Variability of the Southwestern Patagonia (51°S) Winds in the Recent (1980–2020) Period: Implications for Past Wind Reconstructions
and Stéphane Christophe Alfaro 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author,
The presented manuscript titled Variability of the Southwestern Patagonia (51°S) winds in the recent (1980-2020) period. Implications for past wind reconstructions” contains interesting results. The manuscript is generally well-written however it contains some flawns, which-in my opinion-should be improved before an eventual publication.
The background of investigations should be completed with the review of similar studies in the chapter Introduction.
The obtained results should be compared with other investigations in the chapter Discussion.
The text should be written impersonally, i.e. the sentences with the phrase "we will evaluate …”, “our region”, “ we analyzed…” should be corrected in the whole manuscript.
L78-86: The “second step” is the aim of the future research, the par II of the study, isn’t it? Please explain. Thus the listed as key words “paleoclimate reconstructions” are a matter of the future, I assume.
L87-93: This paragraph is not necessary.
L144-146: If these data were not taken into account during the research, why are they described? Explain.
L240-241: The caption of Fig. 3b) – what is correlated? c) wind direction and speed frequency
L 263-264: Seasonal variability of wind direction frequency
L451-453 – the sentence is not clear – should be rephrased
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript with the title Variability of the Southwestern Patagonia (51°S) winds in the recent (1980-2020) period. Implications for past wind reconstructions may be published after Minor Revision.
In my opinion, the subject of this work is relevant for the Journal Atmosphere after minor revision.
The Atmosphere journal readers, and sufficiently interesting to warrant publication. Also, this Journal wants papers with high impact and with strong scientific innovations. The Journal readers want excellent papers and interesting topics.
First, the paper has the next sections and sub-section (i.e. Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Present day SWW over southern Patagonia, Available data, Direct observations, Analysis of wind time series, Reanalysis data, Results, Local wind variability, Reanalysis validation, MERRA-2 vs Cerro Castillo, ERA5 vs Cerro Castillo, Concluding remarks).
This paper excellent presented wind data reanalysis and analysis. Most of the before published papers explained 52°S latitude. The latitude of 51°S and weather conditions and wind properties were not investigated enough. The advance of this paper is in the reanalysis of MERRA-2 – NASA data and ERA5 data. These data are good because filtered and generalized. The authors were good analyzed these data and compared them with the data from meteorological stations.
The only suggestion but for me obligatory must be in analysis with cloudiness in this part of Chile or Patagonia. The cloudiness is connected with winds. Especially on this geographical latitude. The types of clouds and cloudiness can show wind properties and directions. The authors must add more sentences or one new sub-section about that. Also, the next references must be included in the text:
- Viale Maximiliano, Bianchi Emilio, Cara Leandro, Ruiz Lucas E., Villalba Ricardo, Pitte Pierre, Masiokas Mariano, Rivera Juan, Zalazar Laura. Contrasting Climates at Both Sides of the Andes in Argentina and Chile , Frontiers in Environmental Science , 7 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00069. DOI=10.3389/fenvs.2019.00069.
- Valjarević, A.; Morar, C.; Živković, J.; Niemets, L.; Kićović, D.; Golijanin, J.; Gocić, M.; Bursać, N.M.; Stričević, L.; Žiberna, I.; Bačević, N.; Milevski, I.; Durlević, U.; Lukić, T. Long Term Monitoring and Connection between Topography and Cloud Cover Distribution in Serbia. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 964. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12080964
In the end, I want to say that this paper for me is very well written and presented.
Good luck to the authors
The Reviewer#1
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
