You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Yan Chen1,2,3,
  • Liqin Qu1,2,4,* and
  • Zhuomin Li1,2,4
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Sergey Stanichny Reviewer 2: Bingkun Luo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good methodological study for creating regional data of SST with higher accuracy.

Some remarks

General

In form presented it looks like technical report.

It’s not clear - how did You use RTTOV?  What is TOVS (definition)?

What is the reason to demonstrate 10 plates on fig 1 and fig 2?

Table 1, fig 4 and 5 contain approximately the same statistical information.

Is it correct to compare accuracy of the MCSST and AVHRR SSTskin with different iQuam buoy SSTs  datasets.

I recommend to exclude some figures and add intercomparison of the two satellite SSTs with same iQuam buoy SSTs  dataset.

Additional

127  moored buoy data is -0.01℃ (without -)

314  2005 and 2009 are summarized in Table4 (Table 4 is absent)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has reprocessed and validated more than 4 years’ of NOAA HRPT satellite SST obtained from the OUC satellite ground station. 

 

1. However, it is just a basic introduction to the OE SST retrieval algorithms and validation with iQuam buoy SST. Would you mind providing some suggestions at the end of the paper to potentially improve the current SST retrieval algorithms? Whether the bias listed in Figure 4 and Figure 5 are related to SZA? The ERA5 input? water vapour? Or something else? Addressing this discrepancy is crucial before the paper can be published.

 

2. Figure 2 (c) (e) and (i). Can you explain why there are many blue stripes from 10N to 15N? Obviously, these are not clouds. But what caused them? Large satellite zenith angle?

 

3. Line 319, particularly when, later in the paper, a day/night difference is identified. Can you explain it?

 

4. In addition to the traditional statistics (e.g., bias, sd, rsd, etc.), the authors need to investigate the spatial distribution of the biases between in situ and satellite.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased that the authors have taken on board my previous comments. There is now plenty in the paper for the community to digest, inconsistencies have been addressed, and the presentation has been sharpened up.