Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyze future changes in Mean Radiant Temperature under climate change and urban development scenarios. The design concept of this study is commendable, and it is evident that this is a question of significant academic value. If the author addresses certain aspects, this paper has the potential to be highly impactful.

1. Line 31, UHI should be fully expanded upon its first appearance for clarity.

2. A more detailed definition of MRT is recommended, as it may not be familiar to all readers.

3. Line 165, the rationale behind defining the building height as 10 meters should be explained. This parameter is crucial; is it based on the average height of buildings in the city? Additionally, how are the shapes of the buildings considered?

4. Furthermore, while the aforementioned points are details, the following point is perhaps the most critical. The authors compared MRT in the current state with future scenarios, but further elaboration is required for the results. Specifically, MRT in future scenarios is intertwined with urban development and climate change. It would be beneficial to consider these two factors separately in this article to determine whether the impact of climate change or urban development is more significant. Moreover, the author calculated MRT under the climate change scenario of 2050. However, it is understood that climate models have considerable uncertainty when predicting specific years. Therefore, selecting an average value over a future period or a maximum value within a certain timeframe for comparison would strengthen the research. Lastly, in the results section, MRT values should be expressed using monthly averages, daily averages, or even hourly averages, supported by numerical data.

Author Response

         Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your time and constructive comments. I found them very informative and helpful. I edited the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the changes for your kind review. Please find the responses to your comments in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I sincerely thank you for your invaluable comments. I benefitted from them to improve the paper according to your constructive comments. I edited the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the changes for your kind review. Please find the responses to your comments in the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved a lot, this version gives a generally good impression. Nevertheless, I have still found some small errors, therefore I recommend minor revision.

L34: “impervious surfaces”  I would suggest complex surfaces or constructed urban surfaces instead.

L60: “higher temperature and humidity levels in urban areas” This is not true. Optimally, the effects of temperature and humidity are examined together due to their combined impacts on humans, but humidity is generally lower in cities than in rural areas. Suggestion: higher temperature and sultriness in urban areas

Value of Stefan-Boltzmann constant: Show it at the first occurrence of the constant (after Eq. 4) or do not show it at all.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your helpful comments in this process. We have now edited the paper based on your latest comments and have uploaded it for your kind review.