Altitude Correction of GCM-Simulated Precipitation Isotopes in a Valley Topography of the Chinese Loess Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of sustainability-2554220

Altitude correction of GCM-simulated precipitation isotopes in a valley topography of the Chinese Loess Plateau

This paper cannot be considered for publication due to the following issue. In case, the authors have addressed the following issues properly, it can be sent for revision again.

Critical points:

-          As stated by the authors “we assess the accuracy of the isotope-incorporated Global Spectral Model version “, this cannot be introduced the main contribution of this study. The authors need to clarify their contribution and novelty of their work.

-          “2011-2014 are acquired from Chen [21].” and Table 1, why did the authors use not recent data? This is a very important issue since the authors require to recommend some future works.

-          How could the authors justify the poor results provided for the simulated monthly average oxygen isotop (Table 2).

-          Results presentation is rather weak. More explanations should be given regarding the results.

-          Discussion section needs fundamental changes. Recent papers should be considered for comparing the results of this study and other realted works. Also, detailed information and expression should be given in the discussion section.

 

Some other issues:

 

Abstract:

Quantify the results. How much improvement of the RMSE, MAE, and etc.

Introduction:

Update the literature review. I would like to see more recent studies related to this topic.

Material and methods:

“the annual mean precipitation amount is usually about 300 mm”, average on what period?

“2011-2014 are acquired from Chen [21].” why did the authors use

Methods:

Provide references for the statistical measures

The quality of figures (e.g., Fig 2) should be enhanced technically and graphically.

In Table 2, what is RMSE (%0) and MAE and MBE (%0)?

Results:

What problems have been solved in the study area based on these findings.

 

 

Review of sustainability-2554220

Altitude correction of GCM-simulated precipitation isotopes in a valley topography of the Chinese Loess Plateau

This paper cannot be considered for publication due to the following issue. In case, the authors have addressed the following issues properly, it can be sent for revision again.

Critical points:

-          As stated by the authors “we assess the accuracy of the isotope-incorporated Global Spectral Model version “, this cannot be introduced the main contribution of this study. The authors need to clarify their contribution and novelty of their work.

-          “2011-2014 are acquired from Chen [21].” and Table 1, why did the authors use not recent data? This is a very important issue since the authors require to recommend some future works.

-          How could the authors justify the poor results provided for the simulated monthly average oxygen isotop (Table 2).

-          Results presentation is rather weak. More explanations should be given regarding the results.

-          Discussion section needs fundamental changes. Recent papers should be considered for comparing the results of this study and other realted works. Also, detailed information and expression should be given in the discussion section.

 

Some other issues:

 

Abstract:

Quantify the results. How much improvement of the RMSE, MAE, and etc.

Introduction:

Update the literature review. I would like to see more recent studies related to this topic.

Material and methods:

“the annual mean precipitation amount is usually about 300 mm”, average on what period?

“2011-2014 are acquired from Chen [21].” why did the authors use

Methods:

Provide references for the statistical measures

The quality of figures (e.g., Fig 2) should be enhanced technically and graphically.

In Table 2, what is RMSE (%0) and MAE and MBE (%0)?

Results:

What problems have been solved in the study area based on these findings.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. The specific modification details are in the uploaded Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is pretty short and does not say very much and deals with only a relatively minor issue, but it is put together ok and requires only minor changes. These are mainly marked on the scanned pdf, please look at these comments. You need to say something more about the model in the methods section. You need to expand the discussion section, there is nothing here - i have indicated on the pdf what elements you should include here. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The specific modification details are in the uploaded Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf