Perspective Impact on Water Environment and Hydrological Regime Owing to Climate Change: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
after the changes, the manuscript is slightly better. It only provides an overview of the impact of climate change on water resources, but it is still important.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
after the changes, the manuscript is slightly better. It only provides an overview of the impact of climate change on water resources, but it is still important.
Answer: Thank you so much for your feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors,
Thank you for significant improves made based on reviewers' recommendations.
Nevertheless, it would be appropriate of you could refer in Introduction to the more recent literature. You are referring to NASA 2010 in line 40, for example there is a World meteorological organization (an UN specialized agency), no reference is given for figures for the year 2021, you could include https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11178.
In “Driving forces behind climate change” in paragraph with line 84 it would be appropriate to refer to IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)
(https://wg1.ipcc.ch/index.php/ar6/sixth-assessment-report-ar6) and to UNFCCC (https://unfccc.int/)
rather than use the wording “certain individuals”.
Line 335, there is an empty reference bracket.
Kind regards
Author Response
Reviewer 2#
Dear Authors,
Thank you for significant improves made based on reviewers' recommendations.
Nevertheless, it would be appropriate of you could refer in Introduction to the more recent literature. You are referring to NASA 2010 in line 40, for example there is a World meteorological organization (an UN specialized agency), no reference is given for figures for the year 2021, you could include https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11178.
In “Driving forces behind climate change” in paragraph with line 84 it would be appropriate to refer to IPCC report Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)
(https://wg1.ipcc.ch/index.php/ar6/sixth-assessment-report-ar6) and to UNFCCC (https://unfccc.int/)
rather than use the wording “certain individuals”.
Line 335, there is an empty reference bracket.
Kind regards.
Answer: Thank you so much for your important suggestions. We have added the recent literature in the introduction. We have also cited World meteorological organization and IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) as well (please see lines 40-44 and 82-85 in Hydrology-1983992R1). Moreover, the empty bracket has been removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Review of the paper ‘Perspective Impact on Water Environment and Hydrological Regime owing to Climate Change’
The problem is very interesting and important because climate change (cc) impacts hydrology in many aspects.
However, the content of the paper is very difficult to follow because too many issues are tackled and it went in too many directions. Therefore I recommend rejecting the paper.
My comments:
11. There is a disagreement between the title and the content of the paper. The title suggests that the impact of cc on water+hydrology (cc-> water+hydr. relation) is reviewed. But the paper and the abstract start from a wide discussion of causes of climate change (driving forces -> cc) while the relation cc-> water+hydr. follows only later. The content of the most of the Section 2 strayed from the subject., eg. section 2.5 does not contribute (or weak) to the main relation cc-> water+hydr.
It is not necessary to discuss ‘all problems related to climate change’ because you may never stop.
22. In my opinion, to make the paper more compact, concise and interesting for potential readers, the relation: driving forces-> cc should be shortened and much (most) of its part removed while the relation: cc-> water+hydr. should be developed to make the paper worth to publish in ‘Hydrology’. Then the authors can discuss more issues concerning the impact of cc on water+hydrology.
33. I have also comments about the relation cc-> water+hydr. (sections 3 and 4), namely:
aa. In Fig 7 only future consequences based on climate simulations were depicted. Why were the current (observed today) consequences not shown? They were included in Table 4.
bb. I suggest each consequence to be discussed exhaustively first and the papers that highly contribute to the main findings to be cited afterwards.
In the present version each section about impact on water+hydr. is relatively short and then in Table 4 some examples are cited with main results. It seems the Table 4 contains some citations from the papers presented but the reader does not know whether the results are site-specific or general and what was the key of the selection of these papers. Eg findings from the papers 108, 109 are site-specific while 111, 112 are general.
The content of the Table 4 is interesting but it seems to me it is not well structured. Maybe it would be better to provide only general findings while the site-specifics to place in the section with examples? But the authors should decide so that the content is clear.
Moreover each topic from Table 4 should be discussed in the Section 4. Now they are lacking eg. extreme events are not discussed at all while only some findings are provided in Table 4.
Author Response
Reviewer 3#
Review of the paper ‘Perspective Impact on Water Environment and Hydrological Regime owing to Climate Change’
The problem is very interesting and important because climate change (cc) impacts hydrology in many aspects.
However, the content of the paper is very difficult to follow because too many issues are tackled and it went in too many directions. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the paper.
Answer: Thank you for your constructive comments. We have addressed all the comments and suggestions and significantly improved the manuscripts. We have added some most relevant and specific content which supports the title and is very easy to follow (please see lines 203-215, 231-245, and Fig. 4-column-remarks in Hydrology-1983992R1).
My comments:
- There is a disagreement between the title and the content of the paper. The title suggests that the impact of cc on water+hydrology (cc-> water+hydr. relation) is reviewed. But the paper and the abstract start from a wide discussion of causes of climate change (driving forces -> cc) while the relation cc-> water+hydr. follows only later. The content of the most of the Section 2 strayed from the subject., eg. section 2.5 does not contribute (or weak) to the main relation cc-> water+hydr.
It is not necessary to discuss ‘all problems related to climate change’ because you may never stop.
Answer: Thank you so much for your comments. We have modified the abstract to align well with the title (please see lines 11,12 in Hydrology-1983992R1). We have squeezed section 2 and removed heading 2.5 (please see lines 11,12 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
- In my opinion, to make the paper more compact, concise and interesting for potential readers, the relation: driving forces-> cc should be shortened and much (most) of its part removed while the relation: cc-> water+hydr. should be developed to make the paper worth to publish in ‘Hydrology’. Then the authors can discuss more issues concerning the impact of cc on water+hydrology.
Answer: Thank you so much for your comments. We have shortened section 2 (climate change drivers) (please see lines 81-146 in Hydrology-1983992R1) and added some extra data to develop a comprehensive relationship between climate change and its impact on water and hydrologic regime (please see lines 204-215,231-245 and Table 4 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
- I have also comments about the relation cc-> water+hydr. (sections 3 and 4), namely:
- In Fig 7 only future consequences based on climate simulations were depicted. Why were the current (observed today) consequences not shown? They were included in Table 4.
- I suggest each consequence to be discussed exhaustively first and the papers that highly contribute to the main findings to be cited afterwards.
In the present version each section about impact on water+hydr. is relatively short and then in Table 4 some examples are cited with main results. It seems the Table 4 contains some citations from the papers presented but the reader does not know whether the results are site-specific or general and what was the key of the selection of these papers. Eg findings from the papers 108, 109 are site-specific while 111, 112 are general.
The content of the Table 4 is interesting but it seems to me it is not well structured. Maybe it would be better to provide only general findings while the site-specifics to place in the section with examples? But the authors should decide so that the content is clear.
Moreover, each topic from Table 4 should be discussed in the Section 4. Now they are lacking e.g., extreme events are not discussed at all while only some findings are provided in Table 4.
Answer: Thank you so much for your detailed comment. Taking your suggestions into account, we have made the following improvements to the manuscript;
(a)In the climate simulation, the predicted (projected) indices are simulated using the observed data (metrological station data); moreover, both predicted and observed data are used for hydrologic simulation. In Fig. 7, we have mentioned both data (simulated and observed) (please see Fig. 7 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
(b)We have added more data to discuss each consequence exhaustively and cited the most relevant and state-of-the-art research (please see lines 203-215 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
-We have added some extensive reviews and remarks to highlight climate change’s impact on water resources and the hydrologic regime. Each response is discussed separately and very specific (please see lines 203-215 and 231-245 in Hydrology-1983992R1). Moreover, table 4 has been restructured, and an extra column has been added to the table. This remarks column segregates the very relevant outcomes to support the aim of the research (please see table 4 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
-We added some extra lines to discuss each response separately and comprehensively (please see lines 203-215 in Hydrology-1983992R1).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper mainly reviews the literature and research in a rather generalized way. However, it is still very interesting and valuable. To make it more reliable, it would also be necessary to present in chapter 2: "Driving forces behind climate change" natural factors of climate change. It was only mentioned in line 78. So it's worth doing a literature review here, it is unfortunately often omitted.
In Figure 4: Methodological framework to evaluate climate change impacts on hydrological regimes, it is worth noting that calculations of water resources, especially groundwater resources, are often based on real measurement data from meteorological stations. On the basis of long measurement sequences, local climatic trends can be determined and appropriately applied to forecasts of changes in water resources. This approximation is much more reliable than downscaled climate projection.
Reviewer 2 Report
See attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
This topic is highly relevant and it deserves to be addressed in this journal, but this paper reads like a chapter in a textbook. It is not clear what is a novelty in this paper. Some of the data is out of date, such as a temperature rise of 0.8, when the WMO report clearly indicate a rise of 1.11 ± 0.13 °C (https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11178)
English editing is highly recommended.
A suggestion: write the article as a wake-up call for urgent adaptation action based on current trends and projections.
Best wishes
