Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and is of interest for the readers of this journal. However there are some points that deserve special attention in order to be clear and solid. 

Lines 74-75: correct the sentence and provide details for the stated references. 

Lines 144-145: it is not clear which method is used for the adjustment of buoy wind speed. Please provide a short description.  

Lines 156-159: it is again not clear how these relations (1) & (2) are used. I couldn't find a comment in the provided reference Atlas et al. (2011). Please provide some explanations 

Relation (3) can be used for wind power estimation provided that the wind speed follows a two-parameter Weibull distribution, which is not always the case. See e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.050

 

Have you tested the validity of Weibull pdf? In any case you can estimate directly wind power using your wind time series. 

In relation  (3) use P instead of E for denoting wind power.

The sentence in lines 182-184 is not correct. Please revise it.

Provide the relation for RMSD

The statement in lines 257-259 is questionable. Please revise it or remove it completely

In Figure 5b the scatter around the regression lines is very large. In my opinion you cannot use this figure for the conclusions you provide. Find maybe an alternative approach? 

In lines 327-329 provide relevant references for the statement you made. 

What is the best spatial resolution of your data set? 

What indices have you used in the analysis of section 3.4? Smoothed-unsmoothed? With trend or detrended? Please provide the source of the time series indices.  

The results shown in Figure 8 are not clear. At least provide some statistics (e.g., coefficient of determination) and regression equations between wind power and indices and explain clearly how you calculated the provided results. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file reply_review1.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim of the manuscript is to verify the ocean wind product CCM3.0 and compare it to the previous version with a focus on offshore wind energy applications. The paper also discuss relation of wind conditions to the known climate indices and oscillations.  

The manuscript is well-written but explanation or discussion of the findings is sometimes missing. Introduction the last study of the relationship between wind conditions and climate indices is also missing. The inclusion of a reference to Costoya et al [12] seems out of place (line 80). A figure seems to be missing as well. 

L 59-64: Please add here at buoy winds are not included in the CCM3.0 product. It is not really clear until later.

L 61: ERA5 reference is number 6, not 5. 

L 84: Please add potential: ...estimated wind power ... -> ...estimated wind power potential ...

figure 2: Please define the mean ratio (or ratio of means)?

Line 220-222: I don't understand the sentence: "For buoy wind speed  higher than 15 m/s, the number of stations used in the average is 35 in order to have number of comparison samples more than 30." Please make it more clear what you mean. And where does the numbers 30 and 35 come from? The sentence is repeated in the table caption. Repetitions are unnecessary. 

Figure 6 and line 290: I guess these figures are based on CCM3.0 and in 100m? Please add this information in the caption. Also the width of the belt (200km?) and the motivation for including only this part would be natural to add in the text somewhere. 

Figure7. please define winter (DJF?) and the height (100m) in the caption. 

Figure 7 and lines 299-305: are you able to explain sharp increase in CCM3 

along the west coast and other places? Is it realistic or due to atmospheric 

stability which is not accounted for, or due to ingestion of new satellite 

data?

 

Section 3.4 comes somewhat unannounced, since climate oscillations or

change and the impact on wind power projects is not presented in the 

introduction. I suggest to move some of the motivation and background to

the introduction.

 

Figure 8: the caption does not belong to this figure. It seems that a figure 

with the correlation coefficient between climate indices and wind power 

density is missing?

 

line 353: "The histogram wind speed adjustment method might play a role

here." I would have thought that the authors would have more knowledge 

to share about this.

 

 

Funding: name and grant number is missing

Author Response

Please see the attached file reply_review2.docx 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of my comments and suggestions. There is need however, for an extensive grammar and spellcheck. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestion.  We did a extensive grammar and spellcheck

and made revisions at many places. 

Best Regards, 

xiaochun wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx