Spatiotemporal Variations of Ocean Upwelling and Downwelling Induced by Wind Wakes of Offshore Wind Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, your work is interesting, well written and organized. I have some concerns, that you might attend properly:

1.Please comment if you previously performed a sensitivity test of the ocean model changing the wind inputs.

2. Had you considered using ERA5? Why QSCAT/NCEP is appropriate for your study case?.

3. The discussion section is missing. Then, I could not find a scientific analysis of your results and their comparison against other related studies.

The english seems to be good

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful and thoughtful comments. Please see the attachment for our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article analyzes the baroclinic theoretical model (and Broström's work) accepted as a reference, comparing it with the result of simulations that take into account nonlinear spatiotemporal variations, showing that the baroclinic theoretical model overestimates the target marine response.

The article requires certain improvements related to the explanation of the expressions used, and the format of the figures, but in general it is an interesting article because it helps filling a gap in knowledge in the modeling of upwelling and downwelling phenomena, induced by OWFs. 

I miss references to other papers analyzing how accurate is the Broström model.

It is not clear to me (and suppose that the same for other readers) if the traditional baroclinic theory is reduced to only the expression (3). If not, please detail the assumptions of this theory.

Also missing is the comparison of simulation results (and baroclinic theory) with real results obtained from direct observation. If these data are not available, authors should indicate this lack in the Conclusions section.

 

Please see the comments in the attached file. They are minor ones except for the fact that I have missed the source expressions that support the graphs.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I am not a native English speaker, but the text is almost free of syntactic errors, and is easily readable. Some syntax errors and typos have been highlighted in the pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful and thoughtful comments. Please see the attachment for our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I'm agree with your responses, except the concern about the Discussion section. I think that is not a good idea merging conclusion and discussion sections as you did. Please, move the discussion section before the conclusions. You can merge it into the results sections of place it separately.

Kind regards.

.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestion. We have separately placed the discussion section in the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

No additional comments of relevance.

Please correct "(From" --> "(from"

 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The typo has been corrected in the revision.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

.