Parameter sensitivity analysis of a 1-D cold region lake model for land-surface schemes

Guerrero, José-Luis; Pernica, Patricia; Wheater, Howard; Mackay, Murray; Spence, Chris

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6345-2017

Articles | Volume 21, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6345-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6345-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 12

Research article

|

14 Dec 2017

Research article |

| 14 Dec 2017

Parameter sensitivity analysis of a 1-D cold region lake model for land-surface schemes

José-Luis Guerrero, Patricia Pernica, Howard Wheater, Murray Mackay, and Chris Spence

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Dec 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Short comments for hess-2017-5', Zeli Tan, 16 Jan 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to comments', José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio, 11 Apr 2017
RC1: 'review of Guerrero et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to reviewers', José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio, 11 Apr 2017
RC2: 'Review of ‘Parameters sensitivity analysis of a 1-D cold region lake model for land-surface schemes’ by Guerrero et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Feb 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to comments', José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio, 11 Apr 2017
EC1: 'Editor's comment', Dimitri Solomatine, 10 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (20 Apr 2017) by Dimitri Solomatine

AR by José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio on behalf of the Authors (01 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Jun 2017) by Dimitri Solomatine

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (09 Jul 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I would like to thank the authors for considering the majority of my suggestions in this much improved revision. There are a few remaining points which, if addressed, would make this paper a useful contribution to the literature on hydrological modelling.

P3 l25 consider “…depth interval.”

P4 l2 -the underlying mechanisms controlling what? It was not clear to me whether this sentence referred to heat fluxes or k_d

P4 l5 –please list the relevant aspects of ecosystem function

P5 l22 “… using a krypton …”

P6 l6 “… evaluation data and computational…”

P6 l6 “… 2006): different …”

P6 l12 – there is an incomplete sentence here, maybe “… state of the art.” ?

P6 l24 “…criteria: the …”

P6 l29-30 – does GLUE always require uniform random sampling or this just a convention?

P7 l13-14 – this sentence could be deleted as it effectively repeats p7l1-2

P7 l19-22 – please consider splitting this into two sentences.

P8 l16 “…framework: they …”

P8 l21 “… as was …”

P8 l21-22 – please expand on this sentence. How is robustness dependent on predictive capability?

P9 l2 – extra line break after “…are:”

P9 l30 “… indices (Sobol…”

P10 l10 –consider rephrasing as “… summands are orthogonal …” or “Assuming orthogonality of all summands …”

P10 l11 – “allows” works but “makes it possible” works better

P10 l24 – missing close bracket “… Coxon et al. (2014)).

P11 l5 “… available for …”

P12 l14 – I’ve read Duan et al. (2006) and took it for granted that response surfaces are complicated, but my experience with high dimensional models suggests that response surfaces are often quite simple. As this submission is a relatively short paper, I would be interested in reading the authors’ thoughts on Duan’s assertion in light of their results, which seem to suggest a relatively simple response surface for a complex model

P12 l19 – case agreement, either “… coefficients exert …” or “…coefficient exerts …”

P13 l8 “… indicative of effective …”

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (03 Oct 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I think that the authors have done a good job in addressing my earlier comments and the paper is now suitable for publication. I very much enjoyed reading the latest version and found the structure and flow of the manuscript much better. I'm confident that the limnological community will appreciate this research and the work will be well-cited.

Although I could not find any major issues with the paper, I did find areas where minor corrections are needed:

For example, Page 3 Line 14 there should be a space between 1.12 and km2

Page 2 Line 21 - Please don't start a new sentence with citations. It reads much better if you would say something along the lines of 'previous studies have illustrated the feedback between phytoplankton... (REFS)'

Page 2 Line 30 - There is a paper recently published in GRL which demonstrates how the stability of the atmospheric boundary layer varies among lakes (latitude and lake size are important predictors of over-lake atmospheric stability by Wollway et al doi:10.1002/2017GL073941), which would be a very useful citation here, as it demonstrates how lakes can modify the boundary layer, thus strengthening your argument.

Page 7 Line 17 - 'as done by (Deacu et al., 2012) for large lakes'. Note that there shouldn't be any brackets around the entire citation here, so you will need to change the command in your latex file. Please check the entire manuscript for inconsistencies such as this.

Page 3 Line 8 - 'which can in turned...' -> replace with 'in turn'

Page 3 Line 30 - include Kd in the brackets along with m^-1

Page 10 Line 24 - (limits-of-acceptability... -> need to close the brackets here.

Page 11 Line 5 - 'that were available f for' -> remove extra 'f'?

Please take extra care when submitting the final version for publications as there may be other errors (such as above) still present in the paper.

The authors use different citation formats throughout the text. For example, sometimes 'et al.' is used and other times 'et al.,' is used. This is me being very picky but please try to be consistent throughout.

The concluding paragraph is one of the most important parts of the paper. Please consider re-writing into a concise format (the short sentence on its own at the end should be merged with the previous paragraph, if possible).

Sometimes the authors use 'and' in citations and other times use '&' - please be consistent.

Page 8 Line 15 - need to close bracket... '(SRC: Galton (1886) share'

Table 1 - The brackets are pointing the wrong way in the column 'Range'. Please correct. Also, please prove a better description in the table caption (currently not sufficient).

Figure 1 is currently very hard to see in detail. For example, the inset and text is too small. Please increase the figure size in the final version.

Many of the Figure captions need to be improved. Specifically, the reader should not have to look through the manuscript to understand the figures. In my opinion the reader should be able to see the figure, read the caption, and understand what is presented. Please include a more detailed description in each caption. This will help the reader and thus make the paper easier to digest and follow, especially for those who will glance the paper.

Consider colorblind friendly colors for Fig. 6 and 7.

Table 2 - need space before bracket in references. Also, please ensure reference style is consistent with the remainder of the paper and include a fuller description in the caption.

Figure 9 - Include units on y and x-axis (not just in the caption). This is only necessary for the outer panels.

Fig 10 (and throughout text) I would suggest replacing Mean Absolute Error with Mean Absolute Difference. Also, W/m2 needs to be in a consistent format to elsewhere in the text, currently Wm-2 elsewhere.

Table 3 - include comma to separate the 1000s

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by Editor) (06 Oct 2017) by Dimitri Solomatine

AR by José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio on behalf of the Authors (16 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Oct 2017) by Dimitri Solomatine

AR by José-Luis Guerrero Calidonio on behalf of the Authors (25 Oct 2017)

Short summary

Lakes are sentinels of climate change, and an adequate characterization of their feedbacks to the atmosphere could improve climate modeling. These feedbacks, as heat fluxes, can be simulated but are seldom measured, casting doubt on modeling results. Measurements from a small lake in Canada established that the model parameter modulating how much light penetrates the lake dominates model response. This parameter is measurable: improved monitoring could lead to more robust modeling.