Articles | Volume 18, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4589-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulating lake ice phenology using a coupled atmosphere–lake model at Nam Co, a typical deep alpine lake on the Tibetan Plateau
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 08 Oct 2024)
- Preprint (discussion started on 08 Feb 2024)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2455', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', xu zhou, 23 May 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2455', Laura Rontu, 14 Apr 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', xu zhou, 23 May 2024
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (25 Jun 2024) by Homa Kheyrollah Pour
AR by xu zhou on behalf of the Authors (25 Jul 2024)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (30 Jul 2024) by Homa Kheyrollah Pour
AR by xu zhou on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2024)
This paper focuses on the ice phenology of Lake Nam Co a large alpine lake on the Tibetan plateau. Some interesting comparisons between model predicted freeze-up and break-up dates and values derived from MODIS data are presented. Three models are compared in this study two of which have been revised to improve their accuracy compared to the third. These revisions included changes to the momentum, hydraulic and thermal roughness length parameterizations, and refining parameters associated with the transfer of shortwave radiation lake ice is present. The authors present the following conclusions:
“With improvements of momentum, hydraulic and thermal roughness length parameterizations, both the WRF-FLake and the WRF-Lake models reasonably simulated the lake water temperature compared with MODIS and station observations.”
“Water temperature represents the lake energy storage, and therefore, the lake freeze-up date in both models was reasonably simulated compared with MODIS.”
“With revisions of key parameters and improvements of key parameterizations associated with the shortwave radiation transfer both the WRF-FLake and the WRF-Lake models generally simulated the lake break-up date well.”
“Compared with WRF coupled with the unrevised default lake model, the simulation of lake ice phenology was significantly improved by WRF coupled with both the improved lake models.”
I think the authors have presented enough convincing evidence to support these conclusions. However, I think the paper is in need of major revisions prior to publication. I provide some general comments below and numerous detailed comments in the annotated PDF that is attached.
General Comments:
The quality of the writing needs to be improved. I have noted many instances of grammatical errors, poor/awkward wording and unclear/vague wording.
More complete and/or clearer descriptions of some aspects of the methodology are required. For example, a much better description of how the MODIS freeze-up and break-up dates were calculated is needed. Other examples are noted in my detailed comments.
A clearer explanation of how the one-dimensional lake models are implemented for Lake Nam Co is required. I was able to determine that the WRF model had 116 grid points over the lake by reviewing their earlier paper. But it is not clear if the lake models were simulating 116 water columns or not. What is also not clear is why a uniform depth of 40 m was used in the lake models. No information about the actual lake bathymetry is provided and no justification for the use of 40 m is provided. The authors stated that “…a setup with identical depth for all grids can, to some extent, reflects the horizontal energy mixing associated with lake water circulation”. I am quite puzzled by this statement and by others where claims about better simulation of lake energy circulation in the lake are made.
The authors also need to provide some better arguments regarding the significance of their findings. They write the following in the summary section:
“Therefore, the main results and findings of this work can provide a good reference for climate model applications and the improved model also has practical application prospects over the alpine lake covered regions.”
This is a vague and unclear statement. Some more detailed and specific statements regarding the significance and novelty of this study are required.