Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Snowmelt Runoff in Himalayan Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Overall a good study. The past observed data of rainfall, minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and snow-covered areas should be analysed to derive realistic future scenarios of temperature, rainfall and snow cover changes.
2. Simulated flows, in general, are higher than the observed flows especially in the higher flow region, except for one year. The calibration should be retried so that the fit in the higher flow region is better, otherwise, the authors will end up with an unrealistic overestimation of flows in future scenarios. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article bearing the title “Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Snowmelt Runoff in Himalayan Region” is an interesting topic which is more suitable to the Water journal of MDPI.

But my major concern is that same model and same data period has already been used in a previous study, so it just appears a repetition of previous study given in the link of comment 1 and 2. Even some figures are copied from that previously published article without citing its source. This the major concern on the basis of which I would not recommend its publication.

Other comments are given below:

1. Does the authors have copy right of the figure 1, which is already published in the article “Implications of Shrinking Cryosphere Under Changing Climate on the Streamflows in the Lidder Catchment in the Upper Indus Basin, India” at following web address: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1657/AAAR0014-088

 

2. Same model with almost same data period is already applied for the given study area as well as climate change projection in “Implications of Shrinking Cryosphere Under Changing Climate on the Streamflows in the Lidder Catchment in the Upper Indus Basin, India” at following web address: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1657/AAAR0014-088.

What is novelty of this manuscript?

3. Glacier melt flow contribution is not identified neither discussed. Glacier cover is not taken into consideration under the climate change scenarios as well, why?
4. Page 2 line 47-48 & 78, in the introduction author mentioned that the snow cover decrease is reported in the previous studies but currently authors used the scenarios of 20% increase in snow cover. Why is this scenario different from background studies?
5. Page 2, line 83-86, the objective and novelty is not clear as many researchers already simulated SRM in this basin, then what is different?
6. Introduction section need rewrite in which authors should include the international studies related to snow cover similar to this region as well as High Mountain Asia? Some of relevant published work is given below:
   10. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00267-014-0361-4.pdf
   11. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011WR011590
   12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105402
7. Page 3, figure 1, also include glaciers and elevation of this basin into figure to make it easier to understand the topography of this region for readers of the journal
8. Page 10, line 325, the author describe that the model slightly overestimates the discharge value; however, the reasons behind the overestimation as compared with other regions is not discussed. Overestimation is too much for high discharge (almost 400 m³/sec) in Figure 4.
9. Page 15, line 455, the SRM model is considered best for this basin, but many other researchers also highlight the glaciers, please also give conclusion considering the glaciers and snow fed river runoff.
10. The discussion section can be improved with current results compare with others researchers results.
11. Figures 4-10: Replace “simulated discharge” with only “Discharge” on Y-axis label. Because it indicates both the simulated and observed.
12. Overall, there are many grammatical mistakes and it should be checked thoroughly for English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The introduction should mention some recent studies on use of SRM model for glacier-snow melt modelling.
2. Snow cover variation during different seasons as observed from satellite data may be represented in a simplified manner to show the trend.
3. Temperature variability and trend analysis may be performed to understand the projected scenario compatibility with actual observed field station data for a period of minimum 30 years.
4. The scenario with 2020, 2050 and 2080 need justification as previous studies show decreasing snow melt with increasing temperature trends.
5. On what basis the authors predicts increasing snowfall with rise in temperature in the kashmir valley.     
6. The finding of the studies and projections shown need comparison with other studies from Himalaya to justify the outcomes on regional context. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

no comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks so much for your appreciation.