The Large-Scale Geostrophic Circulation Around Cuba: Insights from Altimeter Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a typical regional study of geostrophic current characteristics based on satellite altimetry data. The authors describe changes in the dynamics and sea level in the region of Cuba for the period 1993–2024. The study focuses on interpreting changes in surface transport in the WP region with a qualitative comparison with earlier in-situ measurements. The paper is consistent with the journal's profile.
Some comments: 1. In Figures 2, 3, 6, and 7, plot the current velocity scale.
2. The quality of Figure 1 is very poor; please indicate the position of the WP.
3. Figure 6 shows geostrophic current anomalies.
4. Please add a conclusion or summary section.
(191) December 2023 – Dec 2003 Why did you use area (78°–74° W, 19°–19.8° N), not directly in the WP, not the South Cuba section [12]?
(251) ADT anomaly – better SLA anomaly
It’s not convenient for readers references for figures from literature - (see his Figure 4) - 149 or ([12], Figure 19c) – 181
For my oppinion it's better to repeat some figures from [11,12]
Why in fig 4 April and November – cruses in [12] – in October?
I recommend making a number of corrections for the publication of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFig. 1
While the location of the Windward Passage is mentioned in the caption of Figure 1, I would prefer to see geographical names labeled directly on Figure 1 itself, as this will help readers understand the paper more quickly. To clarify the content of the figure, Figure 1 needs to have additional place names labeled, including the Yucatan Channel, Florida Channel, Windward Passage, IAS, and Caribbean Sea. I understand that the authors are very familiar with these regions, but from the perspective of readers' expectations, I hope that all place names mentioned in the text can be labeled on Figure 1. I also recognize that passages and channels are geographically small, making it difficult to label them directly with full text. Therefore, I suggest that symbols, numbers, or abbreviations could be put on the figure, with explanations of the full names corresponding to these symbols, numbers, or abbreviations provided in the caption.
L54-56.
Why do you mention the Loop Current? As I read this, I would expect you to address some issues related to the instabilities of the Loop Current, with your subsequent results being closely tied to this problem. You may mention various problems in the introdcution part, but I hope you focus on the new findings of this paper. Listing numerous problems without providing corresponding content later to address them is very disappointing.
L69-70.
I hope to see more detailed information about these two previou work, including their key findings and existing limitations. This will allow for a more logical demonstration of the significance of the work presented in this paper and how it complements previous research. Overall, I am not satisfied with the current description, as it is very vague and general. I hope the content can be made more specific and substantive.
L76-77
This is a paper primarily focused on natural sciences. I suggest removing the descriptions related to politics and concentrating instead on observational data, satellite data, and the flow field derived from geostrophic balance. In the first half of this sentence, merely mentioning the lack of observations should be sufficient to let readers understand that the understanding of the circulation in this region is insufficient. Thus, you use altimetry-derived product from Copernicus.
L78-85
If possible, I would like to see a schematic or adapted figure from previous publication to illustrate the old understanding based on old works. This would also facilitate the comparison of the new contributions brought by this paper.
L87-96
Sea surface flow fields are derived from altimeter data based on geostrophic relationships; however, three issues exist: First, the data primarily provide surface flow fields, yet for deep ocean current systems, the maximum flow velocity is often not at the surface. Second, the latitude of this region is relatively close to the equator—are there relevant papers or validation studies demonstrating that this product can effectively invert surface flow fields between 15° and 20° latitude, and that these geostrophic flow fields account for a large proportion of the total flow field (including inertial currents, wind setup, convection, tides and friction etc.)? Third, in strait regions (with such narrow channel spaces), is the geostrophic relationship sufficient for inverting flow fields? Inversions using altimeter data may be affected by terrestrial gravitational effects, tidal effects, friction, and water level setup caused by small-scale motions—are the errors within an acceptable range during removing tidal and coastal signal?
L123
I suggest reorganizing your subheadings to avoid repetition. Currently, 3.1 focuses on "around Cuba", 3.2 on "the WP", 3.3 on "southwestern Cuba", and 3.4 on "temporal variations in sea level". This is somewhat confusing to me: for instance, the WP (Windward Passage) seems to be part of the "around Cuba" region, so Sections 3.1 and 3.2 could easily be merged. Additionally, Section 3.4 appears to have no logical connection to Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Furthermore, possibly due to PDF compression, these figures are quite blurry for me—the black arrows and colors are difficult to distinguish. There is significant room for improvement in the figure quality.
L136–L138
I suggest marking the cyclonic circulation in the WP (Windward Passage) with a red box in Figure 1, as this will help highlight the new findings of this paper. You specifically mentioned that this circulation has not been noted in previous studies, so it should be visually represented in the figure.
Fig 3
Once again, Figure 3 is too blurry, making it difficult for me to follow the connection between the figure and the text. Even with a strong cup of coffee, I had to force myself to carefully identify the details in these blurry images. Additionally, apart from the strong stream, I recommend marking the blocking cyclone in spring with a red box as well. The issues with these figures should be effectively addressed in the new version of the paper.
L166–L181
This paragraph is quite exciting. However, I am curious about the conditions in other years. Given that you used Copernicus data, your analysis should not be limited to the observation period of 2003 and 2004. I suggest adding flow field diagrams for other years to check for consistency. Although Figure 4 presents a multi-year time series, I still hope to see monthly-averaged spatial flow field distributions for other years, rather than only those for 2003 and 2004.
L166–L181
The consistency between observations and satellite-derived results may adequately address the three questions I raised earlier regarding the data. I recommend incorporating these explanations into the Discussion section to address the questions collectively.
L185
Please check whether the year labeled in Figure 3 is December 2023
Fig 5
Even for a spectrum, the y-axis should include units.
Fig 7
Figure 7 is still very blurry, and the combination of black arrows and colors needs improvement. Additionally, similar to Figure 1, I suggest overlaying a schematic arrow on the figure to highlight your new findings.
L241–L250
Including multiple distinct themes in a single paper remains unconvincing.
Fig 9
Please add units.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI'm satisfited by corrections
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised most of the content according to my suggestions. The new version can be considered for publication.
