Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study introduced a method for nested high-resolution ocean modeling with a data assimilation technique. I have the following questions after reading the whole manuscript.

1. What coarse model and fine model are used in this study? In the coarse model what observational data is assimilated? Maybe this should be described with more details.
2. This study used a data-assimilated coarse model to drive a fine model. What about the results if the fine model is directly driven by observed boundary conditions?
3. In figs. 2,5,10, SODA is adopted in the title. However I cannot find what it is short for in the main text. I think all data and models used in this study should be mentioned in a separate section (e.g., Data and Method).

Author Response

Responses to NDA paper reviews- Reviewer 1.

Comment. What соагsе model and fine model аге used in this study? ln the соагsе model what observational data is assimilated? Мауbе this should be descгibed with mоге details.

Response. The coarse model is Copernicus Global forecast and reanalysis model product PHY_001_024. It assimilates Sea Surface Temperature, Sea Surface Level and in-situ TS profiles and is described in detail by their authors [38]. An additional clarification and a reference to the model documentation is added- see lines 671-678. The fine model is simulated based on the known analytical solution with added correlated and non-correlated errors. The description is given on lines 239-246 and mode details are given in each subsection describing a particular case.

Comment. This study used а data-assimilated соагsе model to dгive а fine model. What about the if the fine model is diгectly dгiven Ьу observed boundary conditions?

Response. We do not have access to observed boundary condition. Therefore, the boundary conditions are supposed to be taken from the coarse model. When the fine model does not assimilate the 3D data from the parent model, only the boundary conditions, it performs as a non-assimilated model, for example as shown in Figs . 1c, 1d (red curve), 2d (red curve), 3(red curve) , 5b. 

Comment. ln figs. 2,5,10, SOOA is adopted in the title. Howeveг  I cannot find what it is short fог in main text. I think all data and models used in this study should Ье mentioned in а separate section (e.g., Data and Method).

Response. Figs 2,5,10 are corrected as advised. A new sub-section describing the data is introduced inside the Materials and Methods section as advised, see lines 225-246.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an important problem and presents interesting and potentially useful results. I recommend publication of the paper after the following minor revisions:

Make sure all parameters are defined. For example, x'b needs to be defined define all symbols such as <> It is useful that the authors have compared their results with other existing schemes both in terms of performance and computational cost. Provide a flowchart to explain the calculation procedure Numbers and text in Fig 18 are hard to read  

Author Response

Responses to NDA paper reviews -Reviewer 2.

Comment. Make sure all paгameters аге defiпed. Fог example, х'b пeeds to bе defined.  Defiпe all sуmbols such as <>.

Response.  The symbols and variables are now better described as advised, see lines 115,119-120, 134-135, 140-141.

Comment. lt is useful that the authoгs have compaгed theiг гesults with otheг existiпg schemes both iп terms of perfoгmance апd computatioпal cost.

Response. Thank you.

Comment. Pгovide а flowchart to explain the calculation pгocedure.

Response. The flowchart is added as advised.

Comment. Numbeгs апd text in Fig 18 аге haгd to геаd.

Response.   Fig18 (now Fig 19) is amended as advised.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My concerns have been addressed. I have no further questions.