Projection of Meteorological Dryness/Wetness Evolution Based on Multi-Model Scenarios in Poyang Lake Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript analyzed the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) to understand the future meteorological dryness/wetness changes in the Poyang Lake Basin (PLB) from 2021 to 2100 based on the projections of three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenarios of three climate models of CMIP6. it is interesting and important. It need minor revision before accepted.
Some suggestions:
1. Introduction：It is suggested that the paragraph second and the third paragraph exchange positions, and firstly introduces the research progress of climate change, and then introduce Poyang Lake.
2. Add CMIP6 simulations process.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Projection of meteorological dryness/wetness evolution based on multi-model scenarios in Poyang Lake Basin, China”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion with tracked changes is marked in the revised manuscript. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
(1) Introduction: It is suggested that the paragraph second and the third paragraph exchange positions, and firstly introduces the research progress of climate change, and then introduce Poyang Lake.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE
The positions of the original second and third paragraphs have been exchanged in the revised manuscript, and the relevant language logic has been adjusted.
(2) Add CMIP6 simulations process.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 172-179)
Added relevant content on the CMIP6 simulation process in the revised manuscript.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some tracked changes marked in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We earnestly appreciate the Editors' and Reviewers’ warm work and hope the correction will be approved. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
Reviewer 2 Report
I enjoyed reading article, it contains novelty and according to scope of the journal. I recommend to editors to publish this work in the journal after addressing some issues.
Please write about problem identification or need of study in the introduction section.
I recommend to write study gaps, main contributions of the study and research questions at the end of introduction section.
The first sentence of third paragraph of introduction must be updated and modified with given studies [1-3] as “Climate change will have a significant impact on the natural ecosystem and production systems, and increase the probability of hydrological extreme events, making flood and drought mitigation more challenging [1-3].
[1] Projection of precipitation extremes over South Asia from CMIP6 GCMs
[2]Spatiotemporal Analysis of Meteorological and Hydrological Droughts and Their Propagations
[3]Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan
Please write structure of article at the end of introduction section.
I recommend to write a separate section for discussion where authors can compare the study findings with previous literature.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Projection of meteorological dryness/wetness evolution based on multi-model scenarios in Poyang Lake Basin, China”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion with tracked changes is marked in the revised manuscript. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
(1) Please write about problem identification or need of study in the introduction section.
I recommend to write study gaps, main contributions of the study and research questions at the end of introduction section.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 123-129)
Study gaps, main contributions of the study and research questions have been added at the end of the introduction section in the revised manuscript.
(2) The first sentence of third paragraph of introduction must be updated and modified with given studies [1-3] as “Climate change will have a significant impact on the natural ecosystem and production systems, and increase the probability of hydrological extreme events, making flood and drought mitigation more challenging [1-3].
[1] Projection of precipitation extremes over South Asia from CMIP6 GCMs
[2] Spatiotemporal Analysis of Meteorological and Hydrological Droughts and Their Propagations
[3] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 42-44)
The relevant content has been revised according to the suggestions of the reviewer. The reference [1-3] suggested by the reviewer is numbered [2-4] in the manuscript.
(3) Please write structure of article at the end of introduction section.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines137-140)
The article structure has been added at the end of the introduction.
(4) I recommend to write a separate section for discussion where authors can compare the study findings with previous literature.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 403-435)
A discussion section has been added to the revised manuscript.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some tracked changes marked in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We earnestly appreciate the Editors' and Reviewers’ warm work and hope the correction will be approved. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
Reviewer 3 Report
(1) Lack of description of observational data in the manuscript.
(2) Lack of explanation of downscaling in the manuscript.
(3) There are many GCMs, why choose BCC-CAM2, MRI-ESM and NESM?
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Projection of meteorological dryness/wetness evolution based on multi-model scenarios in Poyang Lake Basin, China”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion with tracked changes is marked in the revised manuscript. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
(1) Lack of description of observational data in the manuscript.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 192-196)
The description of the observation data has been supplemented in section 2.2. The observation data during 1961—2014 are from 15 meteorological stations in the Poyang Lake basin, which are used to calibrate CMIP6 data.
(2) Lack of explanation of downscaling in the manuscript.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 197-198)
A description of downscaling has been added to Chapter 2.2. This paper constructs a dataset with 0.25 °×0.25° accuracy by bilinear interpolation.
(3) There are many GCMs, why choose BCC-CAM2, MRI-ESM and NESM?
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 185-187; lines 426-435)
The reasons for choosing these three GCMs were added in Chapter 2.2 and Discussion.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some tracked changes marked in the revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We earnestly appreciate the Editors' and Reviewers’ warm work and hope the correction will be approved. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript presented for review contains an interesting threat forecast for drought in Poyang Lake Basin. The authors analyzed the time changes of the SPI index and SPEI index.
General comments:
- According to the reviewer, the work would be more valuable if the authors presented the temporary changes of the SPI index and SPEI index in 1961-2020 determined on the basis of data from measurements at meteorological stations (including the reference period recommended by WMO),
- The study lacks a comparison of the results obtained with the results of other authors (discussion),
- The authors provide air temperature values with an accuracy of 0.01oC while the recommended measurement accuracy is 0.1oC. Of course, this attention does not apply to time changes (trends).
Detailed comments:
- In chapter 2.2. (DATASETS), according to the reviewer, should be taken into account by the analysis of historical data from meteorological measurements,
- line 145: Historical data should cover the period by 2020,
- Chapters 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.: What meteorological variables are taken to calculate SPEI and SPI?
- What is the source of the classification given in Table 2?
The presented manuscript contains very interesting research material. The presented problem is very important due to the current climate change.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Projection of meteorological dryness/wetness evolution based on multi-model scenarios in Poyang Lake Basin, China”. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion with tracked changes is marked in the revised manuscript. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
General comments
(1)- According to the reviewer, the work would be more valuable if the authors presented the temporary changes of the SPI index and SPEI index in 1961-2020 determined on the basis of data from measurements at meteorological stations (including the reference period recommended by WMO),
RESPONSE:
To compare the changes in climate in future periods compared to historical periods, we selected climate variables from both periods from the CMIP6 dataset. Because 2015-2020 belongs to the future period in the CMIP6 dataset, we have omitted this period when calculating SPI and SPEI.
(2)- The study lacks a comparison of the results obtained with the results of other authors (discussion),
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 403-435)
A discussion section has been added to the revised manuscript.
(3)- The authors provide air temperature values with an accuracy of 0.01℃ while the recommended measurement accuracy is 0.1℃. Of course, this attention does not apply to time changes (trends).
RESPONSE:
In the revised manuscript, we use an accuracy of 0.1 ℃ to describe the measurement temperature and an accuracy of 0.01 ℃ to describe the temperature variation according to your advice.
Detailed comments:
(1)- In chapter 2.2. (DATASETS), according to the reviewer, should be taken into account by the analysis of historical data from meteorological measurements,
RESPONSE:
Considering the comparison of climate change between historical and future periods under the same data source, we all used CMIP6 data for analysis.
(2)- line 145: Historical data should cover the period by 2020,
RESPONSE:
In the precipitation and temperature dataset provided by CMIP6, the historical period data covers January 1850 to December 2014. The climate variables from January 2015 to December 2020 belong to the future period dataset. Therefore, our historical period data does not include the years 2015-2020
(3)- Chapters 2.3.1. and 2.3.2.: What meteorological variables are taken to calculate SPEI and SPI?
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 206-207; line 237)
SPI is calculated using precipitation (P), while SPEI is calculated using precipitation (P) and temperature (T). It has been explained in the revised manuscript.
(4)- What is the source of the classification given in Table 2?
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 241)
The classification sources for Table 2 have been added to the revised manuscript.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some tracked changes marked in the revised manuscript which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We earnestly appreciate the Editors' and Reviewers’ warm work and hope the correction will be approved. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have succefully address all the raised questions, I have no further question. The manuscript is ready for publications.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments and agreement to publish this manuscript.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
[email protected]
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
Reviewer 3 Report
The SPEI method has been described in many papers (i.e., A multimodel assessment of drought characteristics and risks over the Huang-Huai-Hai River basin, China, under climate change). It is suggested that the authors remove this section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comment on our manuscript. This comment is helpful for further revising the manuscript. We have studied the comment carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion with tracked changes is marked in the revised manuscript. The major corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
(1) The SPEI method has been described in many papers (i.e., A multimodel assessment of drought characteristics and risks over the Huang-Huai-Hai River basin, China, under climate change). It is suggested that the authors remove this section.
RESPONSE: CHANGES MADE (lines 177-178)
The calculation process of the SPEI method has been deleted in the revised manuscript. Added references on SPEI calculations.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some tracked changes marked in the revised paper. We earnestly appreciate your warm work and hope the correction will be approved. Once again, thank you very much for your comment and suggestion.
Sincerely，
Tianyu Zhang
China Meteorological Administration Economic Transformation of Climate Resources Key Laboratory
