Evaluation of Bias-Corrected GCM CMIP6 Simulation of Sea Surface Temperature over the Gulf of Guinea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The study evaluated the performance of bias corrected GCM-CMIP6 models in simulating the historical and future projection of Sea surface temperature (SST) over the Gulf of Guinea. The analysis firstly evaluates the performance of 8 GCM-CMIP6 models in simulating the historical SSTs of the Gulf of Guinea during 1970–2014. Then the analysis uses bias corrected CMIP6 outputs to simulate future SST projection (2015-20100) and finally used statistical techniques to quantitatively validate the performance of the models. The study affirmed that the CMIP6 projections can be used for multiple assessments related to climate and hydrological impact studies and for the development of mitigation measures under a warming climate. However, the quality of language expression and figures in the manuscript still needs to be greatly improved. Some comments on the present manuscript are as follows.

 1. Line 139: Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM). This method of EQM should be introduced in the text.

 2. Line 15: The CMIP6 models simulation for SST projection from 2030-20100 based on SSPS 8.5 SST is projected to increase by 4.61o (31 oC) in 2030. What does (31 oC) represent?

 3. Line 16: SSPS 8.5. What are the results of other emission scenarios with different concentrations?

 4. Line 15: “).”.  “).” Needs to be removed.

 5. Line 12: Empirical Quantile Mapping EQM -> (EQM)

 6. Line 20: “The.CMIP6”. The dot needs to be removed between the and CMIP6.

 7. Line 38: SST. When abbreviations first appear, the full name should be given. In the following text, some use “SST” and some use “sea surface temperature”. If abbreviated form is defined, the following should all be in abbreviated form.

 8. Line 192: in figure 17. There is no Figure 17 in the manuscript.

 9. “3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION”, “4. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS”. Discussion cannot appear twice in the section title, remove the discussion from the section 3.

 10. A figure with multiple subgraphs need have subgraph labels (like a, b, c, d).

 11. The quality of language expression needs to be improved.

 12. The captions and textual explanations of some figures are not detailed and clear enough.

 13. Line 443: stimulating > simulating.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of language expression and figures in the manuscript still needs to be greatly improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for your comments

Below are my responses

1. More explanation of Empirical quantile mapping has now been added to the text
2. Line 15: The values are all in degrees Celsius so the author was trying to write for instance 31^oC (31 degrees Celsius). That has been corrected.
3. Lines 15, 12, and 20 have been corrected now.
4. SST is now written in full as sea surface temperature before the abbreviation.
5. Figure 17: error corrected.
6. Results and discussion appearing twice: Error corrected
7. The multiple figures have now been numbered a, b,c,d,e, etc
8. Thorough editing of the language was carried out.
9. Line 443: Simulating, corrected. Lastly, the author based his CMIP6 simulation on only the SSPS 8.5 scenario due to computing resources as the author was not provided with a desktop. The author's laptop crashed in the course of running the simulation and the analysis. So please am appealing that you bear with me and consider my responses.   

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the work entitled "Evaluation of Bias Corrected GCM CMIP6 Simulation of Sea Surface Temperature over the Gulf of Guinea" by XYZ et al., the authors demonstrated the quality of the bias-corrected CMIP6 simulation. After reviewing the manuscript, I noted that its results align with the scope of the journal. However, some modifications, reformulations, and statistical evaluations are necessary before its eventual acceptance.

1. Overall, the abstract effectively summarizes the study's findings but can be improved for better readability.

2. Introduction: The biases in the CMIP6 model needs to discuss with citing the reference to highlight the need of the bias correction. Please discuss the other possible methods to reduce the bias in addition to bias correction. Please consider discussing the motivation of this study at the end of the section.

3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03012-4

   1.  

   2. DOI: 
   3. 10.1007/s00704-022-04299-8
   4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-023-06778-8
   5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-01079-3

4. Figures: The quality of the figures is poor, with text visibility issues. Please increase the font size for better clarity.

5. Figure 11: To enhance clarity, update the YLim from 15-35. In the present form, the information are hiding.

6. Change the section heading "DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS" to "DISCUSSION."

7. Line 199-200: The statement "In 2014, the high warming region recorded 29.77oC and 19.56oC for the low, indicating that SST increased by 0.66o between 1940-2014 for the Guinean coast and 0.18oC for the low (Western Sahel)" is not clear. Clarify how the warming in a particular year explains the increase in SST for the period 1940-2014.

8. Reword the sentence: "The observations by ACCESS-CM2, as shown in figure 2 in 1940 for the GOG, indicate 29.76oC for the high warming GOG and 20.66oC for the low." The term "observations" might be misleading as reference data.

9. Update the content of "Historical/Observed SST Climatology." Begin with a discussion of model performance by comparing it with observations. Additionally, perform statistical tests such as bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and skill assessments.

 

1. Figure 3: Ensure that the size of each panel is the same for better comparison.

2. Regarding the statement, "Again in 2014, the ERA5 SST captured mean SST as 30.25oC for the high and 17.78oC for the low, implying SST increased by 0.55oC during the period," reconsider the emphasis on findings for specific years in historical simulation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Researcher,

Let me thank by thanking you most professionally for your comments aimed at improving the quality of my manuscript.

I have looked at the comments and the following are my response which has substantially addressed the comments. 

1. Introduction: I have added a few paragraphs on the use of bias correction a method of correcting inherent bias in high-resolution GCM/RCM simulation thus highlighting the relevance of the method in the text. Other methods to reduce bias have also been added.
2. Motivation: The motivation for conducting the study has also been added to the concluding part of the introduction section
3. Figure: The font size has now been increased. However, if the fugue is not clear, i can send it differently or the journal can use a landscape format instead of portrait.
4. Fine II done.
5. Change of section heading: Discussion deleted, and it now appears as "Findings."
6. Line 199-200, the author intended to show the difference between SST from 1940-2014 both for the high and the low, in other words, the wanted to show the rate of warming, and how much has changed. 
7. Reword the sentence: Done
8. Update the content: The author has responded by beginning the discussion with a comparison of the ACCESS model performance.  
9. The author is appealing that due to time constraints and the fact the postdoc grant that funded the research has ended the one-year postdoc program to an end, the author is unable to run RMSE analysis because there are several methods of model validation including the regression method which the author adopted, RMSE and other statistical methods exist and a researcher is at liberty to choose which one is suitable.   Given this circumstance, the author is making a passionate appeal for his corrections to be considered. The author is a young man just trying his best in life. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study applied ERA5 and some CMIP6 modes to evaluate the SST. Although the manuscript may be interesting, however, there are a lot of unnecessary and avoidable errors. Although the “Climate” journal is not popular at the moment, however, the authors should correct the research attitude first. Hence, I recommend the manuscript should be resubmitted after the mandatory correction.

 

Comments:

 

1、There are some superfluous blanks in the manuscript, please delete them.

2、Line 15, delete “)”.

3、Line 17, 20100?

4、Line 20, “.”.

5、Line 24 “..”?

6、The texts in the Figures are hard to see. Please make them bigger.

7、Many Figures are not aligned. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your comments aimed at strengthening and improving the quality of my manuscript.

The comments you raised have been adequately addressed. The errors in Lines 15-24 have now been corrected.

Dear Reviewer

Merry Christmas

I have addressed all the comments you pointed out from Line 15-Line 24. I have gone through it again and again and those errors are no longer there. 

Finally, I have changed the maps to bigger and clearer ones so that very issue has been taken care of. I will still appeal that the manuscript should be accepted because i have done everything that needed to be done.

Thanks

Happy Holidays

Oye Ideki

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs further revision.

 1. Line 2: Gcm -> GCM?

 2. Line 9: SST-> sea surface temperature (SST)

 3. Line 12: Empirical Quantile Mapping EQM -> Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM)

 4. Line 18: CDO (Climate Data Operator) -> Climate Data Operator (CDO)

 5. Line 23: The.CMIP6 -> The CMIP6 (deleting the dot)

 6.Line 38: sea surface temperature-> sea surface temperature (SST)

 7.Line 48: sea surface temperature -> SST

 8. Figure 14. Standardized residual plot. The textual expression of the figure title should be more specific.

  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Merry Christmas

I have addressed all the typographical errors you pointed out from Line 1 -Line 48.

I have also reviewed the textual expression of Figure 14. The explanation of the Figure is now clear. easily understood and much better. I used grammar software to edit the English; overall, there is a remarkable improvement.

In the season of the Christmas celebration, i will appeal that the manuscript should be accepted. The Journal editorial office should be able to correct a few typos that might appear again in the text. Finally, all the maps used have been changed to clearer ones and the font size increased. I also changed the page layout from portrait to Landscape thus making the maps more visible.

Happy Holidays

Regards

Oye  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all the concern and revised the manuscript. It can be accepted in the present form. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Merry Christmas

Thanks so much for your comments and overall report.

I agree with you that the paper should be accepted. I have done everything that needed to be done so please hold on to your earlier report on the acceptance of the paper.

Thank you again and happy holidays

Oye