Next Article in Journal
Unsupervised Multi-Level Feature Extraction for Improvement of Hyperspectral Classification
Previous Article in Journal
A Higher-Order Graph Convolutional Network for Location Recommendation of an Air-Quality-Monitoring Station
 
 
Technical Note
Peer-Review Record

The Response of Cloud-Precipitation Recycling in China to Global Warming

Remote Sens. 2021, 13(8), 1601; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13081601
by Qi Guo 1, Xianjie Cao 1, Jiening Liang 1, Zhida Zhang 1, Min Zhang 1 and Lei Zhang 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2021, 13(8), 1601; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13081601
Submission received: 27 February 2021 / Revised: 16 April 2021 / Accepted: 17 April 2021 / Published: 20 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article can be recommended for publication after correction in accordance with the comments made and re-reviewing

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Major reviews:

  • Table 1: Error in the last heading.
  • Equation (2): Not clear the variables, consider using more symbolic signs and describe them below.
  • Line 158-166: More explanation of the trend estimators is required.
  • Line 167-188: Would not be better to apply some clustering technique to exactly determine the division into areas?
  • Line 209-210, last sentence, not clear the meaning and space missing after the period.
  • Line 234: least stable -> most stable (or least variability)
  • A better explanation of the meaning of the grid line shade within the contours indicating 95% significance is requiered.
  • Figure 4(c) plots values all the way to 400h. How is that possible compared to values in Figure4(a)? Maybe different units used?
  • Have you explored using some statistical learning techniques to predict cloud-precipitation evolution using UMF and LTS? It looks like there is some interesting future work which should be better described at the conclusions.

Minor reviews:

  • Line 106: Try not to use subjective qualifications like "is an excellent".
  • Line 443: MOIDIS -> MODIS

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Attached please find a pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a good job with the revision.

The only thing that needs to be done before publication is implementation of all the explanations given to my questions into the manuscript (answers to my previous comments no. 7, 9, 10, 11). These answers are critical for explaining the results presented by the paper. So the explanations in those answers should be implemented shortly into the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop