Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My attachment addresses these issues, but the English quality remains quite poor.  The authors should spend time or invest in English support when conducting any revisions to this study.  I also wonder if a study addressing SST anomalies is relevant to the journal topic of data assimilation within tropical cyclones.  I feel like this work does not fit into that study context at all.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An improved version comparative to the previous one.

The analysis is coherent and the results are pertinent. In my opinion a modification of the fig. 4th figure is necessary because it is’ heardly readable.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the article is well written, I just see the need for figure 3 to include a table and make a more in-depth discussion about the frequency of the number of cyclones.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

/

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comparative to the prevous studies, you analyze the distribution number of cases of tropical cyclones (typhoons) which affect the Hanan province during the season without flood between  (1980 – 2021. The study upon CMA has at its basis a series of correlations between the NCEP/NCAR, JMA SST and NCEP data upon the temperature of the water from SST  sea with a case study.

In my opinion, there is a series of aspects which should be improved / remade:

- fig. 4 is hardly readable;

- in the subchapter 4.1, in the text, there is the omitted figure – what does it cover?

- In the subchapter 6. – conclusions and discussions- the first paragraph is confusing. It’s about ENSO or just one of the components (La Niña/ El Niño ), higher/lower SST etc.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, my suggestions can be found in the manuscript that I am sending you, but the article is a great source of future research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article needs to be revised and re-reviewed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx