financial impacts on reinsurance premiums. This helps readers to understand how the remote sensing data can be utilized for specific purposes, and what should be paid with attention when end-users are confronting to a vast diversity of sources of remote sensing data (and/or, in situ- or reanalysis-based data).

2. In some cases, vague terms are used which allows the authors to cover a wide range of possible climate-related products, but the reader is sometimes guessing what is meant by such terms. An example is “information product” in the abstract (L22). The reader may have no idea what is meant by this extremely vague term.

Responses: Thanks a lot for pointing this out. The “information product” here is referred to climate information derived from climate data. For example, the trend of sea level rise implicates that “the trend” is the information product, while “sea level” is the climate data. In general, the climate information product has a broader concept (https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/climate-information-services/).

Minor Comments:

L20: its -> their

L22: product -> products (?)

L26 (and L27): ECV -> ECVs

L27: product -> products

L92: Delete “also”

Responses: Thanks for all the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L94: What is “technical infrastructure management”?

Responses: Here it refers to ICT infrastructures, data management etc.

L98: “end-user oriented expertise organizations” is very heavy. Is the word “expertise” needed?

Responses: Thanks a lot, “expertise” has been deleted.

L99 (and elsewhere): A comma should follow all leading prepositional phrases “In the downstream segment,” (see L91 where a comma was correctly included).

L107: its -> their

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L135: Reword “in these perspectives”. I am confused by what this means. Why is “perspectives” pluralized? My best guess is that the “perspective” refers to human-induced climate change and its effect on the probability of extreme events.

Responses: Has been revised as “challenges”.

L142: evolution -> evolving

L163: “not” -> “is not”

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L190: “multi-sources” is an abbreviation used in this paper for “multiple sources”. Since this is the first occurrence, please define “multi-sources” here.

L200: “given these insights” -> “, given these insights,”

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L218: “on how traceable the generation process is” -> “to trace the generation process”

Responses: We tentatively keep the original sentence, as such, to highlight the process of traceability evaluation.

L225: earth -> Earth

L226: “source” is vague. Is “data source(s)” appropriate?

L234 (and elsewhere): “ontology” is used incorrectly in my opinion.

L235: Global -> global

L246: agilely -> readily

L247: “information…” -> “an information…”

L247 (see also L401): alike -> like

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L250: This sentence is confusing. To which “difficulty” are the authors referring? The previous sentence states that metrological traceability” is “currently feasible within some space-based atmosphere ECV products” in contrast to “in-situ based ECVs”. Yet the sentence on L250 refers to a difficulty related to satellite data. Could the authors provide an example when SI standards were not used and the difficulty it created?

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve added relevant changes to clarify.

L252: “ECV production” -> “production of some ECVs”

L264: future -> further (?)

L271: “to use” -> of using”

L327: Is “sectoral” needed?

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L337: Many readers may be unfamiliar with “regional downscaling”. Downscaling has a different meaning in this context than can be found in a dictionary.

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve added relevant changes to clarify.

L343: Delete “,”

L395 (and L396): “closing the cycles” is not correct. The authors mean “closing the budgets of these cycles”.

L396: How does “closing the budgets on cycles” help with gap identification? I find the authors are getting lost in some of their own fancy expressions.

L398: It seems that the sentence “The thematic assessment …” does not belong in this paragraph.

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve added relevant changes to clarify.

L400: are -> “is (art)”

L410: “Are they …?”. This question does not make sense. Do the authors mean “…at various spatiotemporal resolutions”? Or do they mean “…when spatiotemporally averaged to the same scales?”.

L435: What is a “drill-down”? Reword.

L454: “point)” -> “point),”

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve added relevant changes to clarify.

L465: El Nino-related disruptions do not occur every year.

Responses: Thank you for this comment. The text has been revised accordingly.

L511: While not critical to the paper, the authors should have considered that a long-term increase in SST changes the frequency of extreme events when these events are defined using an absolute temperature threshold (e.g. 24 degrees C).

Responses: It is true that increasing SST can have a considerable impact on the pricing result. For the sake of simplicity and given the price estimate itself is not important for the purpose of the paper, it has been assumed that the SST time series are stationary. This assumption is spelled out in L546-547 of the manuscript.

L511: “that in the long run” -> “that, in the earlier years,”

Responses: While the utilized SST time series represent data samples, the fitted GEV model represent the corresponding populations. By saying “in the long run”, we mean that the statistics derived from the GEV models represent all possible SST values, even ones that would occur outside a limited observational record

L542: I’m not sure wat is meant by “decomposition of the generic logical view can identify the structured process for CDR production from space”.

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve made relevant changes to clarify.

L547: “the step”-> “a step”

L562: subsequence -> consequence

L581: “use” -> “the use”

L583: “, to describe” -> “, ultimately yielding a description of”

L617: “observation concentration” -> “sampling”

Responses: Thanks for the comments. They are revised accordingly.

L623: There is too much included in the brackets of this sentence. Can “separating by reasons to identify potential problems” be a separate sentence?

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve made relevant changes to clarify.

L635: “background errors” might be difficult to understand for some readers.

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve made relevant changes to clarify.

L660: I found it strange that AQUE is introduced in the conclusion.

L663: being -> are

L665: materialize -> foster

L666: “to flourish” -> “leading to a flourishing”

L679: later -> latter

L693: “sectoral” -> “the sectoral”

L695: “, via” -> “via”

L703: “former as” -> “formerly the”

Responses: Thanks for the comments. We’ve revised accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Except for adding some useful sentences in section 3.1 and correction of typos my remarks to the first version are mostly ignored, even if claimed to be considered in the author's response. Just moving sentences from before a figure or table to behind figure or table (or vice versa) or to exchange the sequence of 2 sentences is not an appropriate response.
Since the authors are reluctant to provide more details in the text or the appendix I checked the references but found a lot of dead links or inaccessible material like papers in preparation or in review.

Details of V1 not considered properly:
Line 56: EQC-function: Here should be already one or two sentences on what is scientifically behind it.  
Line 71: A list or table of the ECVs should be provided in the Appendix since the given reference is not accessible.
Line 132: Comma missing? Please split sentence or improve it.
Table 1: This table mentions details on models and methods but without any explanation. Some more information would be useful here since the paper is not only addressed to atmospheric modellers. At least the used acronyms should be spelled out in the list in the Appendix.
Line 341: Something missing here, be more specific  (3 right ACMS pillars?).
Line 549f: If not done earlier, examples for quality assurance  procedures should be given here (if possible). There is no additional citation here but earlier.
Line 568: Do you mean 'coverage' here?  Messed up with a comment of another reviewer. I suppose with this complicated sentence you mean that historical data are dominated by Europe and the US.
Line 578 and Appendix: GRUAN, spell out correct?
Line 600f: I suppose you mean 'data assimilation (4DVAR?) here? Please improve clarity of sentence (ocean waves?) and include parts of your comment.
Line 970f: The link still does not work, please correct.
Line 1072, 1082: Font for year, still not corrected.

Further details:
Line 96: Odd use of the verb 'informed' (even MS Word complains). Please improve wording.
Line 203f: Improve grammar and wording.
Line 246: Cut sentence after 'chain', don't repeat the end of the paragraph before.
Line 263: Reorder words?
Table 1: Insert 'Spectral' into row 5, last 3 columns (or in caption with T).
Table 3: Please explain '-' in caption; provide values for time range (example?)
Line 837: 23 is not a proper reference.
Line 842: Link for 25 dead.
Line 851ff: Please provide further details on 28 and 29 to find it on the given homepages.
Line 880: Link for 40 is not existent.
Line 990: 76 is not a proper reference.
Line 998: Link for 79 dead.
Line 1049ff: Links for 95 to 97 and 99 dead.
Line 1075: Link for 101 dead.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 (Round 2)

1. Except for adding some useful sentences in section 3.1 and correction of typos my remarks to the first version are mostly ignored, even if claimed to be considered in the author's response. Just moving sentences from before a figure or table to behind figure or table (or vice versa) or to exchange the sequence of 2 sentences is not an appropriate response.

Responses: We are really sorry for this. The most updated version was not sent out to reviewers for a further check. The editor also realized this and sent us a message as below”

“Dear Yijian,

Sorry for my late response. I were out of office when you sent the updated file to me. So I failed to send the correct version to this reviewer. So sorry for that. You could use the latest version for this revision<Reviewer 1>.

https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/resubmit/0b57027bfa207a9c0e9d22ec993d1adb

Have a good weekend.

Best Regards,

Ms. Quenby Qu,

Section Managing Editor”

In the latest version of the manuscript, please find the latest updates we made.

2. Since the authors are reluctant to provide more details in the text or the appendix I checked the references but found a lot of dead links or inaccessible material like papers in preparation or in review.

Responses: We appreciated reviewer’s efforts to have quality review on our manuscript, and strike to follow the comments to adjust our manuscript, at the same time, keep the essence of the manuscript. We’ve tried to accommodate your comments on spelling out acronyms in Table 1.

Details of V1 not considered properly:

Line 56: EQC-function: Here should be already one or two sentences on what is scientifically behind it. 

Responses: This has been changed in the updated version, but not sending out to you correctly.

Line 71: A list or table of the ECVs should be provided in the Appendix since the given reference is not accessible.

Responses: The citation is updated.

Line 132: Comma missing? Please split sentence or improve it.

Responses: The comma added.

Table 1: This table mentions details on models and methods but without any explanation. Some more information would be useful here since the paper is not only addressed to atmospheric modellers. At least the used acronyms should be spelled out in the list in the Appendix.

Responses: We’ve added some clarification for Table 1. The acronyms spelled out in the Appendix has been added.

Line 341: Something missing here, be more specific  (3 right ACMS pillars?).

Responses: We’ve added some text to clarify.

Line 549f: If not done earlier, examples for quality assurance  procedures should be given here (if possible). There is no additional citation here but earlier.

Responses: It is updated now.

Line 568: Do you mean 'coverage' here?  Messed up with a comment of another reviewer. I suppose with this complicated sentence you mean that historical data are dominated by Europe and the US.

Responses: We’ve adjusted the text to clarify the sentence.

Line 578 and Appendix: GRUAN, spell out correct?

Responses: It is updated now.

Line 600f: I suppose you mean 'data assimilation (4DVAR?) here? Please improve clarity of sentence (ocean waves?) and include parts of your comment.

Responses: We’ve adjusted the sentence to make “assimilation” concept explicitly

Line 970f: The link still does not work, please correct.

Responses: It is updated. The doi is correct, but somehow the internet link is not working. We’ve just put doi there for reference.

Line 1072, 1082: Font for year, still not corrected.

Responses: They are book sections, not journal articles. The “font for the year” is coming from MDPI format.

Further details:

Line 96: Odd use of the verb 'informed' (even MS Word complains). Please improve wording.

Responses: This has been changed.

Line 203f: Improve grammar and wording.

Responses: This has been adjusted.

Line 246: Cut sentence after 'chain', don't repeat the end of the paragraph before.

Responses: This has been adjusted.

Line 263: Reorder words?

Responses: This has been adjusted.

Table 1: Insert 'Spectral' into row 5, last 3 columns (or in caption with T).

Responses: ‘T’ is explained in caption.

Table 3: Please explain '-' in caption; provide values for time range (example?)

Responses: This has been adjusted.

Line 837: 23 is not a proper reference.

Responses: This has been updated. This paper has been published.

Line 842: Link for 25 dead.

Responses: This has been adjusted. Strangely ‘07’ will be automatically changed to 2007, which causes the link dead.

Line 851ff: Please provide further details on 28 and 29 to find it on the given homepages.

Responses: This has been updated.

Line 880: Link for 40 is not existent.

Responses: This has been updated.

Line 990: 76 is not a proper reference.

Responses: This has been removed.

Line 998: Link for 79 dead.

Line 1049ff: Links for 95 to 97 and 99 dead.

Line 1075: Link for 101 dead.

Responses: These dead links are due to the server problem of CORE-CLIMAX website. Will be fixed after contacting ICT people.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Some parts are improved now but unfortunately there are still issues claimed to be done in the author's response which were not corrected in the manuscript. Sometimes it might have been due to a mess up of line numbers between the line numbers of the different versions. The following remarks refer to V3.

Line 56: This is like in V2, and except for an exchange of order of 2 sentences like in V1.
Line 71: I found the paper after correcting a typo in the provided doi (please correct). Do you mean the 24 entries in Table 2 of this paper? In this table are, however, only 17 physical or chemical quantities so some clarifying remark would be useful.
Line 204: 'to receive' (?).
Line 246: 'for example, ... corrections' is repeated from line 238. Necessary?
Line 264: Wouldn't it be better to reorder words in the title of the subsection because of the acronym?
Table 1: Write in caption 'truncation in spectral model'. The conversion to horizontal resolution appears to be at the upper end of the range in the literature.
Line 873 and 884: There is still a wrong incomplete link behind. If the printed address is copied to a browser there appears some overview but not the paper.
Line 1005: The provided doi does not work.
Line 1025 and 869: A paper in preparation is not a valid reference, please remove (claimed but not done).
Line 1042: Link dead (WMO), please fix.
Line 1120: Link dead (reanalysis), please fix.

I haven"t checked if all citations are adjusted properly after reordering of the reference list.

Author Response

We appreciate very much the reviewer for the continuous efforts in commenting our manuscript. We are sorry that we didn’t include line number to indicate where we made changes in the previous round of responses. In the current response, we’ve added the line number for your easier access to the revised points.

Some parts are improved now but unfortunately there are still issues claimed to be done in the author's response which were not corrected in the manuscript. Sometimes it might have been due to a mess up of line numbers between the line numbers of the different versions. The following remarks refer to V3.

Thanks a lot again for reviewers’ efforts to go through the revision after revisions. We are sorry there were some misunderstanding of your comments on Line 56 and Line71. Now they are fixed as it should be.

As the reviewer deemed that “some issues were claimed to be done while not corrected in the manuscript” for our responses to the Round 2 comments. In the following, we’ve provided the detailed line number for the corresponding changes made (for Round2 comments).

Line 56: EQC-function: Here should be already one or two sentences on what is scientifically behind it. 

Responses: This has been changed in Line 61-63 (latest updated version, it is to note all the line number mentioned in the response refer to the latest updated version) for clarification. See as follows:

“… The EQC function is the quality assurance tool to evaluate if the data is “climate compliant” or not, and to assess how much extent the tailored climate service meet users’ specific needs (i.e., fitness for purpose). …”

Line 71: A list or table of the ECVs should be provided in the Appendix since the given reference is not accessible.

Responses: The given reference is updated, also the sentence was updated to clarify this comment. See as follows (Line 77):

“… and implemented for a selection of 12 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs), with in total 24 products [23]…”

Line 132: Comma missing? Please split sentence or improve it.

Responses: The comma added in Line 141.

Table 1: This table mentions details on models and methods but without any explanation. Some more information would be useful here since the paper is not only addressed to atmospheric modellers. At least the used acronyms should be spelled out in the list in the Appendix.

Responses: We’ve added some clarification for Table 1 (see line 328-334).

The acronyms spelled out in the Appendix has been added. (See line 765-767, 770, 778, 783-784, 801, 811-813)

Line 341: Something missing here, be more specific  (3 right ACMS pillars?).

Responses: We’ve added some text to clarify, see Line 368

Line 549f: If not done earlier, examples for quality assurance  procedures should be given here (if possible). There is no additional citation here but earlier.

Responses: It is updated now. The citation is added in Line 588. A small change for clarification in Line 584. It reads now as

“… The structured process subsequently enables a potential, thorough uncertainty analysis of the whole CDR production chain. …”

Line 568: Do you mean 'coverage' here?  Messed up with a comment of another reviewer. I suppose with this complicated sentence you mean that historical data are dominated by Europe and the US.

Responses: We’ve adjusted the text to clarify the sentence. It reads now as in Line 598-600:

“1) The historically heterogeneous governance structures of in-situ observation networks have inevitably led to significant difference in data policy, adoption of network nomenclatures and practice.”

Line 578 and Appendix: GRUAN, spell out correct?

Responses: It is updated now in Line 608, and Line 798

Line 600f: I suppose you mean 'data assimilation (4DVAR?) here? Please improve clarity of sentence (ocean waves?) and include parts of your comment.

Responses: We’ve adjusted the sentence to make “assimilation” concept explicitly. See Line 631-633.

Line 970f: The link still does not work, please correct.

Responses: It is updated. The doi is correct, but somehow when pasted to ‘page’ in Endnote, some number in the doi was changed automatically. It is fixed now.

Line 1072, 1082: Font for year, still not corrected.

Responses: They are book sections, not journal articles. The “font for the year” is coming from MDPI format. As such, we didn’t change it.

Further details:

Line 96: Odd use of the verb 'informed' (even MS Word complains). Please improve wording.

Responses: This has been changed, see line 103-104.

Line 203f: Improve grammar and wording.

Responses: This has been adjusted, see line 212-214.

Line 246: Cut sentence after 'chain', don't repeat the end of the paragraph before.

Responses: This has been deleted. See Line 254.

Line 263: Reorder words?

Responses: It was missed out, in the Round 3, we got your comments on the title. It is changed now. See Line 274.

Table 1: Insert 'Spectral' into row 5, last 3 columns (or in caption with T).

Responses: ‘T’ is explained in caption and updated according to the latest comment. See Line 347-348

Table 3: Please explain '-' in caption; provide values for time range (example?)

Responses: This has been explained. See Line 448-449.

Line 837: 23 is not a proper reference.

Responses: This has been updated. This paper has been published. The line is functioning now. See Line 881

Line 842: Link for 25 dead.

Responses: The bug has been fixed. See Line 887.

Line 851ff: Please provide further details on 28 and 29 to find it on the given homepages.

Responses: This has been updated and the links were validated. See Line 896-903.

Line 880: Link for 40 is not existent.

Responses: This has been updated and the link was validated.

Line 990: 76 is not a proper reference.

Responses: This has been removed.

Line 998: Link for 79 dead.

Line 1049ff: Links for 95 to 97 and 99 dead.

Line 1075: Link for 101 dead.

Responses: These dead links have been updated and validated. See Line 1058 (for old 79), Line 1106-1117 (for old 95 to 97, the old 99 deleted), Line 1124 (for old 101).

Line 56: This is like in V2, and except for an exchange of order of 2 sentences like in V1.

Responses: This has been changed in Line 61-63 (latest updated version, it is to note all the line number mentioned in the response refer to the latest updated version) for clarification. See as follows:

“… The EQC function is the quality assurance tool to evaluate if the data is “climate compliant” or not, and to assess how much extent the tailored climate service meet users’ specific needs (i.e., fitness for purpose). …”

Line 71: I found the paper after correcting a typo in the provided doi (please correct). Do you mean the 24 entries in Table 2 of this paper? In this table are, however, only 17 physical or chemical quantities so some clarifying remark would be useful.

Responses: The given reference is updated, also the sentence was updated to clarify this comment. See as follows (Line 77):

“… and implemented for a selection of 12 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs), with in total 24 products [23]…”

Line 204: 'to receive' (?).

Responses: This updated. See Line 213-214.

Line 246: 'for example, ... corrections' is repeated from line 238. Necessary?

Responses: This has been deleted. See Line 254.

Line 264: Wouldn't it be better to reorder words in the title of the subsection because of the acronym?

Responses: It was missed out for your previous round of comments. It is changed now. See Line 274.

Table 1: Write in caption 'truncation in spectral model'. The conversion to horizontal resolution appears to be at the upper end of the range in the literature.

Responses: In the caption, we have added:

“T – Truncation in ‘spectral models’ that use spherical harmonics”

Line 873 and 884: There is still a wrong incomplete link behind. If the printed address is copied to a browser there appears some overview but not the paper.

Line 1005: The provided doi does not work.

Line 1025 and 869: A paper in preparation is not a valid reference, please remove (claimed but not done).

Line 1042: Link dead (WMO), please fix.

Line 1120: Link dead (reanalysis), please fix.

I haven"t checked if all citations are adjusted properly after reordering of the reference list.

Responses: All the dead links are updated. All the links in the reference have been validated as well. All the citations are adjusted properly after reordering the reference list, as this is done automatically by Endnote.

All best wishes,

Yijian Zeng, on behalf of coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx