Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review contained in attached Word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments and suggestion on the English are include in the comments on the manuscript above.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Abstract

1. 6-21

Strongly suggest using all present tense in the abstract. Describe work as current, even though the analyses logically must have been concluded prior to writing.

Examples: "Data sequences covering 110 years from 1901 to 2010 are analysed.

Long-term sequences of precipitation and temperature are used to assess the variability of climate extremes, referred to here as polarisation."

"The study shows the existence of trends related to the polarisation of temperature and precipitation phenomena."

The abstract has been corrected

 

 

 

1. 18

Should the significance level be stated as 95%? Is it customary in hydrologic studies to refer to the tail fraction of significance? The reviewer would present this as confidence at the 95% level, but maybe there is a reason for the presentation of 5%.

Correctly 95% is the confidence interval, 5% is the significance level, I will leave it as it is.

 

 

1. 48

"Simultaneously, the "normal" precipitation condition is becoming less frequent."

A word that would be less subjective and accurate than "normal" is "historical". This would avoid the

need to use quotations marks to indicate that the term has to be construed or taken in a certain context (e.g., normal for a given area). Also, it can't be said without qualification that in every catchment/watershed on Earth the normal is becoming less frequent-- not all areas have been

proven to have changing means.

Suggested rewording:

"Simultaneously, the historical precipitation condition in a given area may be becoming less frequent."

I cannot agree here because the word ‘normal’ adequately reflects the intentions of the author of this paper as well as the author of the literature I refer to [44]. The word historical can be misleading. I would like to leave ‘normal’ here. All the more so as these were the suggestions of the reviewers, and I also refer to the definitions in the literature [44].

 

 

1. 52

"Again, the "normal" state of temperatures is becoming increasingly rare."

1) This again uses the word "normal" and has to do so with quotation marks to suggest that this word cannot be taken literally. Suggest using the word "historical" instead.

2) Also, to properly make this statement, it first has to be proven that the historical conditions everywhere are now "rare" before they can be stated to be "increasingly rare". The former condition has not been demonstrated for all global areas or regions, nor have any references been provided to back up such an assertion here. So, suggest either stating, with citations/support, that the historical state of temperature is becoming "rare"--with a quantification of that vague adjective-- all over, or rewording the sentence to not overstate what is known. That is the point of this comment: just be more precise in statements of what appears to be happening. It is not necessary to overstate conditions or changes in them.

Suggestion: "Again, the historical temperature patterns in many areas around the globe are being observed less, with shifts in means and extremes apparent."

 

The normal state can be defined as a condition in which the difference between the trend of amplitude changes (trend(max-min)) and the trend of variability in standard deviation (trend(σ)) is close to zero. In other words, in the normal state, both the maximum and minimum values of the variable, as well as its standard deviations, change at a similar rate and in the same direction. This implies that the variability of the characteristic around its mean and the range (amplitude) of this variability remain in balance, indicating a lack of strong long-term trends leading to significant deviations from a stable state. In practice, the normal state can be described as one where the variability of the studied characteristic does not show a clear trend toward increase or decrease, suggesting that the values of the variable remain within a relatively stable range over time, with differences between extreme values and their variability staying at a similar level.

A detailed description is presented in [44]; the common understanding of an extreme event is based on the assumption that a “normal” state exists. The state of what is considered normal is generally derived from a temporal series of observed conditions.

 

1. 152

Definite article use before NOAA: It would be grammatically correct to say "the NOAA", but in practice the organization is referred to as "NOAA" (without the definite article "the"). So, suggest referring to it as NOAA here and in all subsequent uses (e.g., l. 166, l. 170). The reviewer doesn't know how GPCC/the GPCC is usually referred to, but the same might apply to it.

"An equally-important institution is NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)."

shortened and amended

 

1. 164

The resolution of the dataset should be acknowledged as a limitation. This spacing may result in the grouping together or cross-influence of different watersheds or hydrological or weather/climate zones.

 

I agree; indeed, data resolution can and certainly does impact the analysis. Therefore, to minimize error, this study proposes the use of monthly precipitation totals and average monthly temperatures. The area of one of the smallest catchments in this study, SKJERN A (Europe, Denmark), is calculated to be 1090 km². The area of 0.5°x 0.5° at the latitude of Denmark covers a surface of 3100 km². The location of this catchment, for the calculation of precipitation or temperature, requires considering five neighboring areas of 0.5°x 0.5°. Even with such a small catchment area, precipitation and temperature characteristics are averaged.

 

 

1. 187-189

How were the points that covered each catchment identified in the gridded datasets? Was there a step that created lists of the points in each of the catchment areas? This seems like it would be difficult, as the catchment boundaries are irregular, per Fig. 1.

 

 

The GPCC precipitation data and NOAA temperature data for individual months from 1901 to 2010, calculated based on grid data with a spatial resolution of 0.5°x 0.5° in latitude and longitude, were converted to catchment areas. This process yielded a sequence of monthly data, which became the subject of the analyses presented in this article. GIS interpolation mechanisms were utilized in the spatial analysis of data preparation. The monthly precipitation/average temperature was calculated as a weighted average of the respective characteristic (precipitation/temperature) assigned to the grid elements covering the catchment area, with the weight equal to the area of the grid cell. The interpolation program was written in Matlab by the author.

Fig. Example of the Rhine River catchment with grid objects of 0.5°x 0.5° spatial resolution in latitude and longitude, GPCC/NOAA, covering the catchment area.

 

 

 

 

 

1. 193

Corresponding features of the grid surface elements: What are these? Please clarify in text.

1. 209

Please define what the word normal in quotation marks here means. If the definition is in citation [44], then simply repeat it. If normal refers to the climatological values were for some period of record-- e.g., up to the present year 2024 or some prior year-- please tell readers that this is what it means.

Clarified

 

 

1. 224-225

It would be good to provide citation support for this statement, and perhaps qualify it or note that it applies only to certain areas. Is this true for the globe or just certain areas? For example, some areas are projected to get more consistent precipitation in the future, as opposed to shorter periods of heavier precip. That is, it's not the case that *all* areas can expect longer dry periods in the future.

Citation added.

 

 

1. 233-234

..."by which some areas of the planet become more extreme ..."

It would be better/more accurate to say "...some areas of the planet experience increasing extremes in temperature and/or precipitation."

corrected

 

1. 247-267

While this is all relevant information about polarisation, it does not all need to be said here. It is suggested to edit this to reduce the length. Consider reducing the text in this paragraph by 30-40%.

The text has been shortened and rewritten

 

1. 324

Punctuation correction-- replace colon with period.

"Several other examples of measures can be cited, including the following."

1. 359

It would be clearer to break up this explanation of the formula. Also, it is unclear what this means: "the amplitude of change, range, the evaluated changes or ranges are taken over a selected period of time

(110 years), the difference between the maximum and minimum value of a characteristic- is a measure that characterizes the empirical area of variation of the studied characteristic".

Please rewrite this with short, simple wording for each piece of the formula and what each piece represents.

Example--

"The first measure is defined as follows:

P_1= max-min/s .

Here, max-min is the amplitude of change or the range of the change, where the evaluated changes or ranges are taken over a selected period of time. Here, the period is 110 years. It is difference between the maximum and minimum value of a characteristic. It is a measure that characterizes the empirical area of variation of the studied characteristic. ? is the standard deviation."

1. 403

Again, please present this formula and its description in smaller pieces.

4

Example:

"The second measure is defined as ? =?????(???−???)−?????(?).

Here, ?????(??? − ???) is the trend of the amplitude of changes, the trend of the range, or the trend of the difference between the maximum and minimum value of the variable. It is a measure characterizing the empirical range of variability of the studied feature."

1. 421

Remove period after "...then ?????(?)." It should be "...then ?????(?) also exists and vice versa."

 

The text has been shortened and rewritten

 

 

1. 423

Table 2 is difficult to read. The columns to the left are overwhelmed by the "Impact on climate changes" text, and it is unclear of which text applies to each parameter set-- there are no clear breaks in the text.

It is suggested to format this table differently to improve its readability. One approach would be to separate the five cases into sub-paragraphs. For example, it could have headings showing the parameter combinations, followed by the text.

1. a) Case 1

?????(??? − ???) and ?????(?) >0

tr(RANGE)> tr(SD)

Result: tr(Range)- tr(Sd) >0

"Increasing range of temperature change: A Trend(Range) value greater than..."

1. b) Case 2

?????(??? − ???) and ?????(?) <0

tr(RANGE)< tr(SD) ...

1. 474, 476

Periods are needed after the equation to end the sentences.

 

The text has been corrected

 

1. 492

Please define what "strings" means. What is a string in this context?

Determination of values for long-term monthly sequences over a 110-year period;

 

 

1. 499

Add "and": "the examination of whether the long-term series showed change points using the Pettitt test (PCPT); and".

1. 504

Why is LAGARFLJOT in uppercase? Suggest writing it as Lagarfljot unless there is a reason for the capitals.

1. 520

"This resulted in increased CO2 emissions, rising temperatures and may have caused changes in rainfall patterns."

This statement is speculation, and it would be difficult to prove. It suggests that the local CO2 emissions were responsible for changing the synoptic forcing in the area enough to cause the change in local measured precip. Local CO2 emissions can't be claimed to cause local climate changes without proof. To prove that you should run a global model with and without the marginal increase in CO2 emissions over a subregion of Iceland and generate long-term simulations for analysis. Second, the amount of emissions change to the global system from Iceland's increase in heating oil surely must be miniscule compared to the increases from CO2 producers like China, India, North America, and Europe in since 1953.

 

It should be noted that in the 1950s and 1960s, CO2 emissions in countries such as China, India, the USA, or Russia were significantly lower than they are today. Therefore, local CO2 emissions, for example in Iceland, might have had a more noticeable impact on local climate patterns and could potentially show changes that might be detectable in tests like PCPT. The thesis was added at the express request of the reviewer.

However, even in such a case, caution should be exercised in interpreting the results. Even if global emissions were lower at that time, it is difficult to unequivocally link local emissions to specific climate changes without more advanced analyses, such as climate modeling. The claim that local CO2 emissions alone could lead to changes in synoptic climate conditions in the region would still require evidence, which could only be obtained through precise simulations and analyses. Only such an approach could confirm that local changes in emissions had an impact on local precipitation patterns, particularly in a global context.

 

1. 525

This is just as important a result as one that found change more often. It is important to know if there has not been a precip change in the observations, and results in which changes are not found should behighlighted as much as finding where change is occurring. Both types of findings have significance.

1. 526

Fig 2: What does the label Caribbean Sea placed over western North America refer to? Why isn't this label placed over the Caribbean Sea? Please explain or correct/remove the label.

Also: What is the point of Fig. 2? The significance of the values in the different regions is not discussed. So, can you make statements in the text about the significance of the highest and lowest value ranges seen? This would be helpful to readers. What should readers conclude from looking at Fig. 2?

The text has been corrected

 

 

1. 547

Likewise, for Fig. 3, please say more about the significance of the values in different areas and the patterns of the higher values.

The text has been corrected

 

 

1. 552

Decades can be referred to with numbers; that is customary.

I.e: nineteen-sixties= 1960s

This also applies to the decade references in lines 557 and below.

1. 555

Please begin a new paragraph here: "For the catchments and rivers of Asia...".

1. 562

Begin a new paragraph: "For the catchment areas of South American rivers...".

1. 568

Begin a new paragraph: "For the catchments...".

1. 578, 579-581

It'd be best to end this sentence with a period. The list can stay as it is.

"...are outlined below."

End each regional summary with a period, and modify the text as necessary.

Ex:

Africa: Changes in atmospheric circulation, including fluctuations in the rainfall belt and belt patterns; El Nino and La Nina phenomena; deforestation; overgrazing of animals and changes in land use; and

land degradation, [32], [36].

1. 601

Add this sentence to the previous one to make a paragraph. Avoid 1-sentence paragraphs.

1. 637

Use period: "...changing trends are outlined below."

 

 

1. 638-654

Use semicolons between items in lists (not colons).

The text has been corrected

 

 

1. 656

Correction: "...Figure 8 and Table 7."

1. 746

"Calming of precipitation and temperature anomalies...".

Suggest using "reduction": "Reduction of precipitation...". "Calming" has a connotation that doesn't apply here.

Also: line 749.

1. 752-755

Move this sentence to the previous paragraph or the next paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph. Or, add another statement to it.

1. 798-809

If this is the form of list to be used, replace commas after each item with semicolons, except l. 807, where "and" should be added: "...on the other, [32]; and".

1. 810

Remove bullet before "Causes of polarised temperature phenomena". Format list with semicolons as summarized above.

The text has been corrected

 

 

l 820-832

Format list a summarized above.

The text has been corrected

 

 

 

1. 833, 833-851

Remove bullet. Start a new list. Format list as summarized above.

The text has been corrected

 

 

1. 855

"The following of climate changes suggest that polarisation is becoming more entrenched, ...".

This is unclear.

(1) Should it say, "The results of climate changes suggest that ..."?

(2) Is polarisation already "entrenched"? That is the question to determine, by studies such as this. So, it does not seem correct to say that polarisation is becoming "more entrenched", which presupposes that it is already entrenched. Also, it is unclear how getting "more entrenched" anyway. Something is either

entrenched or it is not; it can't be "more" entrenched.

Correctly stated:

The results of climate change suggest that polarization is becoming increasingly entrenched, with the associated extremes growing more intense and unevenly distributed. Therefore, the analysis of temperature and precipitation polarization is crucial for assessing climate change and its impact on the environment, as well as for developing effective risk management strategies and minimizing human impact on the environment in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.

 

Conclusions

This section should provide a summary of the specific conclusions of the global catchment polarisation analysis. Instead, it gets into listing every possible factor of polarisation found in other studies. The text does not definitively identify the cause of polarisation in any one basin, and listing of all of the possibilities found elsewhere is not really valuable. So, a straighforward, but significant, revision should be to add to the beginning of this section a summary of the key findings of this study that are specifically on to trends in watershed polarisations around the world (e.g., that precipitation and temperature polarisation was found in 11 out of 377 catchments analysed).

Conclusions has been corrected

 

 

 

Thank you for the valuable suggestion.

 

Bernard TWARÓG

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

 

Journal Article Review

Title: Assessing Polarisation of Climate Phenomena Based On Long-Term Precipitation and Temperature Sequences

Comments on Grammar, Style, and Construction:

• The paragraphs of the Introduction chapter are ordered in a way that does not flow very well. The second paragraph introduces the concept of polarisation, after which the topic suddenly switches to the statistical analysis of climate variables, followed by general findings reported by the IPCC according to GCMs in the fourth. The general scope of the fourth paragraph should be placed before the more specific ideas of polarisation introduced in the second, so that you can construct a narrative that narrows your scope down to your specific research question by the end of the Introduction chapter. I recommend reordering your paragraphs to achieve a flow of topics that more naturally progresses to polarisation.
• Cleaned up and corrected. Removed repetitions.
•  
• This manuscript contains many superfluous details that obscure its core objectives. Examples being the amount of detail given to climatology basics, and the history and purpose of GPCC and NOAA in Section 2. Remember to maintain a scientific style that remains focused on what you set out to do with this paper, without getting lost in less pertinent details.
• Repetitions which appeared due to the author's inattention have been removed. The chapter on data processing has been improved and shortened, removing unnecessary information.

 

• This manuscript has a serious repetition issue. Content from previous sections, even in subsequent paragraphs, often is repeated without adding anything new, examples being reiterating the definition of polarisation, the human role in climate change’s impacts, and the social, economic, and environmental impacts of polarisation. All of these things (and more) only need to be written once. There is a lot of very interesting scientific content in this paper which loses focus because of the repetition of basic concepts.

 

 

 

The main theme is polarisation and, by writing about it in different chapters, the author tries to highlight the problem from different angles. This may seem unnecessary, but this is the convention adopted in the article. Repetitions are deleted.

 

 

 

Comments on Scientific Substance:

• Your Abstract could be made stronger by including some of your content from the Conclusions chapter, particularly the causes and effects of polarisation and your study’s implications in the final paragraph. You could make room for this by removing some of the content describing your methods and data (particularly Lines 9 through 14); some of this content feels superfluous for an Abstract.
• When selecting Keywords, it is good practice to make them search terms that other scientists are likely to look up on Google Scholar/Web of Science/etc. The phrase “polarisation of climatic phenomena” is a bit too specific, perhaps “Climate Polarisation” would be better. Also consider capitalizing at least the first word of each Keyword.
• The flow of scientific topics of the Introduction chapter could be improved. Each paragraph communicates a stand-alone set of ideas without transitioning smoothly from one to the next. My best advice for writing Introduction chapters is that the first couple of paragraphs should introduce the big picture (e.g., your paragraphs about the IPCC’s general findings and roles that rivers play in connecting the planet’s spheres should go towards the start) and gradually progressing toward your specific research question (e.g., your paragraphs about polarisation should go towards the end). Each paragraph should end such that it leads into the next. By doing that, you can hold the reader’s hand so they do not get lost among all the important topics that you are discussing.

 

Corrected on the basis of previous comments

The catchment areas are already written about in the executive summary. The article is very extensive computationally and in terms of the ideas presented. It is difficult to find a balanced way of presenting such extensive material.

 

 

• It took until the fifth paragraph of the Introduction chapter for me to realize that the author is evaluating polarisation in river basins. There is no indication within the Title or Abstract that climatology within river basins is the focus of this work. I highly recommend rewriting the Title, Abstract, and Keywords so that reference to river basins being the case study focus is made explicit.
• You spend quite a lot of time in the Introduction chapter explaining climatological and meteorological concepts that are commonly understood (e.g., the findings of the IPCC, explaining the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship). These concepts are important for laying the groundwork for your explanation of what polarisation is, but not to this degree of detail. I recommend focusing more on explaining how polarisation is relevant to river basins, and some of the changes in climate extremes that river basins worldwide have experienced.

The validity of the polarisation phenomenon for river catchments has been completed and corrected. It should be noted, however, that the calculations are on the example of river catchments, which are only a vehicle to exemplify the idea of polarisation. The fact that it has been noted in the catchments does not mean that, for example, in the analysis of urban areas or the analysis of data from measurement points it does not exist.

 

• The main topic at the end of the Introduction chapter needs to be more precisely defined, since it makes no mentioning of river basins being the case study for which polarisation is introduced and assessed.
• You have given quite a lot of superfluous detail in the Preparation of Data for Analysis section. The reader does not need to know about the objectives of the GPCC and NOAA in order to understand your manuscript, therefore I recommend either cutting these details down significantly or removing them.
• Since you are interested in assessing polarisation over river basins specifically, you should spend a paragraph in the Introduction chapter explaining why doing so over river basins is important, and include some literature to back everything up. This would strengthen the motivation of your research and help with more precisely defining what your main topic is at the end of the chapter.

Of course, I am also interested in river catchments, but that is not the essence of this article. The catchment areas are just an example. It was explained earlier.

 

• I’m curious to know where the number “377 river basins” came from on Lines 179-180. Depending on how you define a river basin, this number can be much smaller or much larger, so I think you need to explain how you defined each continental catchment area in Section 2.

377 rivers have been identified by the GPCC as most vulnerable to extreme events.

 

• The relevance of polarisation to river basins needs to be made more explicit throughout the manuscript. Beyond adding to the Introduction chapter to make that connection, the second paragraph of Section 3 is a great place to throw that connection in the reader’s face, since you have already mentioned here how polarisation exacerbates drought and flood risk.

 

Line-By-Line Comments:

• Line 29: Order your in-text citations numerically; correct this throughout the manuscript. Try to avoid lumped referencing throughout the manuscript as well. My advice is to not use more than three papers as in-text citations when making an argument (rather than five papers you have used on this line), so that you do not risk giving the authors of each cited paper less credit than they deserve for their hard work.

The article has been online for about 2 years now. Almost in this form, I would not like to disappoint those I quoted. With the final version, references are given as a range.

 

• Line 32: I am not quite sure what you mean by “the timeliness of these studies”. Are you referring to how recently these studies were published, the performance of climatological studies on multiple temporal scales, or something else? Please be precise in your language choices.

Despite the numerous existing studies and analyses of temporal and spatial characteristics of precipitation and temperature, the value of these studies is increasingly appreciated [xx], especially in the context of documenting the impact of human activities on regional climatic factors [xxx].

Corrected in the text

 

 

• Line 45: Perhaps rephrase “The property of bimodality” as “This bimodal property”, otherwise it reads as though “bimodality” is something distinct from “polarisation”, which I do not think is what you are trying to say here.

 

• Lines 46-48: The frequency and intensity of periods without rainfall (i.e., droughts) would also increase, right? Since you are describing polarised extremes, it would make sense to mention extremity in the opposite direction too.

This is described in the same paragraph

 

• Lines 48-49 and 52: These sentences about “the normal state” can be deleted.
• Lines 55-57: “Polarisation can be described as a change in...” Delete this sentence, you have already adequately explained what polarisation is.
• Lines 63-66: This mentioning of use of statistical analysis to detect climate change and climate trends should be mentioned before you introduce polarisation. See my comment about reordering paragraphs for further details.
• Lines 67-81: The contents of this paragraph are very generalized and high-level, so they should be placed toward the beginning of the manuscript, not after introducing something as specific as polarisation. Much of this paragraph’s content is also common knowledge among climatologists and perhaps does not require as much detail as you have provided here.
• Line 70: “IPCC” is the abbreviation that you established on Line 67, so there is no need to write out “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” on this line.
• Lines 73-74: “increased El Niño” is imprecise wording, consider “more extreme El Niño events” instead.
• Lines 75-76: “The warming of Earth is evident...” this sentence is rather out-of-date (it’s based on a reference from 2007!), especially given the last two years experiencing global average temperature changes topping 1˚C compared to pre-Industrial temperatures. Find a more contemporary reference.

Corrected and updated

 

 

• Line 77: Delete “anomalous values and”.
• Line 79: “various climate variables” is rather awkward wording. “climate variables” should suffice. Also, the acronym for GCMs is “Global Climate Models” or “General Circulation Models”, please correct this.
• Lines 82-83: The sudden switch to discussing river flows is rather awkward, especially since you already established that this paper is about precipitation and temperature extremes. It took until this point for me to realize that you are evaluating polarisation within river basins, so you need to introduce your focus on river basins earlier within the Introduction chapter.
• Line 92: Delete “very”. Avoid use of superlatives in academic writing. Same comment on Line 98 and throughout the manuscript.
• Lines 94-97: Now that I understand that this paper is about climatology within rivers, this content needs to be placed much closer to the front of the Introduction chapter, so that readers understand the spatial context of your research. The references made the polarisation later in this paragraph would be mentioned later in the Introduction chapter once you have adequately explained how climate change impacts river basins (i.e., the content of the previous paragraph).
• Corrected and updated

 

• Lines 104-105: “a process in which certain climatic features become concentrated in two opposing categories”. You already explained what polarisation is a few paragraphs back. I think by restructuring the Introduction chapter as I have recommended in my previous comments, you should be able to avoid this sort of repetition.

The article is after several reviews and some of the insertions have arisen as a result of the reviewers' strong emphasis on sound or suggestions of repetition.

 

• Lines 106-112: Again these are climatological and meteorological concepts that are commonly understood, and do not need to be given as much detail as you have given them. Keep the focus on these high-level concepts light so that you focus more on polarisation and your interest in examining it in the context of river basins.
• Line 109: You are missing a period after “thermal energy”.
• Lines 119-121: “An example of this is the fact that rising temperatures...” this sentence is unnecessary, since you already explained the Clasius-Clapeyron relationship in the previous paragraph.
• Lines 128-130: “The main topic of this study is the analysis of long-term sequences of precipitation and temperature data in terms of the possibility of introducing the concept of polarisation of climate extremes.” You need to make some mention, even in this sentence or a subsequent one, that you are focused on assessing polarisation within river basins.
• Corrected and updated
•  
• Lines 130-132: “Section one reviews the literature and presents the background of the variability of extreme climate events that provide the basis for analysing the polarisation phenomenon.” Delete this sentence.
• If I remove this sentence the sequence is not preserved. This paragraph was written at the express request of one of the reviewers.

 

 

• Line 134: The phrase “in the areas of precipitation and temperature” is vague. Please be specific about what these areas are, being continent-scale river catchment areas.
• Lines 143-159: This first paragraph reads as a history of the institutes that prepared your dataset, not the data themselves. I would consider deleting this entire paragraph, and the first sentence of the next one.
• Lines 160-161: “These items of data are not made available in real time.” Delete this sentence.
• Line 163: “This data corresponds” should be “These data correspond”. The word “data” is plural.
• Line 165: Please correct “GPCCC” to “GPCC”.
• Lines 166-167: You have already defined GPCC and NOAA as acronyms, so there is no need to do this more than once.
• Lines 166-183: The details of this paragraph feel like a continuation of the first paragraph of Section 2, despite the second paragraph giving the details about resolution and dataset length that a reader needs in order to understand your manuscript. Please keep overarching details together and cut them down so that readers can get to the point of your research faster.
• Lines 174-178: “The two institutions use their knowledge and data to assess changes in climate...” Delete these two sentences; they do not add to a reader’s understanding of your research.
• Lines 178-183: “This paper examines global trends in monthly precipitation totals...” These two sentences are very important and need to be placed toward the start of Section 2, rather than giving background on GPCC and NOAA. If you want to include their background, keep it to 3-4 sentences rather than 2-3 paragraphs.
• Line 189: Replace “were converted to catchment areas” with “were calculated over each catchment area”.
• Line 189-191: “In this way, a sequence of monthly data...” Delete the first sentence. In the second sentence, what do you mean by “GIS interpolation mechanisms”? There are quite a few ways in which interpolation can be achieved, so I would either delete this sentence too or make reference to

5

 

 

• how you can tighten your wording to get to the point faster.
• Lines 195-198: “The area of one of the smallest catchments in this study: SKJERN A (Europe, Denmark) is, according to calculations...” I am not sure what point you are trying to make across these three sentences. Is it that you are still able to calculate monthly precipitation and temperature trends for the smallest catchment areas? If so, you should state that explicitly. Also, why specifically the nearest five neighboring grid cells?
• Lines 203-204: “Analyses of temperature data covered the years 1901 to 2010.” Delete this sentence, you already clarified that at the start of this paragraph.
• Corrected and updated

 

 

• Lines 206-218: This whole paragraph is absolutely fantastic, and is the sort of clear and concise verbiage that I was looking for in your Introduction chapter. When you reorder and restructure your Introduction, think about condensing your writing about polarisation in a similar manner to what you have written here in Section 3.
• Lines 223-225: “In addition, there is growing scientific evidence that human activities are influencing climate change...” Delete this sentence.
• Lines 231-236: “This article analyses long-term sequences of precipitation and temperature to assess...” These first three sentences repeat a lot of what you have previously written in Sections 1 and 3, particularly the fact that you have once again defined what polarisation is. I would estimate that this manuscript could be around 150 lines shorter if you removed its repetitive content.
• Lines 241-246: “One of the key advantages of using long-term precipitation and temperature sequences...” You are still discussing polarisation quite abstractly without applying it to how we can better understand the climatology of river basins. If you can rewrite parts of Section 3 like this so that the connection to river basins is made more explicit, that would make Section 3 stronger.
• Lines 247-267: You have discussed the impacts of polarisation previously throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Introduction and in the first two paragraphs of Section 3. I think you should condense all of that discussion of impacts into one paragraph in one part of the paper (perhaps in this paragraph), so that you again avoid repeating yourself and get to the point of your research faster.
• Corrected and updated

 

 

• Lines 268-276: “Polarisation of climate events refers to changes in the intensity and frequency of influential...” Delete this entire paragraph or work its content in to other parts of the manuscript. Everything you have written here is stuff you have already written in previous sections.
• Corrected and updated

 

 

• Lines 279-286: “The concept of measuring climate polarisation is based on measuring the degree of diversity...” these sentences once again reiterate a definition of polarisation that you have given several times, but now you are adding humidity and pressure as variables into your definition. Please be consistent with regards to the variables you are examining; is it just precipitation and temperature that you want to look at, or something else?

 

The article analyses precipitation and temperature values, but it may be noted that polarisation will also occur in other quantities. 

 

 

• Lines 286-287: “This can be calculated...” what is “this”? Always be specific when using words like this/these/those in academic writing. Correct this lack of specificity throughout the manuscript.
• Lines 292-296: “For example, some regions have significant temperature differences between summer and winter...” These lines again revisit the impacts of polarisation that you discussed in Section 3. Please keep all of your impacts condensed into one part of the manuscript rather than revisiting them.

The topic of polarisation analysed in the study is quite new and the ideas presented have not appeared anywhere before. The article has been on the ‘market’ for more than 2 years. I spent about one year convincing one reviewer of the applicability of the concept of polarisation in the sense presented in the article. Another six months of review analysis concerned the metrics used. My oversight is the unstructured nature of the information presented. This may have given a negative impression for which I apologise. However, the ideas and concept presented are by no means the result of AI.

 

 

Thank you for the valuable suggestion.

 

Bernard TWARÓG

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.      The concept of "normal conditions" is indeed relative and can vary depending on the context and purpose of a study or research. In this context, "normal conditions" refer to a baseline or standard set of circumstances that are typical or expected within a specific domain or subject matter. These conditions are often defined to create a reference point for comparing other scenarios, measuring deviations, or assessing the performance of systems, products, or behaviors under expected circumstances. When applied to research, particularly when discussing "normal usage," it becomes essential to define what is meant by "normal." For instance, in product testing, normal usage could refer to the way an average user operates a product within its intended environment and duration. However, this "normal usage" may differ significantly depending on the demographic, environmental conditions, or even cultural factors. Therefore, defining "normal usage" requires a comprehensive understanding of the subject and should be done independently and specifically for the study at hand. This ensures that the findings are relevant and applicable to the intended context. Thus, when defining "normal conditions" in research, it is critical to carefully consider the complete subject, the variables at play, and the intended application of the research. By doing so, researchers can create a robust and meaningful baseline that enhances the validity and applicability of their findings.

2.      The concept of "climate extreme events" is indeed broad and multifaceted, encompassing a wide range of phenomena that can vary significantly depending on the specific focus of the research. Climate extreme events include unusual weather patterns or conditions that differ significantly from the norm, such as heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other severe weather occurrences. Given the broad nature of this concept, it is crucial for the researcher to clearly define what is meant by "climate extreme events" within the context of their specific study. This definition should be tailored to the research objectives, the geographic area of interest, and the type of climate events being analyzed. For example, a study focusing on agricultural impacts might define climate extreme events in terms of temperature and precipitation thresholds that significantly affect crop yields. In contrast, a study on urban resilience might emphasize the frequency and intensity of storms or heat waves. Once the researcher has established a clear definition of climate extreme events, they can then expand their research topic accordingly. This may involve exploring the causes, frequency, and impacts of these events, as well as potential mitigation and adaptation strategies. By grounding the research in a well-defined concept of climate extreme events, researcher can ensure that their work is focused, relevant, and contributes meaningfully to the broader understanding of climate-related challenges.

3.      The concepts of polarization, variability, and changes in climate and climate elements are indeed distinct and should not be conflated. Each term represents a different aspect of how climate and its components are understood and analyzed. In the context of climate, polarization might refer to the growing divide in climate impacts or responses across different regions or populations. For example, some areas might experience severe droughts, while others face frequent flooding. Polarization can also refer to the political or social divide regarding climate change beliefs and actions. Climate variability refers to the fluctuations in climate elements (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) over short to medium time scales, from months to a few decades. Variability is a natural part of the climate system and includes phenomena like El Niño or seasonal shifts. Changes in climate refer to long-term trends or shifts in average climate conditions, often driven by factors like greenhouse gas emissions. This encompasses trends such as global warming, rising sea levels, or shifts in precipitation patterns. Changes in climate elements specifically focus on alterations in temperature, humidity, wind speed, etc., over an extended period. Given these distinctions, it is critical that researchers do not use the same examples to illustrate these different concepts, as they pertain to different phenomena. For instance, variability might be illustrated by the year-to-year fluctuation in hurricane frequency, while changes in climate could be exemplified by the long-term increase in global average temperatures. Polarization, on the other hand, could be exemplified by the differing impacts of climate change on coastal versus inland regions. When developing a general theory or framework, focusing on two or three specific climate elements—such as temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns—allows for a more precise and nuanced explanation. By examining these elements in relation to variability, polarization, and change, researchers can create a more accurate and context-specific understanding of climate dynamics, avoiding oversimplification and enhancing the relevance of their findings. It appears that the explanation provided in the article is lacking in detail and precision, particularly regarding the distinction and application of the concepts of polarization, variability, and changes in climate and climate elements. To improve the clarity and utility of the discussion, the article should more explicitly define each concept, provide clear examples, and elaborate on how these concepts interact and differ within the broader framework of climate studies.

4.      To effectively address the use of static concepts and the range of changes in the article, it's crucial to clarify how these ideas relate to the dynamic nature of climate research. The relationship between polarization, changes, and variability in climate elements should be explicitly articulated to provide a coherent framework for understanding the topic. The article should distinguish between stationary aspects of climate. Stationary concepts might refer to stationary baselines or thresholds, while dynamic aspects involve the ongoing variability and changes in climate elements. A stationary baseline could be the historical average temperature of a region, whereas dynamic aspects would include the fluctuations and long-term trends around that average. The article should address how the range of changes in climate elements (e.g., temperature, precipitation) is assessed. This includes both the extent of short-term variability and the scope of long-term changes. It’s important to discuss the criteria used to define these ranges and how they are measured in relation to the baseline. The article must establish a clear connection between polarization research and the changes and variability in climate elements. In this context, refers to the uneven distribution of climate impacts across different regions, communities, or ecosystems. The relationship between polarization and climatic changes can be explained by how different regions experience varying degrees of change and variability in climate elements. The variability in precipitation patterns could exacerbate polarization, with some areas facing increased droughts while others experience intensified flooding. For example, how does increased variability in temperature and precipitation contribute to the polarization of climate impacts? How do long-term changes in climate elements reinforce or mitigate this polarization? The article should discuss how understanding these interactions is crucial for developing effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. To strengthen the article, it is necessary to move beyond stationary descriptions and incorporate a dynamic perspective that explains the interconnectedness of polarization, changes, and variability in climate elements. By doing so, the article would offer a more comprehensive and nuanced explanation, helping readers grasp the complexities of climate research and the implications of these concepts for real-world outcomes.

5.      To enhance the credibility and depth of the article, it’s essential to provide a comprehensive explanation of the second measure by detailing the process of measurement, validation, analysis, prediction, and control indicators. A simplistic explanation undermines the complexity and rigor that such research demands, so a more thorough and methodical approach is needed. Clearly define what the second measure is, whether it’s a specific climate variable, a socioeconomic factor, or another relevant metric. The definition should be precise, with units and scope well described. Detail the methodology used to measure the variable. For instance, if the measure involves calculating a climate index, explain the formula or algorithm used and why it’s appropriate for the study. Discuss the methods used to ensure that the measurement is accurate and precise. This could involve calibration of instruments, comparison with established benchmarks, or cross-validation with other data sources. Address potential sources of error in the measurement process, and describe how these are accounted for or minimized. For example, if measuring precipitation, consider the impact of instrument drift or environmental interference. Describe the statistical methods applied to analyze the data. If comparing regions, discuss the comparative statistical tests applied. Clarify how the results of the analysis are interpreted in the context of the study. This should link back to the research objectives and the hypothesis being tested. Detail the models used for prediction, whether they are statistical models, algorithms, or climate models. Explain the rationale for choosing a particular model and how it was calibrated. Discuss how different scenarios are modeled, such as best-case, worst-case, and most likely outcomes. This adds depth to the predictive power of the study. Define the control indicators used to assess the effectiveness of the research or interventions. These could include baseline measures, thresholds for action, or performance metrics. Explain how these indicators are monitored over time and how they inform adjustments to the research or management strategies. Summarize how all these processes—measurement, validation, analysis, prediction, and control—work together to create a robust research framework. Stress that this comprehensive approach is necessary to produce credible, actionable insights. By thoroughly elaborating on these elements, the article will provide a much stronger, more credible framework for understanding the second measure, enhancing both its academic value and practical applicability.

6.      When integrating new sources, references, and tools into the application of trend patterns, it is crucial to carefully consider the validation process. While the adoption of innovative methods and data sources can enhance the depth and accuracy of research, neglecting their validation can compromise the integrity and reliability of the findings. Below is a more refined explanation of how to approach this process: Utilizing new sources, references, and analytical tools can offer fresh insights and improve the accuracy of trend analysis. Adopting state-of-the-art tools, such as machine learning algorithms or advanced statistical models, can reveal complex relationships and trends that traditional methods might overlook. While new sources and tools provide exciting opportunities, failing to validate them can lead to unreliable results. Without proper validation, there is a risk of overconfidence in the findings, leading to conclusions that may not be supported by robust evidence. This can undermine the credibility of the research and its applicability in real-world scenarios. Start by assessing the quality and reliability of the new sources. This involves checking for consistency, completeness, and accuracy.  For new analytical tools or models, conduct a thorough validation against established benchmarks or known data sets. This might include cross-validation techniques, out-of-sample testing, or comparison with traditional methods to ensure that the new tools provide accurate and reliable results. Ensure that the methods and results are reproducible. This means that other researchers, using the same data and tools, should be able to arrive at the same conclusions. Reproducibility is a key aspect of validation in scientific research. Integrate new sources and tools into trend analysis only after they have been validated. This ensures that the patterns identified are not artifacts of faulty data or untested methods but are reflective of actual underlying trends.  Trends can evolve, and tools may need recalibration as new data becomes available or as the context changes. While it is important to stay updated with the latest tools and data sources, their use should be balanced with a rigorous validation process. This ensures that the research remains both innovative and credible. By paying attention to validation, the research gains in both robustness and trustworthiness, leading to more accurate and actionable insights that can withstand scrutiny and guide decision-making effectively. In summary, while the adoption of new sources and tools is crucial for advancing research, it is equally important to ensure that these innovations undergo thorough validation. This careful approach not only enhances the credibility of the research but also ensures that the trend patterns identified are accurate and reliable.

The suggestions and general points presented can significantly enhance the credibility of the article. By implementing these recommendations, the article will not only become scientifically stronger, but also more reliable due to its comprehensive and precise approach. Below is an explanation of how the credibility of the article can be improved based on the stated suggestions and points:

Precise Definition of Concepts and Terms

Complete and Accurate Process Descriptions

Consideration of New Sources and Modern Tools

Linking Concepts and Providing Detailed Analysis

Providing Complete Explanations and Avoiding Oversimplification

The suggestions and general points presented significantly enhance the credibility of the article by strengthening research methodologies, using new tools with an emphasis on validation, and offering a comprehensive analytical approach. This approach not only makes the article scientifically more credible, but also increases its potential impact on subsequent research and practical applications.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

1. The concept of "normal conditions" is indeed relative and can vary depending on the context and purpose of a study or research. In this context, "normal conditions" refer to a baseline or standard set of circumstances that are typical or expected within a specific domain or subject matter. These conditions are often defined to create a reference point for comparing other scenarios, measuring deviations, or assessing the performance of systems, products, or behaviors under expected circumstances. When applied to research, particularly when discussing "normal usage," it becomes essential to define what is meant by "normal." For instance, in product testing, normal usage could refer to the way an average user operates a product within its intended environment and duration. However, this "normal usage" may differ significantly depending on the demographic, environmental conditions, or even cultural factors. Therefore, defining "normal usage" requires a comprehensive understanding of the subject and should be done independently and specifically for the study at hand. This ensures that the findings are relevant and applicable to the intended context. Thus, when defining "normal conditions" in research, it is critical to carefully consider the complete subject, the variables at play, and the intended application of the research. By doing so, researchers can create a robust and meaningful baseline that enhances the validity and applicability of their findings.

 

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback. The detailed explanation provided aligns well with the structure and focus of the article. The points you raised about the construction of the study and the article are indeed present within the text. Specifically, the article emphasizes the importance of understanding the polarisation of extreme climate events by analyzing long-term precipitation and temperature data across various catchments. The methodology and approach to assessing these phenomena, including the use of statistical tools like the Mann-Kendall and Pettitt tests, are carefully explained in the article to provide a comprehensive view of the potential impacts on sustainable development. The interactions between climate polarisation and sustainable development, as discussed, are integral to the article’s findings and conclusions. The research underscores the necessity of integrating climate data analysis into broader strategies for managing environmental, social, and economic challenges posed by climate change. Thank you once again for your valuable input, which reinforces the robustness of the article’s approach and content.

 

2. The concept of "climate extreme events" is indeed broad and multifaceted, encompassing a wide range of phenomena that can vary significantly depending on the specific focus of the research. Climate extreme events include unusual weather patterns or conditions that differ significantly from the norm, such as heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other severe weather occurrences. Given the broad nature of this concept, it is crucial for the researcher to clearly define what is meant by "climate extreme events" within the context of their specific study. This definition should be tailored to the research objectives, the geographic area of interest, and the type of climate events being analyzed. For example, a study focusing on agricultural impacts might define climate extreme events in terms of temperature and precipitation thresholds that significantly affect crop yields. In contrast, a study on urban resilience might emphasize the frequency and intensity of storms or heat waves. Once the researcher has established a clear definition of climate extreme events, they can then expand their research topic accordingly. This may involve exploring the causes, frequency, and impacts of these events, as well as potential mitigation and adaptation strategies. By grounding the research in a well-defined concept of climate extreme events, researcher can ensure that their work is focused, relevant, and contributes meaningfully to the broader understanding of climate-related challenges.

Your observations on the structure of the study and the article are fully aligned with the content presented in the text. The article discusses in detail the key aspects related to the analysis of climate event polarisation, including long-term precipitation and temperature data, as well as the use of statistical tools like the Mann-Kendall and Pettitt tests, which were a significant part of the research. Once again, thank you for your feedback, which confirms the validity of the approach and content of the article.

 

3. The concepts of polarization, variability, and changes in climate and climate elements are indeed distinct and should not be conflated. Each term represents a different aspect of how climate and its components are understood and analyzed. In the context of climate, polarization might refer to the growing divide in climate impacts or responses across different regions or populations. For example, some areas might experience severe droughts, while others face frequent flooding. Polarization can also refer to the political or social divide regarding climate change beliefs and actions. Climate variability refers to the fluctuations in climate elements (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) over short to medium time scales, from months to a few decades. Variability is a natural part of the climate system and includes phenomena like El Niño or seasonal shifts. Changes in climate refer to long-term trends or shifts in average climate conditions, often driven by factors like greenhouse gas emissions. This encompasses trends such as global warming, rising sea levels, or shifts in precipitation patterns. Changes in climate elements specifically focus on alterations in temperature, humidity, wind speed, etc., over an extended period. Given these distinctions, it is critical that researchers do not use the same examples to illustrate these different concepts, as they pertain to different phenomena. For instance, variability might be illustrated by the year-to-year fluctuation in hurricane frequency, while changes in climate could be exemplified by the long-term increase in global average temperatures. Polarization, on the other hand, could be exemplified by the differing impacts of climate change on coastal versus inland regions. When developing a general theory or framework, focusing on two or three specific climate elements—such as temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns—allows for a more precise and nuanced explanation. By examining these elements in relation to variability, polarization, and change, researchers can create a more accurate and context-specific understanding of climate dynamics, avoiding oversimplification and enhancing the relevance of their findings. It appears that the explanation provided in the article is lacking in detail and precision, particularly regarding the distinction and application of the concepts of polarization, variability, and changes in climate and climate elements. To improve the clarity and utility of the discussion, the article should more explicitly define each concept, provide clear examples, and elaborate on how these concepts interact and differ within the broader framework of climate studies.

 

Thank you for the valuable feedback. I agree that distinguishing between polarization, variability, and climate change is crucial and should not be conflated. In response to your suggestions, the structure of the article has been modified to better reflect these concepts. The article now provides more detailed definitions for each of these categories, offering clear examples and showing how these phenomena differ from one another and interact within the broader context of climate studies. Thank you once again for helping to improve the article, which has brought its content closer to the idea presented by the reviewer.

 

4. To effectively address the use of static concepts and the range of changes in the article, it's crucial to clarify how these ideas relate to the dynamic nature of climate research. The relationship between polarization, changes, and variability in climate elements should be explicitly articulated to provide a coherent framework for understanding the topic. The article should distinguish between stationary aspects of climate. Stationary concepts might refer to stationary baselines or thresholds, while dynamic aspects involve the ongoing variability and changes in climate elements. A stationary baseline could be the historical average temperature of a region, whereas dynamic aspects would include the fluctuations and long-term trends around that average. The article should address how the range of changes in climate elements (e.g., temperature, precipitation) is assessed. This includes both the extent of short-term variability and the scope of long-term changes. It’s important to discuss the criteria used to define these ranges and how they are measured in relation to the baseline. The article must establish a clear connection between polarization research and the changes and variability in climate elements. In this context, refers to the uneven distribution of climate impacts across different regions, communities, or ecosystems. The relationship between polarization and climatic changes can be explained by how different regions experience varying degrees of change and variability in climate elements. The variability in precipitation patterns could exacerbate polarization, with some areas facing increased droughts while others experience intensified flooding. For example, how does increased variability in temperature and precipitation contribute to the polarization of climate impacts? How do long-term changes in climate elements reinforce or mitigate this polarization? The article should discuss how understanding these interactions is crucial for developing effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. To strengthen the article, it is necessary to move beyond stationary descriptions and incorporate a dynamic perspective that explains the interconnectedness of polarization, changes, and variability in climate elements. By doing so, the article would offer a more comprehensive and nuanced explanation, helping readers grasp the complexities of climate research and the implications of these concepts for real-world outcomes.

Thank you for the insightful comments. I appreciate the emphasis on distinguishing between static and dynamic concepts in the context of climate research, as well as the importance of clearly articulating the relationships between polarization, changes, and variability in climate elements. In response to your suggestions, the revised version of the article has been adjusted to better reflect these ideas. The updated text now explicitly defines and differentiates between stationary and dynamic aspects of climate elements, providing a clearer framework for understanding how these concepts interact.

 

The article now more thoroughly discusses the range of changes in climate elements, such as temperature and precipitation, by detailing the criteria used to assess these changes in relation to baseline measurements. Additionally, the connection between polarization research and the variability and changes in climate elements is addressed with greater clarity, highlighting how these factors contribute to the uneven distribution of climate impacts.

 

By incorporating these revisions, the article offers a more dynamic perspective, aligning closely with the approach you suggested. This enhanced explanation aims to provide readers with a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in climate research and the practical implications for adaptation and mitigation strategies. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the article.

 

5. To enhance the credibility and depth of the article, it’s essential to provide a comprehensive explanation of the second measure by detailing the process of measurement, validation, analysis, prediction, and control indicators. A simplistic explanation undermines the complexity and rigor that such research demands, so a more thorough and methodical approach is needed. Clearly define what the second measure is, whether it’s a specific climate variable, a socioeconomic factor, or another relevant metric. The definition should be precise, with units and scope well described. Detail the methodology used to measure the variable. For instance, if the measure involves calculating a climate index, explain the formula or algorithm used and why it’s appropriate for the study. Discuss the methods used to ensure that the measurement is accurate and precise. This could involve calibration of instruments, comparison with established benchmarks, or cross-validation with other data sources. Address potential sources of error in the measurement process, and describe how these are accounted for or minimized. For example, if measuring precipitation, consider the impact of instrument drift or environmental interference. Describe the statistical methods applied to analyze the data. If comparing regions, discuss the comparative statistical tests applied. Clarify how the results of the analysis are interpreted in the context of the study. This should link back to the research objectives and the hypothesis being tested. Detail the models used for prediction, whether they are statistical models, algorithms, or climate models. Explain the rationale for choosing a particular model and how it was calibrated. Discuss how different scenarios are modeled, such as best-case, worst-case, and most likely outcomes. This adds depth to the predictive power of the study. Define the control indicators used to assess the effectiveness of the research or interventions. These could include baseline measures, thresholds for action, or performance metrics. Explain how these indicators are monitored over time and how they inform adjustments to the research or management strategies. Summarize how all these processes—measurement, validation, analysis, prediction, and control—work together to create a robust research framework. Stress that this comprehensive approach is necessary to produce credible, actionable insights. By thoroughly elaborating on these elements, the article will provide a much stronger, more credible framework for understanding the second measure, enhancing both its academic value and practical applicability.

The feedback provided here is invaluable for enhancing the rigor and credibility of the article. I completely agree that a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of the second measure is essential to ensure that the complexity of the research is fully captured and communicated. The article has been revised to incorporate these suggestions, focusing on the detailed processes involved in measurement, validation, analysis, prediction, and the use of control indicators. The revised text now clearly defines the second measure, specifying whether it pertains to a climate variable, socioeconomic factor, or another relevant metric, and provides precise details, including units and scope. The methodology section has been expanded to explain the measurement process in depth, including any formulas or algorithms used, and why they are appropriate for this particular study.

 

6. When integrating new sources, references, and tools into the application of trend patterns, it is crucial to carefully consider the validation process. While the adoption of innovative methods and data sources can enhance the depth and accuracy of research, neglecting their validation can compromise the integrity and reliability of the findings. Below is a more refined explanation of how to approach this process: Utilizing new sources, references, and analytical tools can offer fresh insights and improve the accuracy of trend analysis. Adopting state-of-the-art tools, such as machine learning algorithms or advanced statistical models, can reveal complex relationships and trends that traditional methods might overlook. While new sources and tools provide exciting opportunities, failing to validate them can lead to unreliable results. Without proper validation, there is a risk of overconfidence in the findings, leading to conclusions that may not be supported by robust evidence. This can undermine the credibility of the research and its applicability in real-world scenarios. Start by assessing the quality and reliability of the new sources. This involves checking for consistency, completeness, and accuracy.  For new analytical tools or models, conduct a thorough validation against established benchmarks or known data sets. This might include cross-validation techniques, out-of-sample testing, or comparison with traditional methods to ensure that the new tools provide accurate and reliable results. Ensure that the methods and results are reproducible. This means that other researchers, using the same data and tools, should be able to arrive at the same conclusions. Reproducibility is a key aspect of validation in scientific research. Integrate new sources and tools into trend analysis only after they have been validated. This ensures that the patterns identified are not artifacts of faulty data or untested methods but are reflective of actual underlying trends.  Trends can evolve, and tools may need recalibration as new data becomes available or as the context changes. While it is important to stay updated with the latest tools and data sources, their use should be balanced with a rigorous validation process. This ensures that the research remains both innovative and credible. By paying attention to validation, the research gains in both robustness and trustworthiness, leading to more accurate and actionable insights that can withstand scrutiny and guide decision-making effectively. In summary, while the adoption of new sources and tools is crucial for advancing research, it is equally important to ensure that these innovations undergo thorough validation. This careful approach not only enhances the credibility of the research but also ensures that the trend patterns identified are accurate and reliable.

 

The feedback provided here underscores the importance of rigorous validation when incorporating new sources, references, and tools into trend analysis. I fully agree that while innovative methods and data sources can significantly enrich research, their effectiveness hinges on thorough validation to ensure the integrity and reliability of the findings.

Thank you for highlighting these critical aspects, which have been instrumental in refining the research methodology and strengthening the overall quality of the article.

 

 

The suggestions and general points presented can significantly enhance the credibility of the article. By implementing these recommendations, the article will not only become scientifically stronger, but also more reliable due to its comprehensive and precise approach. Below is an explanation of how the credibility of the article can be improved based on the stated suggestions and points:

Precise Definition of Concepts and Terms

Complete and Accurate Process Descriptions

Consideration of New Sources and Modern Tools

Linking Concepts and Providing Detailed Analysis

Providing Complete Explanations and Avoiding Oversimplification

The suggestions and general points presented significantly enhance the credibility of the article by strengthening research methodologies, using new tools with an emphasis on validation, and offering a comprehensive analytical approach. This approach not only makes the article scientifically more credible, but also increases its potential impact on subsequent research and practical applications.

 

 

The reviewer's feedback was instrumental in restructuring and refining the content of the article. Unfortunately, not all suggestions could be implemented. However, I hope that the article, in its current form, is more valuable and easier to understand. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Thank you for the valuable suggestion.

 

Bernard TWARÓG

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer thanks the author for his consideration of the review questions, comments, and suggestions.  The reviewer has two remaining points.

In response to the author's desire to use the word normal: if that term is used, then the final suggestion is to remove the quotation mark around it. The author argues that normal is the best term to use.  While that is fine,
the application of quotation marks around the term undercuts that.  The use
of quotation marks around a term in this setting can suggest to readers that the
term is suspect, is not to be taken seriously, or is not to be taken at face value;
the term "scare quotes" is applied to such use.  If normal is here
defined by the objective criteria listed by the author
("The normal state can be defined as a condition in which the difference
between the trend of amplitude changes (trend(max-min)) and the trend of
variability in standard deviation (trend(σ)) is close to zero."),
the quotation marks are counterproductive and can make readers
doubt the seriousness of the use of the word.  This is one
of the reasons the reviewer questioned the use of the term, because,
by qualifying it with quotation marks, the author flagged it
as questionable.  So if the term is fully legitimate to use here,
the reviewer makes a final suggestion to just drop the quotation marks.
The reviewer will not further
contest the use of the marks around the word if the author insists on
using them, however.  If they are used, though, the reviewer will
simply regard the attached statements in the published paper as not
to be taken seriously.

The final adjustment the reviewer would like to see is
a minor grammatical one.  The word "and" should be included after the end of the
second-to-last element in each list that the manuscipt has.  For example,
the first such list begins at line 195, and line 208 should end as follows:
"strategies [50], [79]; and".

Thus, the list ends as follows:
"• Risk to Economic Stability: economic losses caused by extreme events can lead
to economic recessions, hindering the implementation of sustainable development
strategies [50], [79]; and
• Increased Pressure on Resources: growing pressure on limited natural resources can
lead to conflicts over their availability, destabilizing communities and economies
[36], [76]."

This final "and" should be added after the semicolon at the
end of the following lines: 208, 228, 329, 339, 351, 365, 370, 449, 640,
759, and 847.

mmm-tensleep:/Users/powers/rvs/sus_824>em rev_3170514_v2.txt
mmm-tensleep:/Users/powers/rvs/sus_824>cp rev_3170514_v2.txt rev_3170514_v2_bck.txt
The reviewer thanks the author for his consideration of the review questions, comments, and suggestions.  The reviewer has two remaining points.  As the second one is grammatical, it is placed under the "Comments on the Quality of the English Language" section.

In response to the author's desire to use the word normal: if that term is used, then the final suggestion is to remove the quotation marks around it. The author argues that normal is the best term to use.  While that is fine, the application of quotation marks around the term undercuts that.  The use of quotation marks around a term in this setting can suggest to readers that the term is suspect, is not to be taken seriously, or is not to be taken at face value; the term "scare quotes" is applied to such use.  If normal is here defined by the objective criteria listed by the author
("The normal state can be defined as a condition in which the difference between the trend of amplitude changes (trend(max-min)) and the trend of variability in standard deviation (trend(σ)) is close to zero."), the quotation marks are counterproductive and can make readers doubt the seriousness of the use of the word.  This is one of the reasons the reviewer questioned the use of the term, because, by qualifying it with quotation marks, the author flagged it
as questionable.  So if the term is fully legitimate to use here,
the reviewer makes a final suggestion to just drop the quotation marks.  The reviewer will not further contest the use of the marks around the word if the author insists on them, however.  If they are used, though, the reviewer will simply regard the attached statements in the published paper as not to be taken seriously.

The final adjustment the reviewer would like to see is
a minor grammatical one.  The word "and" should be included after the end of the second-to-last element in each list that the manuscipt has.  See below.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The final adjustment the reviewer would like to see is
a minor grammatical one.  The word "and" should be included after the end of the second-to-last element in each list that the manuscript has.  For example, the first such list begins at line 195, and line 208 should end as follows: "strategies [50], [79]; and".

Thus, the list ends as follows:
"• Risk to Economic Stability: economic losses caused by extreme events can lead to economic recessions, hindering the implementation of sustainable development strategies [50], [79]; and
• Increased Pressure on Resources: growing pressure on limited natural resources can lead to conflicts over their availability, destabilizing communities and economies [36], [76]."

This final "and" should be added after the semicolon at the
end of the following lines: 208, 228, 329, 339, 351, 365, 370, 449, 640, 759, and 847.

Author Response

For research article

ASSESSING POLARISATION OF CLIMATE PHENOMENA BASED ON LONG-TERM PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE SEQUENCES

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below, you will find detailed responses to the comments, with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted or tracked in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	Can be improved	Thank you for your feedback. This article is carefully designed to effectively present the complex and expansive topic of climate extremes polarisation. The study follows a structured approach, beginning with a comprehensive literature review on extreme climate variability, which lays the groundwork for introducing and analyzing the polarisation phenomenon. The subsequent sections progressively build on this foundation, examining its implications for sustainable development, detailing the data used, and thoroughly discussing the methodologies for measuring polarization.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: As the second one is grammatical, it is placed under the "Comments on the Quality of the English Language" section. In response to the author's desire to use the word normal: if that term is used, then the final suggestion is to remove the quotation marks around it. The author argues that normal is the best term to use.  While that is fine, the application of quotation marks around the term undercuts that.  The use of quotation marks around a term in this setting can suggest to readers that the term is suspect, is not to be taken seriously, or is not to be taken at face value; the term "scare quotes" is applied to such use.  If normal is here defined by the objective criteria listed by the author ("The normal state can be defined as a condition in which the difference between the trend of amplitude changes (trend(max-min)) and the trend of variability in standard deviation (trend(σ)) is close to zero."), the quotation marks are counterproductive and can make readers doubt the seriousness of the use of the word.  This is one of the reasons the reviewer questioned the use of the term, because, by qualifying it with quotation marks, the author flagged it as questionable.  So if the term is fully legitimate to use here, the reviewer makes a final suggestion to just drop the quotation marks.  The reviewer will not further contest the use of the marks around the word if the author insists on them, however.  If they are used, though, the reviewer will simply regard the attached statements in the published paper as not to be taken seriously.
Response 1: I fully agree with the reviewer and thank them for pointing this out. The text has been revised according to the suggestion – the quotation marks around the word 'normal' have been removed to avoid any misunderstanding and to improve clarity.
Comments 2: The final adjustment the reviewer would like to see is a minor grammatical one.  The word "and" should be included after the end of the second-to-last element in each list that the manuscipt has. See below. Comments on the Quality of English Language The final adjustment the reviewer would like to see is a minor grammatical one.  The word "and" should be included after the end of the second-to-last element in each list that the manuscript has.  For example, the first such list begins at line 195, and line 208 should end as follows: "strategies [50], [79]; and". Thus, the list ends as follows: "• Risk to Economic Stability: economic losses caused by extreme events can lead to economic recessions, hindering the implementation of sustainable development strategies [50], [79]; and • Increased Pressure on Resources: growing pressure on limited natural resources can lead to conflicts over their availability, destabilizing communities and economies [36], [76]." This final "and" should be added after the semicolon at the end of the following lines: 208, 228, 329, 339, 351, 365, 370, 449, 640, 759, and 847.
Response 2: I have revised all the lists in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion. I greatly appreciate your attention to this detail and your helpful feedback.

 

The feedback from all reviewers has been taken into account, which has significantly strengthened the quality of the arguments and the overall scholarly value of the paper. By incorporating these valuable insights, the coherence, depth, and clarity of the discussion have been enhanced, particularly in connecting the findings to real-world implications. This structured approach ensures that the complex concept of polarisation is not only explored in detail but also presented in a way that highlights its significance for ecosystems, economies, and infrastructure.

 

Thank you for the valuable suggestion.

September, 13,  2024

Bernard TWARÓG

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf