Changes in Concurrent Meteorological Extremes of Rainfall and Heat under Divergent Climatic Trajectories in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area
, Zijing Chen 1, Dongqing Zhang 3,*, Ming Liu 4, Haojun Yuan 1, Biyi Chen 2, Qiuyi Rao 2, Shiqi Zhou 5, Yuankai Wang 6, Jianjun Li 1,2, Chengliang Fan 1 and Soon Keat Tan 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter careful review, it is evident that your manuscript requires substantial revision to align with the standards of Water Journal.
1. In Figure 1, the terms 'Urban Extreme Heat (UEH)' and 'Urban Extreme Rainfall (UER)' are used without explicit definitions. For clarity, we define 'Urban Extreme Heat (UEH)' as instances of unusually high temperatures within urban areas, exceeding a specified threshold. Similarly, 'Urban Extreme Rainfall (UER)' refers to episodes of exceptionally intense precipitation events occurring in urban settings, surpassing a predefined precipitation threshold.
2. The selection of the EC-Earth3-Veg-LR model necessitates a validation step using ground observational data to corroborate its accuracy. Please include such a comparison to strengthen the justification for its usage and to enhance the robustness of the projections made in the study.
3. The paper lists P-III, Gamma, Normal, and Weibull Marginal distributions. To determine the optimal choice among these, a systematic comparison based on fitting performance metrics is recommended. Criteria such as the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) could be employed to evaluate the goodness of fit. For the three candidate copulas—Frank, Gumbel, and Clayton—these same criteria can guide the selection process. It would enhance the manuscript's comprehensiveness if the authors could detail the selection process, possibly including a step-by-step analysis of the selection criterion results for both marginal distributions and copulas.
4. The graphical representation in Figure 5 lacks detailed explanations, hindering a clear understanding of the nuanced interplay mentioned in the text. To address this, I recommend providing a more comprehensive description of Figure 5, incorporating explicit annotations and potentially introducing supplementary figures for a more thorough presentation of results. Clarity and coherence in connecting textual descriptions with graphical elements are crucial for reader comprehension.
5. To highlight the areas of concern in Figure 4, consider incorporating specific details about the regions, such as cities or counties, where the identified risks are prominent. This additional information will provide readers with a more granular understanding of the danger zones depicted in the figure. Ensure that the labels or annotations on the figure clearly indicate the high-risk areas and consider using contrasting colors or symbols to make these regions easily distinguishable. This enhancement will contribute to a more informative and actionable representation of the data presented in Figure 4.
6. It is advisable to reconsider the placement of the final paragraph of the conclusion, as it appears to contain elements more suited for the discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWang et al. investigated the changes in concurrent meteorological extremes of temperature and precipitation under different scenarios. Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, there still exist some parts that are unclear or not rigorous enough. The detailed comments are as follows:
1. Figure 1: Unify the font style, especially for ‘Concurrent Meteorological Extreme risk assessment’ and ‘Two-parameter fitting’
2. Figure 2: The font size is too small.
3. Add citations: L70-71
4. Add an explanation why you choose Merra-2 as the historical dataset instead of other remote sensing reanalysis datasets, and why you choose EC-Earth3-Veg-LR simulation instead of other cmip6 models.
5. Will the spatial resolution affect your results? And if you choose different remote sensing reanalysis datasets or choose different CMIP6 models, will the results keep the same? At least, add discussion of the uncertainties that comes from the datasets.
6. Merra-2 provides data beginning in 1980 and runs a few weeks behind real time. So why did you choose 2014 as the end year instead of more recent years (e.g., 2022 or 2023)?
7. L167-170: There are different ways to define the extreme heat and extreme precipitation. I suggest citing at least one previous study that use the same definition of extreme heat and extreme precipitation, to strongly support your research.
8. Figure 3: y axis: It seems that ‘CDF’ means ‘Cumulative probability density’. Is that correct? Please add the short name meaning of y axis in the caption.
9. Figure 5. It seems that ‘the most intense red one’ regards the block in the fourth sub-figure. But the description in the current caption is not clear enough. Please add (a)-(e) to the sub-figures, and explain them respectively in the caption.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study presents a comprehensive risk assessment of compound meteorological events (CMEs) within China's Greater Bay Area (GBA), utilizing the predictive capacities of three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)—SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5—and integrating them with the EC-Earth3-Veg-LR model from the CMIP6 ensemble. The findings suggest that the risk assessment framework proposed offers a robust tool for evaluating the destructive potential of CMEs in an evolving climate context, enhancing the accuracy of future risk predictions. The subject matter is explored with considerable depth, featuring well-written, well-structured, and thoroughly documented results. Therefore, only minor remarks have been provided, specifically pertaining to the sensitivity analysis, which warrants a more rigorous examination. Furthermore, the methodologies for experiments a, b, and c demand detailed elaboration.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed my concerns in their response and made appropriate revisions to the manuscript. They provided reasonable explanations for my points of concern and engaged in detailed discussions on related issues. Their response was proactive, and they have made satisfactory improvements to the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved compared with the first version, and the comments are responded suitably. I suggest accepting the paper.
