Using Atmospheric Inverse Modelling of Methane Budgets with Copernicus Land Water and Wetness Data to Detect Land Use-Related Emissions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 the article is relevant and interesting for readers in the field; however, there are some notes to be revised:

 1.      Introduction:

Introduce the concept atmospheric inverse modelling of methane budgets research, emphasizing its significance in the context of use related emissions.

Explain the need for new measures in Copernicus land water and wetness data analysis development.

Clearly state the objectives of the article.

 2. Materials and methods:

Provide information on the methodology used in the article, including the search strategy, selection criteria for relevant works, and data analysis methods;

Specify the sources of literature, such as databases, journals, and conference proceedings, from which the reviewed works were selected.

 3. Research results:

Clearly explain the significance and impact of new method proposed in the Article. Provide generalized summary of quantitative data and specific examples to support the findings and enhance the credibility of the review.

 4. Discussion:

From present section, it is not clear, what advances Authors made over existing studies, what limitations were considered in the study and what future perspectives of research are foreseen.

5. Conclusions:

Offer recommendations for researchers to foster the development of new method proposed in the article.

 Good luck!

Review the manuscript for grammatical errors and ensure consistency in terminology and expression throughout the text.

Consider rephrasing sentences for improved coherence and flow of ideas.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment for our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors of the manuscript entitled: "Using Atmospheric Inverse Modelling of Methane Budgets With Copernicus Land Water and Wetness Data to Detect Land Use Related Emissions". I have thoroughly reviewed your paper. Considering it is a very relevant work considering the context of greenhouse gas reduction and the use and application of remote sensing. However, it needs to be improved before it can be published. Below, I detail the specific suggestions that should be taken into account in its entirety for the improvement of the manuscript.

Introduction

L16-85: The introduction is well structured but does not clearly state the specific aims of the research. Please number the specific aims to make it clear what you are trying to achieve with your research.

Materials and Methods

L86: It is advisable to include a description of the study area: climate, topography, land use, population density, etc.

Results

Figure 1 and Figure 2: The letter a in the first figure is not displayed correctly, please modify the figure.

Figure 4 and Figura 5: There is a lot of space between these figures, please reduce the spacing to optimise space in the manuscript.

Discussion

I do not recommend including figures in the discussion section, it is better to focus on the main findings. Please include the main limitations of the research, who the potential beneficiaries are, how this information could be used by civil society, policy makers and academics. Also, what would be the future complementary research?

References

Please review the scientific references that are placed, at first glance you can see sources of little relevance and additionally not placed the date of access to the information and its respective link to the page to verify it.

--

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment for our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comment

The authors present a thorough investigation of CH4 emissions in Finland. A special merit lies in the attribution of CH4 emissions to land use categories and the discussion of uncertainties. The results are interesting as they partially contradict expectations, i. e. that the land use and forestry sector is a net sink of CH4. The authors conclude that CH4 emissions might be underestimated in Finland. The manuscript is ready for publication once the following questions are answered and suggestions treated.

Detailed comments (numbers refer to lines in the manuscript)

6-7: I suggest to re-phrase like: with CH4 emission estimates calculated (provided) by an inversion model.

30-32: When more than half of the peatlands have been drained, why is the total carbon storage in peat reduced by only 3-7 %?

53: include abbreviation CTE here

53 (and elsewhere): emission sources

78 (and elsewhere): I am not sure if the term "prior" is correct. Might "before" and "with (or optimized)" inversion be better?

97: prior flux maps: meaning unclear (see comment to line 78).

116-119: explain different averaging times

122: observational uncertainty: in Finland or globally? Why is the variation so large?

248: emission estimates

271: not 2013-2020?

275: Is the section heading correct? Results of CAMS-REG are also discussed here.

276-287: I cannot comprehend this interpretation of figs. 1a-1d. Fig. 1a shows emissions, figs. 1b-d differences of emissions. Would it not be better to show emissions throughout 1a-1d?

356-357: the statement that "livestock-related CH4 emissions are excluded in LULUCF" is important, should be transferred to the introduction and explained there.

Fig. 7 would need more explanatory text.

409: Replace "contributed" by "contributing"?

424 (and afterwards): "North Ostrobothnia": this landscape name is not well known in the international community. If used, explain and show in map.

568: List of abbreviations is useful but incomplete (e.g. CAMS-REG is missing). Move it before the introduction.

572: references: translate or exclude pure Finnish references.

English language is mostly fine (see detailed comments for some suggestions to clarify the text)

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. Please see the attachment for our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Good luck!