|I think this revised version of the manuscript has been improved in clarity as compared to the original version. However, I'm still not quite satisfied with the authors' response to my two major concerns in my previous review. |
1. I still feel that the inclusion of the uncoupled WRF run in the comparison is a bit confusing and distracting. Since the focus is on the effects of including waves in SKRIPS (based on the title, abstract and the two goals described in the introduction), it may make more sense to start from the atmosphere-ocean coupled version of SKRIPS. The standalone WRF simulation may be used as a reference. But it would be good to focus on the comparison between CPL.AO and CPL.AOW in the main results and conclusions. If the authors also want to highlight the changes due to air-sea coupling (as mentioned in their response to my previous comments), it might be helpful to discuss in more detail what is the role of air-sea coupling here. But I think such discussion may be quite distracting.
2. The added explanation of the unintuitive results of VR12-MA in Section 5.2 is not satisfactory. In fact, the argument of reduced velocity shear due to enhanced diffusivity of momentum also applies to LF17 -- the same Langmuir enhancement factor in VR12-MA is applied in LF17 as well. So the increased bulk Richardson number due to reduced |u_r-u|^2 should also occur in LF17 -- indeed in Fig 11(d) the same reduction in surface velocity shear can be seen for LF17 too. I think the suggestion from the Community Comments 1 about the inconsistency of the Lagrangian versus Eulerian currents in the momentum equation and Langmuir turbulence parameterization may explain this unintuitive result of VR12-MA. In both Li et al., 2016 and Li et al., 2019, VR12-MA (also LF17) was not used together with Stokes Coriolis. Their assumption (see the notes in Table 1 of Li et al., 2019) was that the simulated velocity is Lagrangian so implicitly it is the Lagrangian shear that is used to compute |u_r-u|^2 in KPP. Since the vertical shear of Stokes drift is strongest near the surface and often roughly aligns with the wind, the Eulerian velocity shear is much reduced when Stokes-Coriolis force is included in the momentum equation. This is consistent with what the authors saw in their simulations in Fig. 11(d) with reduced surface velocity shear in both VR12-MA and LF17 as compared to NoLT. I'd suggest the authors run two more simulations without Stokes-Coriolis and Stokes-advection terms (i.e., only Langmuir turbulence parameterization of VR12-MA and LF17). I guess one may see deeper MLD and cooler SST along the cyclone track in both cases, but more MLD deepening and SST cooling in LF17 than shown here.
L8-10: Given that the focus of this study is on including waves in SKRIPS (suggested by the title), I still feel it is not necessary and is really confusing to put any emphasize on the difference between coupled model and standalone WRF. Perhaps rephrase to use the difference between the stand-alone WRF and ocean-atmosphere coupled simulations as a reference to describe how large the impact of including surface waves in these experiment is?
L49-54: These discussions seem to divert the purpose of this manuscript to test the coupled model? I think it is already widely accepted that accurately modeling tropical cyclones is important but challenging.
L80-84: I understand that the added text here is to address one of the reviewer's comments. But it seems a bit confusing and distracting. Perhaps rephrase? For example, by "overestimate the strength of surface currents" on L81, do the authors mean overestimating the currents that are dynamically important for waves in WW3, which shouldn't be the surface currents?
L89-90: What do the authors mean by "surface Stokes drift forces"?
L95: What do the authors mean by "surface boundary fields"?
L100-102: So the three components are all on the same grid? Perhaps mention briefly the possible uses in the future?
L116: By using Breivik et al., 2014, it means the total Stokes transport (vertically integrated Stokes drift) is also needed to be passed from WW3 to MITgcm to reconstruct the Stokes drift profile, not only the surface Stokes drift as mentioned on L77?
L115-121: It is not entirely clear from this discussion why approximation is necessary for the Stokes drift profile as it can be computed in WW3. The problem is passing the Stokes drift profile from WW3 to MITgcm, right?
L127-132: I didn't follow the reasoning here...
L133-134: Didn't follow this sentence as well...
L137: It is not very clear what "based on the waves" refer to?
L143-144: Not clear why this case is necessary to validate LF17
L144-145: True only if it works...
L186: Not the appropriate citation for computing the wind stress?
L417-421: These same arguments apply to LF17 as well -- in LF17 the same Langmuir enhancement factor is applied to amplify the KPP diffusivity term. In fact, the same reduction in near surface velocity shear can be seen for LF17 in Fig. 11(d).