Temperature Modeling, a Key to Assessing Impact on Rivers Due to Urbanization and Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The impact on rivers due to urbanization and climate change has been evaluated in this study, which is of great significance to the human living environment changes.

Water temperature is a 'key' variable as temperature influences mixing within a waterbody, influences the acceptability of the habitat for flora and fauna, and serves as a guide to the general health of rivers. Changes in water temperature are more helpful in discovering the possible effects of human activities on the ecosystem. In addition, the software of MIKE SHE, MIKE HYDRO, and ECO Lab, developed by DHI is a vital tool to assess heat transfer within the catchment. The application of this software can increase the reliability of predicting the impact of human activities.

 

Specific comments:

Overall, the article is well organized and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be improved:

1. The asterisks in line 105 may be redundant. The same situation occurs in line 196.
2. The font is not uniform throughout the text, so please follow the journal format for proofreading.
3. The study should add an uncertainty analysis of the simulating results.
4. It is recommended to supplement the technology roadmap.
5. It is recommended to improve the quality of the charts, e.g., Figures 4,5,6,8,9,10.
6. It is suggested to add the numbering of the formula in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you for reviewing, commenting and making suggestions. Our reply is as under.

 

 

1.The asterisks in line 105 may be redundant. The same situation occurs in line 196.

Thank you for identifying this issue – this has been corrected

 

2.The font is not uniform throughout the text, so please follow the journal format for proofreading.

Thank you for identifying this issue – this has been corrected in the revised paper

 

Corrected on line 190

Corrected to same font in line 231 and 233

 

Corrected to same font size on line 263

 

Added units in Table 6 and Table 7

Corrected to same font color line 507

 

Corrected to same font size on line 556

 

3.The study should add an uncertainty analysis of the simulating results.

 

The models as described in the paper have been calibrated and validated for the existing land use in the watershed. An array of measures of the degree of fitting have been presented and, all things considered, the predictions are very defensible. Given the resulting situations, it is not apparent how further assessment of the uncertainty of the simulations would add to the paper. Hence, while the reviewer’s point is appreciated, it isn’t apparent what could be added that would improve the paper in this respect as very lengthy periods were used to ensure the physics-based modeling was as comprehensive as possible.

Issues of climate change Scenario-RCP 4.5 has its own uncertainty but the magnitude of the uncertainties will only be available as strategies of emissions reductions evolve over time.

 

 

4.It is recommended to supplement the technology roadmap.

As detailed in the paper (e.g. in the text and the conclusions), the combination of models was able to predict the effects of different urbanization on water temperatures within an appropriate uncertainty framework in the stream. Over time, as more applications of the MIKE model are introduced, and as temperature changes are assessed and field verifications are developed, increasing confidence in the modeling will be obtained. The ability to develop calibration and verification efforts shows that the model has the capability to provide pertinent evidence that can be expected to arise from urbanization and climate change impacts as the modeling is based on the best available knowledge at this time. The result is that a roadmap has been provided and the types of determinations needed to make the assessments.

 

 

5.It is recommended to improve the quality of the charts, e.g., Figures 4,5,6,8,9,10.

 

Figures 1,4,5,6,8,9, and 10 have been revised

 

6.It is suggested to add the numbering of the formula in the manuscript.

Thank you for identifying his deficiency. This has been corrected

Added on line 186

 

The revised paper is attached.

 

Regards,

 

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

I was kindly asked to review the manuscript: Temperature Modeling, a Key to Assessing Impact on Rivers due to Urbanization and Climate Change. This information could be used and would be needed in e.g. in urban planning and implementation of adaptation action plans locally.

1. Abstract: The abstract needs more of a ‘hook’ to engage the reader and establish the novelty of the analysis in the scientific literature. I recommend them to focus on the conclusions of the study. 

2. The introduction section should be reorganized, provide additional information related to the methods followed in previous studies.

3. Authors should describe the completeness of data. Do they have missing data?

4. Could the authors provide more information on the control the validity of the results?

Figure captions:

1.      Figures 1 is blurry.

2.      Figure 2 is blurry.

3.      Figure 6 is blurry.

4.      Figure 8 is blurry.

 

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you for reviewing, commenting and making suggestions. Our reply is as under.

 

 

 

1. Abstract: The abstract needs more of a ‘hook’ to engage the reader and establish the novelty of the analysis in the scientific literature. I recommend them to focus on the conclusions of the study. 

 

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree with this comment and have introduced additional content to the abstract to provide additional background, as suggested.

 

2.The introduction section should be reorganized, provide additional information related to the methods followed in previous studies.

 

Thank you for this important suggestion. We have modified the introduction section to describe more fully, the importance of the issues of urbanization and climate change and introduced additional brief descriptions of some of the shortcomings of alternative models and their shortcomings.

 

3. Authors should describe the completeness of data. Do they have missing data?

 

In Scion 2.3  for the duration of the model run and stream temperatures from 2015 to 2018, a few points of hourly information in extreme months were estimated by incorporating hourly stream temperature data from adjacent sub-watersheds were included. However, the time period of 2015 to 2018 were selected for stream water temperature modeling because there were very few missing hourly stream water temperature data were missing.

 

 

4.Could the authors provide more information on the control the validity of the results?

 

The capability of the physics-based model allowed the incorporation of data and physics of changes and conditions that can be considered, and have been incorporated. Since the authors have no way of knowing how climate change will actually evolve, there were careful assessments as described in the paper, to indicate the dimensions of climate change as currently predicted to occur into the future, were utilized as inputs to the model. 

 

The validation of the water balance model is presented in Table-3

The validation of the heat balance model is presented on line 253 and 254 of the paper.

 

 

5.Figure captions:

Figures 1,4,5,6,8,9, and 10 have been revised

 

The revised paper is attached.

 

 

Regards,

 

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Table 1 Supplementary: Precipitation/year: add unit ”mm”. “Table 1” should be “Table-S1”

Table S-5&6: “<0 and >=0 “: It seems to me it is:” <0 and =0 “, please, check it.

Keywords: “Climate change” already came in the tile of the manuscript, it is better to change it.

Line 97: “[16], [17] and [18] reviewed”: it is not good to start the sentence with only the number of references, you can make it: NameOfAuthour [16],

Line 101: “due to available data.”, do you mean “due to availability of data.”

Line 105: “***”, what is it?

Figure 1: where is the key of used colors in the figure?

Line 190: “pw” the symbol should be written as came in the equation.

Line 230 -235: font-size changed here.

Line 280: “Scenarios-I” it is Scenarios-1

Line 410: “Hours”: --> hours



Title of table 6 &7 add unit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you for reviewing, commenting and making suggestions. Our reply is as under.

 

 

1.Table 1 Supplementary: Precipitation/year: add unit ”mm”. “Table 1” should be “Table-S1”

 

Thank you for pointing this out. This has been corrected

2.Table S-5&6: “<0 and >=0 “: It seems to me it is:” <0 and =0 “, please, check it.

 

Thanks for pinpointing it.  This has been corrected in Table S-5 and Table S-6
 

3.Keywords: “Climate change” already came in the title of the manuscript, it is better to change it.

 

We think it is better to have it as it will help in the search.

4. Line 97: “[16], [17] and [18] reviewed”: it is not good to start the sentence with only the number of references, you can make it: NameOfAuthour [16],

 

Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been appropriately changed to reflect this.

5.Line 101: “due to available data.”, do you mean “due to availability of data.”

Thanks for pinpointing it.  This has been corrected

6.Line 105: “***”, what is it?

“***” has been removed in line 105

7.Figure 1: where is the key of used colors in the figure?

 

Thanks for pinpointing and Fiure-1 has been revised..

8.Line 190: “pw” the symbol should be written as came in the equation.

 

Thank you for identifying this issue. The symbol has been corrected in line 190

9.Line 230 -235: font-size changed here.

Corrected in line 232 and 235

10.Line 280: “Scenarios-I” it is Scenarios-1

 

Corrected in line 280

11.Line 410: “Hours”: --> hours

 

Changed in line 412 from Hours to hours
Changed in line 413 from Temperature to temperature and Increase to increase.


12.Title of table 6 &7 add unit.

 

Units have been added in Table-6 and Table-7

 

 

 

The revised paper is attached.

 

Regards,

 

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have well addressed the comments of the 1st review. 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor

Our replies to issues raised are as under:

 

Comment: The paper needs to checked thoroughly for english language by a professional proof readers. Please emphasize on plain english and check sentence structures. First few lines may not be correct in the abstract.

Reply: We have tried to edit it in redline edit

Comment: The Nash coefficient and coefficient of determination R2 are two different parameters but authors have mixed up these. Can it be rectified please and the numbers are stated clearly in the abstract and in the relevant sections e.g. calibration sections.

Reply: We used the nomenclature used by the MIKE SHE Software which calls it as Nash Sutcliffe Correlation Coefficient (R²).

Comment: The section 2.4.2 states the calibration of eco model. why then section 2.4.3 is calibration again? Please rectify.

Reply: Thanks for identifying it. The tile of section 2.4.2 is changed to ECO Lab Model Setup and section 2.4.3. ECO Lab Model Calibration

Comment: I would suggest to discuss the land use scenarios and climate change under separate headings 3 and 4.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. It has been changed in redline edit.

 

Regards

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx