the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 Sep 2022
Hydrological modelling on atmospheric grids; using graphs of sub-grid elements to transport energy and water
Anthony Schrapffer
Eliott Dupont
Lucia Rinchiuso
Xudong Zhou
Olivier Boucher
Emmanuel Mouche
Catherine Ottlé
Jérôme Servonnat
Abstract. Land Surface Models (LSMs) use the atmospheric grid as their basic spatial decomposition because their main objective is to provide the lower boundary conditions to the atmosphere. Lateral water flows at the surface on the other hand require a much higher spatial discretization as they are closely linked to topographic details. We propose here a methodology to automatically tile the atmospheric grid into hydrological coherent units which are connected through a graph. As water is transported on sub-grids of the LSM, land variables can easily be transferred to the routing network and advected if needed. This is demonstrated here for temperature. The quality of the river networks generated, as represented by the connected hydrological transfer units, are compared to the original data in order to quantify the degradation introduced by the discretization method. The conditions the sub-grid elements impose on the time step of the water transport scheme are evaluated and a methodology is proposed to find an optimal value. Finally the scheme is applied in an off-line version of the ORCHIDEE LSM over Europe to show that realistic river discharge and temperatures are predicted over the major catchments of the region. The simulated solutions are largely independent of the atmospheric grid used thanks to the proposed sub-grid approach.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(8109 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8109 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Jan Polcher et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
Dear authors,Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlYou have archived your code on a Gitlab repository in a server of the French Research organisations. However, this is not a suitable repository, as our policy clearly states. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage. Moreover, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, with the DOI of the code.Also, the Gitlab repository says that the code has no license. If you do not include a license, the code is not "freely available" despite what you claim in the manuscript. It continues to be your property, and all the rights are reserved, as the Gitlab repository says. We can not accept this, and if you do not change it, your manuscript will be immediately rejected for publication.Therefore, when uploading the code to one of the suitable repositories, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request will result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.Regards,Juan A. AñelGeosci. Model Dev. Exec. EditorCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jan Polcher, 25 Oct 2022
Dear Sir,
it is indicated in the "Code and Data Availability" section that the code, as frozen for this publication, has been made available on Zenodo under the following DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895.
You are correct that we did not specify the license under which the code is distributed. It was obvious to me that that it would be available under the CeCILL license (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_CeCILL) developed by the French national research organisations. When we will revise the manuscript we will add the sentence that the code is distributed with the CeCILL license.
I hope this answers your concerns regarding the availability of the code which is the base of the proposed publication.
Best regards
Jan Polcher
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
Apologies for not realizing the storage of the code in Zenodo. In this way, you could consider that clearly adding information about an informal repository (Gitlab) in the section can confuse the readers. It could be a good idea to remove it. The Zenodo repository is under the CC-4.0 license, and therefore your code has already been released under such license. Therefore, there is no need to add the Cecil license.
An issue that I missed in the previous comment is about the hydrological elevation models; you state that they are available under request. We can not accept this, you must publish them in a repository with the paper. Please, do it. Otherwise, you need to provide evidence that forbids you from doing it.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
We have received a reply from you to my previous comment by email. I should remind you that the Discussions forum is designed for this, and the communication about details of the review process of the manuscript should happen through it. This way, Reviewing the code and data is part of the process, so I am replying here.
In your email, you say that the information requested is offered under request. This is unacceptable, our policy clearly states it, and indeed, your manuscript should have never been published in Discussions having such shortcomings. This was an oversight by the topical handling editor that, despite asking you for compliance with our policy, decided to approve your manuscripts for Discussions without all these issues adequately addressed.
In this way, we are giving you the opportunity to adhere to our code and data availability policy, but if you continue to fail to do it, we will reject your paper. There is no point in continuing with the review process for a work that can not be published because of a lack of compliance with the journal's requirements, independently of recommendations by any invited referee or comments by others.
You should be aware that "available upon request" does not guarantee that anyone interested in the code or data will have access to it. At best, you can provide an email address that eventually could become obsolete because of changes in an institution's internet domain, changes in a person's affiliation or the contact person could die. Also, there is no guarantee at all that if somebody reaches the person or contact to get the data, you will give it out. Should we simply trust you? I am sorry, but science is grounded on evidence, not trust what people say.
Additionally, to publish part of your work, you use a repository that does not guarantee long-term archival (this usually implies more than 20 years of secured funding for it and the inability to remove the data by their creators). A few repositories comply, are widely used and are listed in our policy. So please, upload the assets of your manuscript to one of them. In your email, you state that the size of the dataset could be a problem for it and point out to 20 GB. This is not an issue at all; indeed, 20 GB is a small amount of data, and for example, Zenodo.org, one of the repositories that we accept, has a limit of 50 GB for each repository, and you can create and combine several repositories, each one with its own DOI to comply with our requirements. I could consider that size is an issue if we were discussing, at minimum, hundreds of GB or TB of data. In this way, you could upload at least a sample to let the readers test and evaluate part of the work presented in the manuscript.
I would like to note that authors should try their best to comply with a journal's policy before submitting a manuscript. Your initial submission included the use of a Git repository, which is clear in our policy does not comply with standards for scientific research. This reveals a lack of care about these details from your side when preparing the manuscript. Challenging authors to adhere to the journal's policy should not be the work of the editorial board or the staff in the office.
Despite your replies and communication, we do not understand yet why you do not publish the hydrological digital elevation models, and we request you comply with our policy. If you are not in a position to make them publicly available, you could consider withdrawing your manuscript. If you continue to fail to comply with our policy, our only option will be to reject your manuscript for consideration in Geoscientific Model Development.
I hope this is clearer now and that you understand the considerations made above.
Best regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Jan Polcher, 27 Oct 2022
Dear Dr. Añel,
sorry for having mislead you in my previous messages. The hydrological digital elevation models are already part of the package stored on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895. I just checked. Everything which is needed to reproduce the results described in the paper is stored there and the sentence in the manuscript was just misleading. Even the grid-descriptions and scripts used to test the performance of the various routing graphs are distributed. Thus any colleague wishing to reproduce the work submitted is able to do so.
To avoid further confusion I propose to rephrase the "Code and Data availability" section in the next iteration of the manuscript as follows :
\codedataavailability{The code version and data used for this study are available at \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895}. The hydrological digital elevation models provided are a reformatted version of the data freely distributed here : \url{http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yamadai/MERIT_Hydro/} and url{https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrosheds}. The pre-processor for ORCHIDEE's routing scheme is an evolving code which can be followed on the GitLab server of the French Research organisations : \url{https://gitlab.in2p3.fr/ipsl/lmd/intro/routingpp}}I would nevertheless like to point out that the GitLab server of the French Research organisations is at least as stable and long lived as those of the CERN which host the Zenodo service. Thus, I believe that relying on various means for distributing code and data will only make the preservation of our scientific results more robust for the uncertain future.
Best regards
Jan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-AC2 -
CEC4: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 27 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your quick reply. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the Zenodo repository for your work does not contain an explanation about how the information is ordered, where to find each thing, what directories contain the digital elevation models, etc. There is a Readme file, but it does not explain anything about the structure or what it contains. In this way, it is hard to know if what is needed to reproduce your work is there or not. Therefore, please, include in the repository a file with a full explanation of what it contains and how it is ordered.
About your statement on the Gitlab of the French Research Organizations: You are wrong, and this must be crystal clear to avoid others making the mistake of using it for scientific publication. It is disturbing that you continue challenging us on this. The Gitlab of the French Research Organizations does not comply with the requirements necessary, as others do (e.g. Zenodo, PANGAEA, FigShare,...). There is a reason why It exists a list of acceptable repositories, and it is not exclusive to our journal or Copernicus. Eventually, if the responsible for such a repository wants to comply with the FAIR requirements and to be listed as acceptable, it can undergo the necessary work and procedures. To double check it, I have looked for it on Fairsharing.org, and it is not even listed (at least I have not found it, let me know if I am wrong); I do not say accepted. I mean, it is not even listed with a qualification of the service offered.
But moreover, it is not acceptable because, first, it is a Git repository from which those with permission can delete content in the future if they want: this is not acceptable, and any acceptable repository must prevent authors from deleting content at any point.
It is not acceptable because the terms of use of this repository clearly establish that content can be deleted at any point at its own discretion.
It is not acceptable because there is no public statement about the legal or governmental commitment to maintaining the service for the long term, and it is no presented evidence of funding already allocated for it for, at minimum, 10-20 years.
Finally, I find your proposed code and data availability statement correct, provided that the repository contains what you say to contain, for which we need that you provide an explanation of their contents, as exposed above.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC4
-
CEC4: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 27 Oct 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Jan Polcher, 27 Oct 2022
-
CEC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Oct 2022
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jan Polcher, 25 Oct 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2022
Please find my comments, questions, and suggestions as attached file.
-
RC2: 'RC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'RC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Dec 2022
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a new tiling method to efficiently incorporate high-resolution topographic information for better hydrological simulations by atmospheric models while keeping the atmospheric grids. First, they built hydrological coherent units (HTUs) from hydrological digital elevation models. Then, by evaluating the generated river networks and sensitivity experiment results, the authors proposed a way to find appropriate truncation numbers for HTUs and time steps. Finally, they conducted offline ORCHIDEE simulations and compared the simulated discharge and river temperature with observations.
The manuscript is well-written and contains valuable information for ESM modelers. Therefore, I recommend publication after minor modifications.
General comments:
1. Can you explain more about the connectivity between atmospheric grids? For example, how do you maintain consistency when an HDEM grid overlaps with multiple atmospheric grids and is split into multiple supermeshes?2. It would be helpful to add a figure to compare the results with the previous ORCHIDEE simulations explained in Section 6. Have you observed any improvements by taking into account the detailed topography information?
Specific comments:
L97: Can the atmospheric grid be divided into vegetation tiles? If so, how can vegetation tiles be related to HTUs?L107: It may be helpful to add an explanation of how the lambda was derived.
L182: Eastern -> Western? Could you include a compass symbol to indicate the direction in Figure 2?
L185: Are any panels showing the results of the first step in Figure 2?
L193: It is unclear to me which location you are referring to; it would be helpful if Figure 2a includes the names of the local rivers.
Figure 8: four different grids -> three different grids?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-RC3 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
Dear authors,Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlYou have archived your code on a Gitlab repository in a server of the French Research organisations. However, this is not a suitable repository, as our policy clearly states. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage. Moreover, you must include in a potential reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, with the DOI of the code.Also, the Gitlab repository says that the code has no license. If you do not include a license, the code is not "freely available" despite what you claim in the manuscript. It continues to be your property, and all the rights are reserved, as the Gitlab repository says. We can not accept this, and if you do not change it, your manuscript will be immediately rejected for publication.Therefore, when uploading the code to one of the suitable repositories, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request will result in rejecting your manuscript for publication.Regards,Juan A. AñelGeosci. Model Dev. Exec. EditorCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jan Polcher, 25 Oct 2022
Dear Sir,
it is indicated in the "Code and Data Availability" section that the code, as frozen for this publication, has been made available on Zenodo under the following DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895.
You are correct that we did not specify the license under which the code is distributed. It was obvious to me that that it would be available under the CeCILL license (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_CeCILL) developed by the French national research organisations. When we will revise the manuscript we will add the sentence that the code is distributed with the CeCILL license.
I hope this answers your concerns regarding the availability of the code which is the base of the proposed publication.
Best regards
Jan Polcher
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
Apologies for not realizing the storage of the code in Zenodo. In this way, you could consider that clearly adding information about an informal repository (Gitlab) in the section can confuse the readers. It could be a good idea to remove it. The Zenodo repository is under the CC-4.0 license, and therefore your code has already been released under such license. Therefore, there is no need to add the Cecil license.
An issue that I missed in the previous comment is about the hydrological elevation models; you state that they are available under request. We can not accept this, you must publish them in a repository with the paper. Please, do it. Otherwise, you need to provide evidence that forbids you from doing it.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
We have received a reply from you to my previous comment by email. I should remind you that the Discussions forum is designed for this, and the communication about details of the review process of the manuscript should happen through it. This way, Reviewing the code and data is part of the process, so I am replying here.
In your email, you say that the information requested is offered under request. This is unacceptable, our policy clearly states it, and indeed, your manuscript should have never been published in Discussions having such shortcomings. This was an oversight by the topical handling editor that, despite asking you for compliance with our policy, decided to approve your manuscripts for Discussions without all these issues adequately addressed.
In this way, we are giving you the opportunity to adhere to our code and data availability policy, but if you continue to fail to do it, we will reject your paper. There is no point in continuing with the review process for a work that can not be published because of a lack of compliance with the journal's requirements, independently of recommendations by any invited referee or comments by others.
You should be aware that "available upon request" does not guarantee that anyone interested in the code or data will have access to it. At best, you can provide an email address that eventually could become obsolete because of changes in an institution's internet domain, changes in a person's affiliation or the contact person could die. Also, there is no guarantee at all that if somebody reaches the person or contact to get the data, you will give it out. Should we simply trust you? I am sorry, but science is grounded on evidence, not trust what people say.
Additionally, to publish part of your work, you use a repository that does not guarantee long-term archival (this usually implies more than 20 years of secured funding for it and the inability to remove the data by their creators). A few repositories comply, are widely used and are listed in our policy. So please, upload the assets of your manuscript to one of them. In your email, you state that the size of the dataset could be a problem for it and point out to 20 GB. This is not an issue at all; indeed, 20 GB is a small amount of data, and for example, Zenodo.org, one of the repositories that we accept, has a limit of 50 GB for each repository, and you can create and combine several repositories, each one with its own DOI to comply with our requirements. I could consider that size is an issue if we were discussing, at minimum, hundreds of GB or TB of data. In this way, you could upload at least a sample to let the readers test and evaluate part of the work presented in the manuscript.
I would like to note that authors should try their best to comply with a journal's policy before submitting a manuscript. Your initial submission included the use of a Git repository, which is clear in our policy does not comply with standards for scientific research. This reveals a lack of care about these details from your side when preparing the manuscript. Challenging authors to adhere to the journal's policy should not be the work of the editorial board or the staff in the office.
Despite your replies and communication, we do not understand yet why you do not publish the hydrological digital elevation models, and we request you comply with our policy. If you are not in a position to make them publicly available, you could consider withdrawing your manuscript. If you continue to fail to comply with our policy, our only option will be to reject your manuscript for consideration in Geoscientific Model Development.
I hope this is clearer now and that you understand the considerations made above.
Best regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC3 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Jan Polcher, 27 Oct 2022
Dear Dr. Añel,
sorry for having mislead you in my previous messages. The hydrological digital elevation models are already part of the package stored on https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895. I just checked. Everything which is needed to reproduce the results described in the paper is stored there and the sentence in the manuscript was just misleading. Even the grid-descriptions and scripts used to test the performance of the various routing graphs are distributed. Thus any colleague wishing to reproduce the work submitted is able to do so.
To avoid further confusion I propose to rephrase the "Code and Data availability" section in the next iteration of the manuscript as follows :
\codedataavailability{The code version and data used for this study are available at \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7058895}. The hydrological digital elevation models provided are a reformatted version of the data freely distributed here : \url{http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yamadai/MERIT_Hydro/} and url{https://www.hydrosheds.org/products/hydrosheds}. The pre-processor for ORCHIDEE's routing scheme is an evolving code which can be followed on the GitLab server of the French Research organisations : \url{https://gitlab.in2p3.fr/ipsl/lmd/intro/routingpp}}I would nevertheless like to point out that the GitLab server of the French Research organisations is at least as stable and long lived as those of the CERN which host the Zenodo service. Thus, I believe that relying on various means for distributing code and data will only make the preservation of our scientific results more robust for the uncertain future.
Best regards
Jan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-AC2 -
CEC4: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 27 Oct 2022
Dear authors,
Many thanks for your quick reply. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the Zenodo repository for your work does not contain an explanation about how the information is ordered, where to find each thing, what directories contain the digital elevation models, etc. There is a Readme file, but it does not explain anything about the structure or what it contains. In this way, it is hard to know if what is needed to reproduce your work is there or not. Therefore, please, include in the repository a file with a full explanation of what it contains and how it is ordered.
About your statement on the Gitlab of the French Research Organizations: You are wrong, and this must be crystal clear to avoid others making the mistake of using it for scientific publication. It is disturbing that you continue challenging us on this. The Gitlab of the French Research Organizations does not comply with the requirements necessary, as others do (e.g. Zenodo, PANGAEA, FigShare,...). There is a reason why It exists a list of acceptable repositories, and it is not exclusive to our journal or Copernicus. Eventually, if the responsible for such a repository wants to comply with the FAIR requirements and to be listed as acceptable, it can undergo the necessary work and procedures. To double check it, I have looked for it on Fairsharing.org, and it is not even listed (at least I have not found it, let me know if I am wrong); I do not say accepted. I mean, it is not even listed with a qualification of the service offered.
But moreover, it is not acceptable because, first, it is a Git repository from which those with permission can delete content in the future if they want: this is not acceptable, and any acceptable repository must prevent authors from deleting content at any point.
It is not acceptable because the terms of use of this repository clearly establish that content can be deleted at any point at its own discretion.
It is not acceptable because there is no public statement about the legal or governmental commitment to maintaining the service for the long term, and it is no presented evidence of funding already allocated for it for, at minimum, 10-20 years.
Finally, I find your proposed code and data availability statement correct, provided that the repository contains what you say to contain, for which we need that you provide an explanation of their contents, as exposed above.
Regards,
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-CEC4
-
CEC4: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 27 Oct 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC3', Jan Polcher, 27 Oct 2022
-
CEC3: 'Reply on CEC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 26 Oct 2022
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jan Polcher, 25 Oct 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2022
Please find my comments, questions, and suggestions as attached file.
-
RC2: 'RC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'RC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-690', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Dec 2022
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a new tiling method to efficiently incorporate high-resolution topographic information for better hydrological simulations by atmospheric models while keeping the atmospheric grids. First, they built hydrological coherent units (HTUs) from hydrological digital elevation models. Then, by evaluating the generated river networks and sensitivity experiment results, the authors proposed a way to find appropriate truncation numbers for HTUs and time steps. Finally, they conducted offline ORCHIDEE simulations and compared the simulated discharge and river temperature with observations.
The manuscript is well-written and contains valuable information for ESM modelers. Therefore, I recommend publication after minor modifications.
General comments:
1. Can you explain more about the connectivity between atmospheric grids? For example, how do you maintain consistency when an HDEM grid overlaps with multiple atmospheric grids and is split into multiple supermeshes?2. It would be helpful to add a figure to compare the results with the previous ORCHIDEE simulations explained in Section 6. Have you observed any improvements by taking into account the detailed topography information?
Specific comments:
L97: Can the atmospheric grid be divided into vegetation tiles? If so, how can vegetation tiles be related to HTUs?L107: It may be helpful to add an explanation of how the lambda was derived.
L182: Eastern -> Western? Could you include a compass symbol to indicate the direction in Figure 2?
L185: Are any panels showing the results of the first step in Figure 2?
L193: It is unclear to me which location you are referring to; it would be helpful if Figure 2a includes the names of the local rivers.
Figure 8: four different grids -> three different grids?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-690-RC3 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-690/egusphere-2022-690-AC5-supplement.pdf
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Jan Polcher, 12 Dec 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Jan Polcher et al.
Jan Polcher et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 812 | 253 | 38 | 1,103 | 17 | 14 |
- HTML: 812
- PDF: 253
- XML: 38
- Total: 1,103
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8109 KB) - Metadata XML