A New Land-Use Dataset for the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript shows the effect of using a more up-to-date landuse map for WRF modelling of Xiangjing. It is interesting, though somewhat limited of scope, given its very small time interval at which the modelling is tested. The work is relatively straightforward and I did not discover any major flaws, except that the conclusion that the new dataset is better cannot be necessarily be concluded from the current study.
Suggestions for improvement and questions that should be answered in the text:
2.3 The reference for WRF is missing (Skamarock & Klemp, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037 )
Figure 2 is missing.
Line 145: Why was this period chosen? Is it representative?
2.4: Why were these physics schemes chosen? Was there some experience with them that show them to work well?
Figure 3: It would greatly help readability if a more diverse set of colors are used. Although more related to realistic colors, it is now very hard to distinguish the different shades of green and brown.
Line 179: What is the corresponding amount in GLC2015?
Line 180-181: the sentence seems incomplete.
Figure 4: I like that these parameters are also shown, but, especially in the upper row, the colors are very hard to distinguish. Perhaps difference plots would make it clearer what the effect is of the different datasets.
3.2: Perhaps they are already included in the missing Figure 2, but could you indicate these two stations on one of the maps?
Line 219: I would say it’s the other way around: albedo and emissivity determine the flux.
Line 224: The text mentions 8:00 UTC, yet the figures mention 6:00 UTC. Which on is actually used?
Line 229: Eq. 3 needs to be introduced first.
Figure 5: Is this single time step representative of the entire dataset?
Figures 5 and 7, right columns: The different shades of green and orange are very hard to distinguish. Please use a more suitable color bar.
3.3: Could you say more about why there are such large discrepancies in the maximum temperatures and diurnal temperature range for Urumqi observations?
Line 311: Is this a reasonable assumption in this time of year?
Line 314: Equation 7 needs to be introduced first.
Line 359 and further (shouldn’t this be a new section?): I think it is OK to compare the two datasets like this, but I don’t think it is appropriate to say that the GLC2015 dataset is necessarily better. For instance, using another set of physics modules, the other dataset might give results that are closer to the observations. It is not possible to tell from this study, with the very limited simulations. In any case, the standard WRF does not include irrigation, which is clearly very important in the region of study. Including a model of irrigation will likely change all the flux, temperature, and humidity outcomes. The present study gives some indication to the modelled changes that are induced by the different landcover dataset, but it is far from conclusive in the comparison with observations. I suggest that the authors better reflect this in their manuscript.
Line 359 and further: The three significant digits are not appropriate here, and not very relevant in any case.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments：
2.3 The reference for WRF is missing (Skamarock & Klemp, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037 )
Response 1: I have added this reference.
Figure 2 is missing.
Response 2: I have added Figure2. “Two nested domains and topography”
Line 145: Why was this period chosen? Is it representative?
Response 3: Due to the intensely land-air interaction in summer and less clouds, landuse data could exert obviously impact on simulation. More than this, in winter where is mostly covered by snow over North area of Xinjaing, that can not prove the new land use data exert effects.
2.4: Why were these physics schemes chosen? Was there some experience with them that show them to work well?
Response 4: These physics schemes have been used in Xinjiang weather prediction model operation system for long time, this physics schemes chosen by longtime sensitivity test and optimization, and work well.
Figure 3: It would greatly help readability if a more diverse set of colors are used. Although more related to realistic colors, it is now very hard to distinguish the different shades of green and brown.
Response 5: I have redrawn Figure3 used more diverse set of colors.
Line 179: What is the corresponding amount in GLC2015?
Response 6: It is a wrong expression, I have corrected to “the land-use types reference to the classification codes Table 1”.
Line 180-181: the sentence seems incomplete.
Response 7: I have corrected this sentence.
Figure 4: I like that these parameters are also shown, but, especially in the upper row, the colors are very hard to distinguish. Perhaps difference plots would make it clearer what the effect is of the different datasets.
Response 8: I have redrawn Figure4 used more diverse set of colors, it is easy to distinguish each land use type parameters.
3.2: Perhaps they are already included in the missing Figure 2, but could you indicate these two stations on one of the maps?
Response 9: I have added Figure 2.
Line 219: I would say it’s the other way around: albedo and emissivity determine the flux.
Response 10: Yes, I agree with your idea.
Line 224: The text mentions 8:00 UTC, yet the figures mention 6:00 UTC. Which on is actually used?
Response 11: I have corrected “8:00 UTC” into “6:00 UTC”
Line 229: Eq. 3 needs to be introduced first.
Response 12 : Eq. 3 introduced first before explain relation principle.
Figure 5: Is this single time step representative of the entire dataset?
Response 13 : This represented entire D02 domain at 6:00 UTC.
Figures 5 and 7, right columns: The different shades of green and orange are very hard to distinguish. Please use a more suitable color bar.
Response 14: I have redrawn Figure5 and Figure7 used more color.
3.3: Could you say more about why there are such large discrepancies in the maximum temperatures and diurnal temperature range for Urumqi observations?
Response 15: The urban surface heat capacity is small, especially in summer, it absorbs heat quickly in the daytime, heats up quickly, releases heat quickly in the night and cools down quickly. During this period, there is no rainfall, the air is dry, and the long wave reverse radiation absorbed is less.
Line 311: Is this a reasonable assumption in this time of year?
Response 16: I think it is reasonable, and a typical land air interaction process in sunny day.
Line 314: Equation 7 needs to be introduced first.
Response 17 : Eq. 7 introduced first before explain relation principle.
Line 359 and further (shouldn’t this be a new section?): I think it is OK to compare the two datasets like this, but I don’t think it is appropriate to say that the GLC2015 dataset is necessarily better. For instance, using another set of physics modules, the other dataset might give results that are closer to the observations. It is not possible to tell from this study, with the very limited simulations. In any case, the standard WRF does not include irrigation, which is clearly very important in the region of study. Including a model of irrigation will likely change all the flux, temperature, and humidity outcomes. The present study gives some indication to the modelled changes that are induced by the different landcover dataset, but it is far from conclusive in the comparison with observations. I suggest that the authors better reflect this in their manuscript.
Response 18 : I think your suggestion is reasonable, this study just simulated for three months in summer season, and analyzed by 2 stations. But this new land use data has been used in Xinjiang weather prediction model operation system, the wind speed forecast is better than before in daily weather forecast service, but it really tough job to verify a whole simulation in this study. We promise the new land use data can download publicly, we hope more people to use and test this new land use data.
Line 359 and further: The three significant digits are not appropriate here, and not very relevant in any case.
Response 19 : I have corrected by two digits all about three significant digits.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This study developed a new land-use dataset which is more accurate in describing the land-type in Xingjiang region. A set of WRF runs is used to compare the performance of this new dataset with USGG data. I have coupled minor points to be addressed.
Line 14: “hade” looks like a typo.
Line 20-23, the sentence is too long. You may break it into two sentences
Lin 59 Gao et al. Missing the numbering of reference.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments：
General suggestions:
The color panels require enlargement
The authors mentioned that they used the NOAH land surface scheme in their WRF simulations. I am curious as to what values for Leaf Area Index (LAI) were used for each land use type and or gridpoint? Did such fields come from MODIS data or were default values used? This is important as LAI is a crucial, and measureable, parameter that helps to determine the partitioning of available energy into latent and sensible heat components in that model and in other land-surface parameterization schemes.
More references concerning prior modeling work showing land-use datasets and their influence on model accuracy would be helpful.
Response 1: I agree with your idea, we used MODIS monthly LAI data, so the LAI is same. We measured the LAI land use type “Barren or Sparsely Vegetated” over North Xinjiang, but these data existed a lot of uncertainty, it is hard to determine better LAI value, so we used MODIS monthly LAI data here. We will continuous observation research.
Specific comments / suggestions. though many of these are language-based, some are conceptual. this document could be improved significantly with these changes.
Response 2: I have corrected many of these language-based by your suggestion.
(Abstract):
Line 14: change “hade” to “had”
Response 3: I have corrected “hade” into “had”.
Lines 17-19 : (1) include the words “flux density” following “sensible heat” ; (2) include “density” following “latent heat flux”; (3) add the phrase “two-meter” in each location before “air temperature”, “wind speed”, specific humidity”, and relative humidity”.
Response 4: I have corrected these words according to your suggestion.
Line 21: add the phrase, in italics, “in situ” before “observations”
Response 5: I have added the phrase, in italics, “in situ” before “observations”.
Line 23: add “the” before the second occurrence of the word “new” ; (2) change “parameters” to “parameter values”
Response 6: I have corrected these words according to your suggestion.
Line 24: add the word “net” before “positive”
Response 7: I have added the word “net” before “positive”.
Line 25: change” here” to “in this study”
Response 8: I have changed “here” to “in this study”.
Lines 25-26: change “summer” to “the summer months”.
Response 9: I have changed “summer” to “the summer months”.
(1. Introduction)
Line 36: change “magnitudes” to “variations”
Response 10: I have changed “magnitudes” to “variations”.
Line 39: change “parameters” to “variables”
Response 11: I have changed “parameters” to “variables”.
Line 47: replace “as such,” with “,since ecosystems and land use patterns have changed considerably since then,”
Response 12: I have corrected these words according to your suggestion.
Line 53: add a comma after “cropland”
Response 13: I have added a comma after “cropland”.
Line 56: Add the word “models” after “weather”
Response 14: I have added the word “models” after “weather”.
Line 56: also: Is [11] the only study of its kind? You may want to add more references here.
Response 15: I have added three references about this study.
Line 73: A new paragraph should begin with “Some researchers…”
Response 16: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
(2. Materials and Methods)
Line 104: add “both biotic and abiotic” after “material”
Response 17: I have added “both biotic and abiotic” after “material”.
Line 108: Consider replacing “resolution” with “grid-spacing” as the two are not conceptually identical.
Response 17: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 110: replace “and the” with “with”, and “to be” with “of”
Response 18: I have replaced “and the” with “with”, and “to be” with “of”.
(2.2 Land-use data processing)
Line 113: again, “resolution” should probably be replaced with “grid-spacing”
Response 19: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 126: insert “the” before “same”
Response 20: I have inserted “the” before “same”.
(2.3 Description of the WRF model)
Line 133: replace “years” with “decades”
Response 21: I have replaced “years” with “decades”.
Line 138: The last part of the sentence that begins on line 136 could use restructuring; (1) “Power quality” is vague, and (2) “terrain-following”—“terrain-following (what)”?
Response 22: I have changed into “and Euler center-based on-terrain following coordinate system.”
Line 142: Change “interpolate” to “interpolates”
Response 23: I have changed “interpolate” to “interpolates”.
Line 143: Change “interpolate” to “interpolates”
Response 24: I have changed “interpolate” to “interpolates”.
(2.4 Experiment design)
Line 144: Change “Experiment design” to “Experimental Design”
Response 25: I have changed “Experiment design” to “Experimental Design”.
Line 152: Add “used” after “scheme”
Response 26: I have added “used” after “scheme”.
Line 152: “add “the” before “cumulus”
Response 27: I have added “the” before “cumulus”.
Line 152: add “used” after “parameterization”
Response 28: I have added “used” after “parameterization”.
Line 153: Add “scheme” after “Kain-Fritsch”
Response 29: I have added “scheme” after “Kain-Fritsch”.
Line 155: Replace “Noah” with “NOAH”
Response 30: I have replaced “Noah” with “NOAH”.
Line 158: Add “for” after “center” and change “Environment” to “Environmental”
Response 31: I have added “for” after “center” and change “Environment” to “Environmental”.
Line 159: Add a space after “)”
Response 32: I have added a space after “)”.
Line 162: add “automized” after “105” and remove “automatic” after “meteorological”
Response 33: I have added “automized” after “105” and remove “automatic” after “meteorological”.
Line 165: add “densities” after “flux”
Response 34: I have added “densities” after “flux”.
(3.Results and Discussion)
Line 177: add a period “.” After “(Table 1)” and replace “the” with “The”
Response 35: I have added a period “.” After “(Table 1)” and replace “the” with “The”.
Lines 177-181: It would be good to include the corresponding percentage of urban land cover for the GLC2015 dataset for comparison purposes. You may perhaps want to include a table showing percentage changes for each land use type listed here.
Response 36: I have add a Table include the corresponding percentage of urban land cover for the GLC2015 dataset for comparison purposes.
Line 183: eliminate “a” following “only” and add “of the area” after “5.2%”
Response 37: I have eliminated “a” following “only” and add “of the area” after “5.2%”.
Lines 184-6: It would be interesting to see more discussion as to the causes of these changes in land type…did the natural ecosystems change from climate change or was it direct land-use changes that did this?
Response 38: I think that is inaccurate classification in USGS, not natural ecosystems change or others.
Line 191: Add “values of” before “relevant”
Response 39: I added “values of” before “relevant”.
Line 198: replace “was” following “Tarim Basin” with “were”
Response 40: I have replaced “was” following “Tarim Basin” with “were”.
Line 198: replace “the remarkable” with “a remarkable”
Response 41: I have replaced “the remarkable” with “a remarkable”.
(3.2 Impacts of land use change on surface energy fluxes)
Line 210: Replace “influence the” with “influence meteorological processes in the”
Response 42: I have replaced “influence the” with “influence meteorological processes in the”.
Line 217: Insert “and” before “tomatoes”
Response 43: I have inserted “and” before “tomatoes”.
Line 217: Replace “crops are” with “crops have been”
Response 44: I have replaced “crops are” with “crops have been”.
Line 218: Add “thus” after “and”
Response 45: I have added “thus” after “and”.
Line 222: replace “air” with “sky”
Response 46: I have replaced “air” with “sky”.
Line 223: add “density” after each occurrence of “flux”
Response 47: I have added added “density” after each occurrence of “flux”.
Lines 224-225: (1) Eliminate the parentheses; (2) add a period after “UTC”; (3) add “This is” before “generally”.
Response 48: I have changed according to your suggestion.
Line 225: Replace “as reflected by” with “most likely resulting from”
Response 49: I have replaced “as reflected by” with “most likely resulting from”.
Line 227 Insert “the” before “sky”
Response 50: I have inserted “the” before “sky”.
Line 230 Add a comma after “sky”
Response 51: I have added a comma after “sky”.
Line 231. Replace “atmosphere” with “surface”
Response 52: I have replaced “atmosphere” with “surface”.
Line 231: Replace “longwave” with “shortwave”
Response 53: I have replaced “longwave” with “shortwave”.
Line 234: Replace “change over” with “change, roughly”
Response 54: I have replaced “change over” with “change, roughly”.
Line 236: Eliminate “that”
Response 55: I have eliminated “that”.
Line 239: add “forcing” after LHF.
Response 56: I have added “forcing” after LHF.
Line 249: add “is therefore” after “evaporation”
Response 57: I have added “is therefore” after “evaporation”.
Line 249: Did you mean “LHF” here instead of “SHF” ??
Response 58: Yes, the Latent heat flux also decreased.
(3.3 Impacts of land-use change on the air temperature and surface skin temperature)
Line 264: Remove “these”
Response 59: I have removed “these”.
Line 265: Replace “changed” with “changing”
Response 60: I have replaced “changed” with “changing”.
Lines 266-267: eliminate “etc.” and add “and” before “soil”
Response 61: I have eliminated “etc.” and add “and” before “soil”.
Line 274: Remove “longwave”
Response 62: I have removed “longwave”.
Line 273: Add “the” before “summer”
Response 63: I have added “the” before “summer”.
Line 274: Replace “radiation” with “radiative and convective”
Response 64: I have replaced “radiation” with “radiative and convective”.
Lines 279-280: add “the” before “von” and change “Karman’s” to “Karman”
Response 65: I have added “the” before “von” and change “Karman’s” to “Karman”.
Lines 291-293: Regarding the stated differences between surface heat capacities & thermal inertia in cities vs. grasslands: Is this true? The reverse is generally true: urban or built-up land has a higher thermal inertia and heat capacity than does grassland.
Response 66: According to the Table1, urban or built-up land has a lower thermal inertia and heat capacity than does grassland.
Lines 297. Add a period “.”after “USGS” and change “although the latter dataset” to “Although usage of the latter dataset”
Response 67:
Line 299: Add “was” before “reduced”
Response 68: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
(3.4 Impacts of land-use change on wind speed)
Line 308: Replace “predicted” with “simulated”
Response 69: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 308: Change “U wind and V wind speed predictions” to “zonal (U wind) and meridional (V wind) velocity components”
Response 70: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 311: I found this sentence to be a bit confusing. Consider removing the phrase “under the assumption of atmospheric stability” here…or, if not, then consider explaining why stable formulations only were mentioned and not neutral or unstable forms.
Response 71: This is referenced.
Line 312: Replace “the main” with “a main”
Response 72: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 326: Replace “von-Kalman” with “von Karman”
Response 73: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
(3.5 Impacts of land-use change on the specific humidity and relative humidity)
Line 330: Remove “the”
Response 74: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 331: add “and surface” after “air”
Response 75: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 333: Add “the new dataset on “ before “temperature”
Response 76: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 333: Replace “has a letter” with “indicates”
Response 77: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 334-335: (1) add “corresponding” after “between”, (2) add “fields” after “USGS”
Response 78: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Line 337: add “significant levels of” before “evapotranspiration”
Response 79: I have corrected according to your suggestion.
Lines 342-343: This last clause in this sentence (beginning on Line 341) is unclear, and needs to be rewritten.
Response 80: I have corrected .
Line 345: Replace “do not has” with “do not have”
Response 81: I have corrected.
Line 347: Replace “from USGS” with “that from USGS”
Response 82: I have corrected.
Line 347: Replace “some peak value” with “some of the peak values”
Response 83: I have corrected.
Line 363: Add “were” before “reduced”
Response 84: I have corrected.
Line 373: Replace “As to RH” with “As for RH”
Response 85: I have corrected.
Line 387: After “whole”, add “, but that these improvements were modest.”
Response 86: I have corrected.
Conclusions
Line 397: Add “have” before “changed”
Response 87: I have corrected.
Line 397: Consider adding “, due to changes to both land-use and climate” after “years”
Response 88: I have corrected.
Line 403: Change “land use updated” to “updates in land use specification”
Response 89: I have corrected.
Line 412: Change “comprehensive” to “comprehensively”
Response 90: I have corrected.
Line 419: Change “to influence the T2” to ‘how T2 was influenced”
Response 91: I have corrected.
Line 420: Replace “air thermal” with “thermal convection”
Response 92: I have corrected.
Line 423: Replace “was” with “is”
Response 93: I have corrected.
Line 424: Change “reduce positive deviation” with “reduced the overestimation”
Response 94: I have corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of "A New Land-use Dataset for the Weather Research
and Forecasting (WRF) Model" by Huoqing Li, Hailiang Zhang, Ali Mamtimin, Shuiyong Fan, and Chenxiang Ju.
General comments:
The authors describe the effects of using an updated land-use classification & surface parameter field dataset on regional WRF simulation over west-central Asia. The terrain of this region is both complex and has undergone many changes since the more widely-used USGS land-use dataset was established. Their presentation, for the most part, is clear and the subject is of great interest to the praxes of meteorology, climate science, and biometeorology. Though i would have enjoyed more seasons being simulated and analyzed, I find this work to be an important contribution to the field. But before it is to be published, I recommend that this document undergo a fair number of minor revisions. Regardless, I enjoyed reading this body of work, and look forward to using newer land-use classification datasets in the future.
General suggestions:
- The color panels require enlargement
- The authors mentioned that they used the NOAH land surface scheme in their WRF simulations. I am curious as to what values for Leaf Area Index (LAI) were used for each land use type and or gridpoint? Did such fields come from MODIS data or were default values used? This is important as LAI is a crucial, and measureable, parameter that helps to determine the partitioning of available energy into latent and sensible heat components in that model and in other land-surface parameterization schemes.
- More references concerning prior modeling work showing land-use datasets and their influence on model accuracy would be helpful.
Specific comments / suggestions. though many of these are language-based, some are conceptual. this document could be improved significantly with these changes.
(Abstract):
Line 14: change “hade” to “had”
Lines 17-19 : (1) include the words “flux density” following “sensible heat” ; (2) include “density” following “latent heat flux”; (3) add the phrase “two-meter” in each location before “air temperature”, “wind speed”, specific humidity”, and relative humidity”.
Line 21: add the phrase, in italics, “in situ” before “observations”
Line 23: add “the” before the second occurrence of the word “new” ; (2) change “parameters” to “parameter values”
Line 24: add the word “net” before “positive”
Line 25: change” here” to “in this study”
Lines 25-26: change “summer” to “the summer months”.
(1. Introduction)
Line 36: change “magnitudes” to “variations”
Line 39: change “parameters” to “variables”
Line 47: replace “as such,” with “,since ecosystems and land use patterns have changed considerably since then,”
Line 53: add a comma after “cropland”
Line 56: Add the word “models” after “weather”
Line 56: also: Is [11] the only study of its kind? You may want to add more references here.
Line 73: A new paragraph should begin with “Some researchers…”
(2. Materials and Methods)
Line 104: add “both biotic and abiotic” after “material”
Line 108: Consider replacing “resolution” with “grid-spacing” as the two are not conceptually identical.
Line 110: replace “and the” with “with”, and “to be” with “of”
(2.2 Land-use data processing)
Line 113: again, “resolution” should probably be replaced with “grid-spacing”
Line 126: insert “the” before “same”
(2.3 Description of the WRF model)
Line 133: replace “years” with “decades”
Line 138: The last part of the sentence that begins on line 136 could use restructuring; (1) “Power quality” is vague, and (2) “terrain-following”—“terrain-following (what)”?
Line 142: Change “interpolate” to “interpolates”
Line 143: Change “interpolate” to “interpolates”
(2.4 Experiment design)
Line 144: Change “Experiment design” to “Experimental Design”
Line 152: Add “used” after “scheme”
Line 152: “add “the” before “cumulus”
Line 152: add “used” after “parameterization”
Line 153: Add “scheme” after “Kain-Fritsch”
Line 155: Replace “Noah” with “NOAH”
Line 158: Add “for” after “center” and change “Environment” to “Environmental”
Line 159: Add a space after “)”
Line 162: add “automized” after “105” and remove “automatic” after “meteorological”
Line 165: add “densities” after “flux”
(3.Results and Discussion)
Line 177: add a period “.” After “(Table 1)” and replace “the” with “The”
Lines 177-181: It would be good to include the corresponding percentage of urban land cover for the GLC2015 dataset for comparison purposes. You may perhaps want to include a table showing percentage changes for each land use type listed here.
Line 183: eliminate “a” following “only” and add “of the area” after “5.2%”
Lines 184-6: It would be interesting to see more discussion as to the causes of these changes in land type…did the natural ecosystems change from climate change or was it direct land-use changes that did this?
Line 191: Add “values of” before “relevant”
Line 198: replace “was” following “Tarim Basin” with “were”
Line 198: replace “the remarkable” with “a remarkable”
(3.2 Impacts of land use change on surface energy fluxes)
Line 210: Replace “influence the” with “influence meteorological processes in the”
Line 217: Insert “and” before “tomatoes”
Line 217: Replace “crops are” with “crops have been”
Line 218: Add “thus” after “and”
Line 222: replace “air” with “sky”
Line 223: add “density” after each occurrence of “flux”
Lines 224-225: (1) Eliminate the parentheses; (2) add a period after “UTC”; (3) add “This is” before “generally”.
Line 225: Replace “as reflected by” with “most likely resulting from”
Line 227 Insert “the” before “sky”
Line 230 Add a comma after “sky”
Line 231. Replace “atmosphere” with “surface”
Line 231: Replace “longwave” with “shortwave”
Line 234: Replace “change over” with “change, roughly”
Line 236: Eliminate “that”
Line 239: add “forcing” after LHF.
Line 249: add “is therefore” after “evaporation”
Line 249: Did you mean “LHF” here instead of “SHF” ??
(3.3 Impacts of land-use change on the air temperature and surface skin temperature)
Line 264: Remove “these”
Line 265: Replace “changed” with “changing”
Lines 266-267: eliminate “etc.” and add “and” before “soil”
Line 274: Remove “longwave”
Line 273: Add “the” before “summer”
Line 274: Replace “radiation” with “radiative and convective”
Lines 279-280: add “the” before “von” and change “Karman’s” to “Karman”
Lines 291-293: Regarding the stated differences between surface heat capacities & thermal inertia in cities vs. grasslands: Is this true? The reverse is generally true: urban or built-up land has a higher thermal inertia and heat capacity than does grassland.
Lines 297. Add a period “.”after “USGS” and change “although the latter dataset” to “Although usage of the latter dataset”
Line 299: Add “was” before “reduced”
(3.4 Impacts of land-use change on wind speed)
Line 308: Replace “predicted” with “simulated”
Line 308: Change “U wind and V wind speed predictions” to “zonal (U wind) and meridional (V wind) velocity components”
Line 311: I found this sentence to be a bit confusing. Consider removing the phrase “under the assumption of atmospheric stability” here…or, if not, then consider explaining why stable formulations only were mentioned and not neutral or unstable forms.
Line 312: Replace “the main” with “a main”
Line 326: Replace “von-Kalman” with “von Karman”
(3.5 Impacts of land-use change on the specific humidity and relative humidity)
Line 330: Remove “the”
Line 331: add “and surface” after “air”
Line 333: Add “the new dataset on “ before “temperature”
Line 333: Replace “has a letter” with “indicates”
Line 334-335: (1) add “corresponding” after “between”, (2) add “fields” after “USGS”
Line 337: add “significant levels of” before “evapotranspiration”
Lines 342-343: This last clause in this sentence (beginning on Line 341) is unclear, and needs to be rewritten.
Line 345: Replace “do not has” with “do not have”
Line 347: Replace “from USGS” with “that from USGS”
Line 347: Replace “some peak value” with “some of the peak values”
Line 363: Add “were” before “reduced”
Line 373: Replace “As to RH” with “As for RH”
Line 387: After “whole”, add “, but that these improvements were modest.”
- Conclusions
Line 397: Add “have” before “changed”
Line 397: Consider adding “, due to changes to both land-use and climate” after “years”
Line 403: Change “land use updated” to “updates in land use specification”
Line 412: Change “comprehensive” to “comprehensively”
Line 419: Change “to influence the T2” to ‘how T2 was influenced”
Line 420: Replace “air thermal” with “thermal convection”
Line 423: Replace “was” with “is”
Line 424: Change “reduce positive deviation” with “reduced the overestimation”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments：
Line 14: “hade” looks like a typo.
Response 1: I have corrected “hade” into “had”.
Line 20-23, the sentence is too long. You may break it into two sentences
Response 2: I have break it into two sentences.
Lin 59 Gao et al. Missing the numbering of reference.
Response 3: I have added Gao et al. the numbering of reference [16]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
