Global-Scale Synchronization in the Meteorological Data: A Vectorial Analysis That Includes Higher-Order Differences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript evaluates the sequential variations of monthly meteorological variables (temperature and precipitation) globally and regionally based on vectorial analyses. The analyses show climate change trend and synchronization patterns of monthly temperature. The author also detects the snow/ice albedo feedback through the comparisons between periods. This manuscript is interesting considering the method used, and could potentially provide a new angle of climate change research. Before it can be further considered for acceptance, I recommend the author address the following concerns in revision.  

Lines 124-126: “It seems that the present method with the rotation of the angle is more consistent with our image than the one using the Minkowski distance Dr between the two 33-dimensional vectors; ” I am not sure what does “our image” mean, and it might be a bit arbitrary to say the present method outperforms Minkowski distance functions without any thorough comparisons shown (even the author used “seems”). In fact, Minkowski distance functions have been used in a recent publication to detect similarity and potential synchronization between temperature, aerosol optical depth, and precipitation time series, showing reasonably good results when compared to existing studies, see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102481. The author may refer to this paper as an example and suggest that the present method is only one of the possible options.

Lines 213-218: Maybe I missed it, but can the author briefly mention the implications of raising ranks of these stations here?

Line 238: The reference of Köppen’s climatic classification is missing here.

Lines 243-245: I would mention that this station suggests the sensitivity of the proposed method to low precipitation. The format of these three lines is also distracting. Is it possible to list these data as a table here?

Line 328-332: I guess these five lines can be merged into the paragraph above them as a complete sentence.

Lines 323-325: what are the potential reasons for “the monthly average temperature patterns on spots in the northern district of Japan and those in North America as well as in Eastern Europe exhibit a synchronous behavior”? Rossby waves?

Lines 347-358: what do the numbers in bold mean?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper gives results of a unique statistical analysis of global and regional temperature and precipitation to support many previous studies of global radiative change and its meteorological or climatological consequences. The analysis provides some evidence corroborating the presence of global teleconnections in large scale atmospheric dynamics.

The main issue with the paper is in the discussion where the author devotes unnecessary attention to a number of environmental issues associated with climate change.  The discussion includes speculation about environmental effects that are tangential to the paper itself and dilute the message about the statistical analysis. The environmental issues are dealt with in a number of scientific publications and need not be summarized in this paper. The discussion of environmental impacts on Lines 420-430 is unnecessary. The discussion of ski area impact on Line 452 is irrelevant to the paper. The discussion of Blackiston's line on Line 475 et seq seem irrelevant to the paper's results.  The hypothetical attribution of synchronization to tropospheric ozone is speculation without support  and should be eliminated.

Instead of going on a tangent about environmental effects the narrative could focus on the application of the method to more interesting aspects of climate dynamics such as apparent long term changes in a vorticity indicator.

There are a number of details that the author should examine for accuracy or relevance. Some of these include:

1. The introduction might be compressed and stronger emphasis might be placed on the statistical method and its strengths and weaknesses.
2. L49 What is the critical condition in Okinawa?--be specific.
3. Line 65 et seq --precipitation is normally singular
4. L 67 be specific about meteorological data used
5. L74 What if "the effect"
6. L85 What are tie data?
7. L163-164  I don't think that the snow/ice albedo effect is the sole driver for global warming??
8. L385 Serious is judgmental--how about more apparent?
9. L402-403--This explanation seems speculative Is there a reference fo the Antarctic albedo effect?
10. L452 Why is a comment on ski areas relevant here? and L468 Why is powder snow a critical condition relative to this statistical study?
11. L494-495 Explain why enhanced circulation will affect transborder pollution--pure speculation.
12. Line 502-503 accelerating photochemical reactions to a new feedback--delete--pure speculation. Tropospheric photochemistry to produce O3 involves complex reactions that are strongly influenced by urban conditions and create strong gradient in surface O3 which are distinct from patterns of concentrations of longer lived greenhouse gases. Long range transport of o3 aloft occurs as does fine particle dispersion. The latte is not mentioned but is a climate change factor as well.  Transport of pollution is very unlikely to have significant feedback for climate alteration.  (Photochemistry is normally decoupled from atmospheric fluid dynamics in analysis and modeling.) If this is a viable hypothesis, it needs to be explained and supported with a derailed analysis separate from this paper.

I suggest that the author streamline the paper to focus on the statistical analysis and application to meteorology or climatology and eliminate speculation about hypothetical feedbacks and environmental effects.  This would focus and shorten the paper and make the results more readable.

Overall the english grammar is ok in the paper. However there are occurrences here and there of incorrect or vague use of words that could be better stated.  The author could go over carefully with perhaps the help of a tech writer to sharpen the english in the manuscript.

I do not recommend publication of this paper without changes suggested above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no additional questions. I believe the paper can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

I appreciate the reviewer's comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Author could make sure that all of the 33 variables are specified (meteorological and ?) in the vectors are summarized are identified (e.g., temperature, precipitation, ... [from international meteorological data records] and noted to be found in supplementary material tables [?]) so that the vector results could be reproduced by others.  Perhaps clarify at Lines 101-102.

I may have missed this when I scanned the revision and could not find a summary list of 33 variables (?). I looked at Table C, for example,  and could not easily identify these variables.

Author Response

I have made sure the consistency between the lines in Subsection 2.1 and the descriptions in Appendix C. The summary list of Sapporo's data is given in Equations (C1) and (C3), while that of Chicago's data in Equations (C2) and (C4), both of which include 12 plus 11 plus 10, i.e., 33 components. The derivation process of the rotation angle between Sapporo and Chicago has been traced by myself with a calculator, and no error has been detected. If the readers of the paper request original data other than these, I will provide them without undue reservation.