PONE-D-21-26199Numerical study on advective fog formation and its characteristic associated with cold water upwellingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, you will see that one reviewer asks for several formal improvements in the presentation aspects of the article, while the other reviewer questions the novelty of the work and impact of the SST data used therein. You therefore need to carefully address these points in the revised version of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Storto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2020R1A6A1A03044834) and by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2020R1A2C2011081)"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2020R1A6A1A03044834) and by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2020R1A2C2011081). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: See attached file, manuscript needs major corrections and can be acceptable after revisions. Major issues are related to text flow, limited intro, missing discussions, and conclusions.

Major/minor issues

Ln24-27, do you have obs, why only WRF used?

Ln48; Gultepe et al AMS bulletin see for this impact

Ln49-50; that is not correct, if not validated

LN50; advection cooling, not good term

Ln52; same issue adv cooling?

Ln62; Gultepe et al 2021, lately studied marine fog from CFOG project suggested various important processes play an important role for marine fog formation.

Introduction is very limited, in fact many work done in this respect, see Gultepe et al review papers (see below), nothing mentioned.

Ln64; all know this and LN 66 most severe of what?

Ln83; what are the specific conditions are looked for? SST important all know but what is your contribution.

LN121-130; where are the observations, and how they are used?

Section 3.2 Observations; should be given first, not after model story.

Section 3.4 Comparison of simulated sea fog?? With what? Should say “verification of simulations”NEED

New Section is needed: DISCUSSIONS; I DON’T SEE.

Conclusions

Ln 326; how much properly simulated, observations were not clearly presented.

You need to show first obs and then make conclusions, if no observations then you should say it in the start of paper. But later you say ASOS observations and satellite data.

Manuscript needs in serious improvements, please also see review papers on marine fog that needs to be mentioned:

Suggested papers:

Yang, D., H. Ritchie, S. Desjardins, G. Pearson, A. MacAfee, and I. Gultepe, 2009: High Resolution GEM-LAM application in marine fog prediction: Evaluation and diagnosis. Weather and Forecasting. V. 25, 727-748.

Gultepe, I., Milbrandt, J. A., and Zhou, B., 2017: Marine fog: A review on microphysics and visibility prediction. A chapter In the book of Marine Fog: Challenges and Advancements in Observations, Modeling, and Forecasting, Springer Pub. Comp. NY 10012 USA. Edited by Darko Koracin and Clive Dorman. 345-394 pp.

Gultepe, I., A.J. Heymsfield, H.J.S Fernando, E. Pardyjak, C. E. Dorman, Q. Wang, E. Creegan, S. W. Hoch,, D. D. Flagg, R.Yamaguchi, R. Krishnamurthy, S. Gaberšek, W. Perrie, A. Perelet, D.K. Singh, R. Chang, B. Nagare, S. Wagh, and S. Wang, 2021: A review of Coastal Fog Microphysics during C-FOG. Bound. Layer. Meteor.

Gultepe, I., G. Pearson J. A. Milbrandt, B. Hansen, S. Platnick, P. Taylor, M. Gordon, J. P. Oakley, and S.G. Cober, 2009: The fog remote sensing and modeling (FRAM) field project. Bull. Of Amer. Meteor. Soc., v.90, 341-359.

Reviewer #2: 1. Summary

Because most sea fogs belong to advective fog, the difference between AT and SST ia a vital factor for sea fog formation. Warm-mosit air mass advection and cool sea surface help to make this difference. High-resolution SST can capture more details of coastal sea fog than low-resolution SST, it's not surprise and not a new finding. Therefore, the novelty of this article is not enough.

2. major comments

1) Observed facts

a) the phenomenon of sea fog occurence due to upwelling cold water

Please make a statistics of the spatio-temporal distribution of sea fog along the Korean coast. It's a neccessary evidence for your research motivation.

b) the observed sea fog in the case study

Please show the observed sea fog (modis satellite pciture, radio soudings/CLIPSO for juding the depth of sea fog ), which is used to verify/evaluate the simulated sea fog.

Visit https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov for modis pictures.

2) Sensitivity experiments

Table 3 shows the differeces bwtween the observed SST and the reanalysis SSTs. Even for the high-resolution RTG SST, the dieffrence can reach 2K difference and even more. So, suggest to conduct SST sensitivity experments.

3) Veritical resolution of the WRF simulation

Details of eta-levels ii not seen in the article. For sea fog simulation, vertical resolution near sea surface is very vital.

4) More cases

One case study is not enough.

3. Minor comments

1) The number and title is not seen below the figure in PDF manuscript. It's very inconvenient for reading.

2) In the last figure, "cloud water mixign ratio" and "water vapor mixing ratio" are upside down.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: GI_review_A.docx

Numerical study on advective fog formation and its characteristic associated with cold water upwelling

PONE-D-21-26199R1

Dear Dr. Lee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

We are sorry for the delay in processing the revised version of the manuscript, which was due to the unavailability of the previous Reviewer 2, and the difficulties in finding an alternative reviewer.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Storto

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Corrections done are satisfactory and manuscript is improved significantly. Authors followed up scientific criteria and properly improved text flow. Your manuscript can now be accepted.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ismail Gultepe

Reviewer #3: No