Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from Regional Climate Models for a recent past

Augusto de Rubim Costa Gurgel; Domingo Cassain Sales; Kellen Carla Lima

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307641

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2024
17 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Delei Li, Editor PONE-D-24-02304Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent pastPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gurgel, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2024 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, Delei Li, Ph.D. 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No ****** 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: The article presents a compelling objective that addresses a critical need in the region, and if published, it will significantly contribute to the knowledge and applications of renewable energy sources in the area. However, the abstract language could be improved by using and defining appropriate terms relevant to the study. For example, the phrase "data observed from Xavier" is ambiguous. Is it data observed by Xavier or observed data obtained from Xavier? Similarly, the phrase "but overestimated this variable" lacks clarity and coherence. I encourage the authors to revise their abstract to make it more concise and coherent. In Figure 1, the unit of the topography is not specified. Additionally, the topography map does not indicate areas where the elevation is up to 2000. I suggest redrawing the map with a scale that ranges from 0 to 1500 at intervals of 200 to provide a more accurate representation of the topography. I recommend providing a more detailed description of the Xavier data rather than just a reference. This section should give a general overview of the data. Similarly, a detailed description and appropriate references are missing in the ECMWF-ERA5 Reanalysis and CORDEX-Core data section. This should be updated as appropriate. It is important to include the physical parameterizations used in the RCMs in Table 1. The bias in Figures 2 and 4-7 would be better represented with a colorbar that is not white-centered and has a smaller range, such as -1 to 1. This would provide a more accurate and vivid representation of the bias. Reviewer #2: Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent past Manuscript PONE D-24-02304 Overview The purpose of the work is to verify the skill of reanalysis and regional climate models to reproduce wind characteristics in Northeastern Brazil, and then to evaluate wind power density in different areas. Although the topic itself is of great interest in many aspects, the paper fails in some points. First of all, the English needs a deep review, by a professional reviewer or a native speaker, because some expressions are not usual and sound very strange. Secondly, the arguments for assuming a reasonable representation are not so clear and the figure quality needs to be improved. Discussions and conclusions are related to the results, but they are a bit vague and general. In my opinion, rejected manuscript and suggestion to re-write and re-submit. Specific comments Please find my suggestions/comments in the balloons of the attached PDF using Acrobat Reader. If there is any problem to access them, please let me know. ****** 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: PONE-D-24-02304_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r001
Revision 1
8 May 2024 Author Response Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent past Answers Reviewer #1 It should be noted that the lines refer to the text with the corrections, that is, file revised_manuscript_with_track_changes_Augusto_plos_one.docx Reviewer 1 correction (Line 29 up to 30) - However, the abstract language could be improved by using and defining appropriate terms relevant to the study. For example, the phrase "data observed from Xavier" is ambiguous. Is it data observed by Xavier or observed data obtained from Xavier? Answer: Thanks! The sentence has been modified to: “was validated in relation to the observed data obtained from Xavier” Reviewer 1 correction (Line 35) - Similarly, the phrase "but overestimated this variable" lacks clarity and coherence. I encourage the authors to revise their abstract to make it more concise and coherent. Answer: Thanks! The sentence has been modified to: Then, the Regional Climate Models RegCM4.7, RCA4 and Remo2009 were validated with the ECMWF-ERA5 reanalysis, which managed to represent well the wind speed pattern, principally from December to May. Reviewer 1 correction - In Figure 1, the unit of the topography is not specified. Additionally, the topography map does not indicate areas where the elevation is up to 2000. I suggest redrawing the map with a scale that ranges from 0 to 1500 at intervals of 200 to provide a more accurate representation of the topography. Answer: Thanks! New figure with topography from 0 to 1200m, at intervals of 200m. Reviewer 1 correction (Line 176 up to 183) - I recommend providing a more detailed description of the Xavier data rather than just a reference. This section should give a general overview of the data. Answer: Thanks! More details were provided from Xavier et al. (2016). The sentence has been modified to: “This database contains multiple atmospheric variables: precipitation, evapotranspiration, maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, and wind speed. The period of the database extended from 1980 to 2013. Six methodologies were employed for interpolating atmospheric variables, with the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) method emerging as the most effective for wind speed interpolation. The interpolation utilized databases derived from 3,625 pluviometers and 735 meteorological stations, collected by the National Institute of Meteorology (INMET), the National Water Agency (ANA), and the São Paulo State Department of Water and Electric Energy (DAEE) [22]”. Reviewer 1 correction - Similarly, a detailed description and appropriate references are missing in the ECMWF-ERA5 Reanalysis and CORDEX-Core data section. Answer: Thanks! The references were added and more description too. The sentence has been modified to: In ECMWF-ERA5 (Line 198 up to 209) “The monthly reanalysis ECMWF-ERA5 data was available in Copernicus Climate Data Store [13]. The ECMWF-ERA5 is a global reanalysis produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), which features several improvements over its predecessor, the ERA-Interim. In terms of grid spacing, the ECMWF-ERA5 has a horizontal resolution of 31 km, compared to the 80 km of the ERA-Interim. Moreover, ECMWF-ERA5 includes an enhanced vertical resolution and hourly output, in contrast to the six-hourly output of the ERA-Interim. Additionally, the ECMWF-ERA5 incorporates a 4D-Var data assimilation system, representing an advancement over the ERA-Interim. Regarding physical parameterizations, ECMWF-ERA5 integrates the HTESSEL land surface scheme, which has seen significant improvements over the ERA-Interim, including an enhanced representation of hydrology, the introduction of soil texture maps, and improved snow cover parameterization. Furthermore, ECMWF-ERA5 benefits from the ongoing development in all-weather condition assimilation, including the successful extension to microwave humidity data [13].” In RCMs (Line 223 up to 227) “This study was performed by three RCMs from CORDEX-CORE [16]. The RegCM4.7 was nested in three GCMs outputs (HadGEM2-ES, NorESM1-M and MPI-ESM-MR). The RCA4 was nested in five GCMs outputs (HadGEM2-ES, NorESM1-M, MPI-ESM-LR, EC-EARTH and Miroc5), while Remo2009 was nested only in MPI-ESM-LR GCM output. This combination of regional-global models results in nine output data.” Reviewer 1 correction (Line 228 up to 241) - This should be updated as appropriate. It is important to include the physical parameterizations used in the RCMs in Table 1. Answer: Thanks! The physical parameterizations were added. The sentence has been modified to: “The RegCM4 model utilizes various parameterizations to simulate atmospheric and surface processes. The radiation scheme is the NCAR CCM3 [23]. The land surface model scheme employed in RegCM4 is the Biosphere-Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS) [24], while the cloud microphysics description used is based on the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts' Integrated Forecast System (IFS) [25,26,27]. Furthermore, the planetary boundary layer scheme used in the RegCM4 model is the Holtslag planetary boundary layer scheme [28]. Regarding the RCA4 model, the parameterization for radiation is based on the HIRLAM radiation scheme, originally developed for numerical weather prediction purposes [29]. For the surface, the RCA4 model utilizes the BATS surface scheme [30], while the surface scheme used in the model is referred to as the Land-Surface Scheme (LSS) and belongs to the second generation of LSSs [31]. The Remo2009 model features a physical radiation parameterization known as the Morcrette radiation scheme, which is utilized in the ECHAM4 general circulation model [32]. Furthermore, the model incorporates a cloud microphysics scheme named PCI [33], and [34] have developed a global dataset of land surface parameters (LSP).” Reviewer 1 correction - The bias in Figures 2 and 4-7 would be better represented with a colorbar that is not white-centered and has a smaller range, such as -1 to 1. This would provide a more accurate and vivid representation of the bias. Answer: Thanks! The figures have been redone. The range was reducted to -2 to 2 because the only studied to South America has this range. So, it is important to compare the results obtained with previous studies such as Reboita et al. (2018). Reviewer #2 Reviewer 2 correction - First of all, the English needs a deep review, by a professional reviewer or a native speaker, because some expressions are not usual and sound very strange. Answer: Thanks! The text was reviewed. Reviewer 2 correction - Secondly, the arguments for assuming a reasonable representation are not so clear and the figure quality needs to be improved. Answer: Thanks! The arguments were rewritten. The figures quality was improved. The figure sent in the first version of the article in the .tif extension presented the resolutions desired by the journal, but when added to the .pdf there was a loss of quality. Reviewer 2 correction - Discussions and conclusions are related to the results, but they are a bit vague and general. Answer: The argument below is not in the article. The first discussion in this study is concern about the choice of the ECMWF-ERA5 reanalysis. This choice is based on studies demonstrating its superiority over other reanalysis, including compared to the Era-Interim reanalysis used by Reboita et al. (2018) in a similar study for the same study area. Subsequently, the reanalysis is assessed against observational data. Spatial evaluation of reanalysis against observed data is not commonly conducted in articles, and when such evaluations are performed, they are often done on a point-by-point basis. This represents a unique aspect of our study, as there are no established benchmarks in the literature for comparing our results with those of other studies. This approach aids in understanding how the reanalysis, widely used as observed data in studies in this field, represents observed data in Northeast Brazil. Next, models are assessed in relation to the reanalysis, where it is common to encounter errors that are frequently under-discussed in articles. This article aims to consolidate diverse potential sources of error, covering both model uncertainties and analyses derived from atmospheric systems, among others. The identified errors are consistent with the findings of Reboita et al. (2018), enhancing studies for this region, which are limited in the context of utilizing regional climate models. Finally, the seasonality of wind speed in the Northeast is evaluated and explained through atmospheric systems. Models are assessed using Taylor diagrams for regions with the highest concentrations of wind farms. The model that best approximates the reanalysis is selected based on statistical metrics. This is crucial because, for example, in the study of precipitation in the city of Fortaleza (CE) located in Northeast Brazil, one of the top-performing models chosen to represent precipitation was the RegCM4.7-HadGEM2, similar to our findings regarding wind speed. This is important because accurately representing these two variables can provide insights into other variables and thus simulate future scenarios with less uncertainty (an objective of a forthcoming study). Lastly, the models with the lowest uncertainties were used to calculate wind power density for the past. Despite such results being included in atlas, it generally do not calculate wind power density using models and therefore cannot simulate the future. This article opens up opportunities to compute wind potential for the future, which is significant for the academic community. From here on, the responses will be according to the PDF. Reviewer 2 correction (Lines 32 up to 35) - Specific comments: Not so high correlation values, which means that the variability is not so well represented... Answer: Thanks! “The results were satisfactory, with strong correlation in areas of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte (except in SON season), and some differences in relation to the wind intensity registered by observed data, mainly for JJA season.” - the phrase was changed. The argument below is not in the article. Strong correlation in our specific areas, particularly in Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte, which exhibit the highest wind power density, has been observed. The reanalysis chosen is supported by numerous articles demonstrating its superiority over others, for instance, ERA5 outperforms Era-Interim, as used in Reboita et al. (2018) study in the same area. This represents the first study utilizing this observed database for the reanalysis. Further studies are needed to address why the variability is not well represented. Reviewer 2 correction (Line 46) - “this can be found in wind atlas, and it's not new” Answer: The argument below is not in the article. This topic was argued above: the atlas calculates wind power density based on observed data. This study calculates wind power density using selected models in areas with the highest concentrations of wind farms and the lowest uncertainties relative to the ECMWF-ERA5 reanalysis. This enables the projection of wind power density into the future, which is not seen in wind atlas. Future projection is part of the objectives of a forthcoming article. Reviewer 2 correction (Line 160) - what is this? this information should add something to the reader? Answer: Thanks! The information was removed. “Borborema (yellow): the region of the Borborema plateau that covers the states of Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba and the wild landscape (agreste) of Pernambuco, and finally, C-BA (green): comprises the region of central Bahia.” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 177) - atmospheric Answer: Thanks! The word was modified: “This database contains multiple atmospheric variables” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 189 up to 190) - interpolated at horizontal grid points of high resolution 0.25°×0.25° this is a characteristic of the dataset and was not performed by the present authors my suggestion is to re-write the description of the dataset. Answer: Thanks! The sentence has been rewritten “The authors utilized wind speed data at 2m intensity for the period from 1986 to 2005, which was obtained from a dataset with a horizontal resolution of 0.25°×0.25° latitude-longitude covering all of Brazil. This high-resolution dataset was employed as part of the study, but the interpolation process itself was not conducted by the present authors” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 210) - 10 m from the ground. why not "100 m height"? Answer: Thanks! Correction accepted and incorporated throughout the entire article. “10 m from the ground height” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 211) - used to validate the observed data to evaluate ERA5 performance against observed data .it is not the observations that are being validated... Answer: Thanks! Correction accepted: “used to evaluate ERA5 performance against observed data.” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 277 up to 282) - does this extrapolation consider atmospheric stability? Answer: Thanks! The explanation was added: “ Eq (1) is appropriate for neutral stability conditions of the atmosphere. In the NEB, sea winds are expected to present neutral to unstable atmospheric conditions, as demonstrated by climatological data [45] and radiosonde observations [46]. Furthermore, in [10], the equation was employed without separating stability conditions because the study dealt with monthly data and a climate scale, rather than at a micrometeorology scale, similar to the situation in this study.” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 273-274) - height of the die relative to the ground Answer: Thanks! The sentence has been rewritten “ Zr = the height of the die reference point (ex: meteorological station) relative in relation…” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 286 up to 287) - time series of 20 points for statistics are quite short Answer: The sentence was rewritten: “This validation occurred seasonally (with 60 values for each season, covering a period of 20 years) with the wind speed variable at 10 m height.” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 297) - does this word exist? Answer: Thanks! The word was rewritten: The word not exist “wherel”, correct is “where” Reviewer 2 correction (Line 318 up to 319) - table 2 could be removed Answer: Thanks! The table was removed and the citation was retained in the text Reviewer 2 correction (Line 328) - boxplots are monthly Answer: Thanks! The word was corrected “In this analysis, boxplots were constructed to examine monthly. Reviewer 2 correction (Line 342 and 343) - considering the area averages and monthly means, how the authors can say "with the least possible error"? Answer: (1) The expression was rewritten : “This validation process facilitates the calculation of wind power density in these areas with reduced uncertainty [18].” (2) This answer is not in the Article - The objective of the study is to calculate the wind power density with the best RCM in the chosen area from NEB. This study considers a climate scale with monthly data rather than a micrometeorology scale. So, for this objective the area average and monthly means could be able to reduce the uncertainty. Considering the areas and a high resolution of the RCMs the results could reduce the uncertainty. For example, inside of the chosen areas the climate and the wind speed are very similar. In this study we consider only the wind speed value. Considering climate scale, for example, for monthly means the wind speed value is similar for the east and west in the RN area, so the area average could be a good representation. Another point is that the unique spatially study for wind speed in South America is by Reboita et al. (2018). This study will contribute to expanding the literature. Authors are engaged to write new articles, using daily data in the future. Reviewer 2 correction (Line 368 up to 370) - Stimulated e observed Answer: Thanks! The words was rewritten: “Where: Pdata,i is the simulated value o Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviews_Augusto_plos_one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r002
28 May 2024 Decision Letter - Delei Li, Editor PONE-D-24-02304R1Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent pastPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gurgel, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2024 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, Delei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) ******** 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Although my suggestions were incorporated into the manuscript and the English was improved, the text still needs some language verification and some discussion/explanation about the following topic: -> is the variability not important for a wind farm? This question was firstly posed in the context of the use of monthly data information against high-frequency variability. A paragraph on that could be included in the discussion section. Please note that this topic can also be directly related to a second aspect mentioned in the cover letter and included into the text: "Reanalysis provides the average of the variable over a time interval, impacting the estimation of maximum and minimum values.", which is related to the relative low performance of ERA5 in SON. So, there is some missing variability in the high frequency as well as in the monthly averages. How do manage with that when considering future projection, for instance? Moreover, equation 8 is not correct, simply because the denominator should be (273.15 + T), I mean, the "T" is not added to the prior fraction, being is part of its denominator. Please correct. ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r003
Revision 2
18 Jun 2024 Author Response Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent past Answers Reviewer #2 1) Although my suggestions were incorporated into the manuscript and the English was improved, the text still needs some language verification. Answer: Thanks! The English was improved. If needs more improve, please select the sentences. 2) some discussion/explanation about the following topic: -> is the variability not important for a wind farm? This question was firstly posed in the context of the use of monthly data information against high-frequency variability. A paragraph on that could be included in the discussion section. Please note that this topic can also be directly related to a second aspect mentioned in the cover letter and included into the text: "Reanalysis provides the average of the variable over a time interval, impacting the estimation of maximum and minimum values.", which is related to the relative low performance of ERA5 in SON. So, there is some missing variability in the high frequency as well as in the monthly averages. How do manage with that when considering future projection, for instance? Answer: Thanks! A paragraph was written in conclusion section. 3) Moreover, equation 8 is not correct, simply because the denominator should be (273.15 + T), I mean, the "T" is not added to the prior fraction, being is part of its denominator. Please correct. Answer: The equation was corrected Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviews_Augusto_plos_one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r004
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Delei Li, Editor Wind power density in areas of Northeastern Brazil from regional climate models for a recent past PONE-D-24-02304R2 Dear Dr. Gurgel, 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. 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Delei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r005
Formally Accepted
16 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Delei Li, Editor PONE-D-24-02304R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gurgel, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Delei Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307641.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .