Investigating Spatial Variations of Compound Heat–Precipitation Events in Guangdong, China through a Convection-Permitting Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper explored the spatial variation characteristics of Compound Heat-Precipitation Events and emphasized the importance of high-resolution simulations for simulating such extreme events. Although it is a simple preliminary result, it still provides many meaningful findings that are relevant for understanding future climate change. The main opinions include:
(1) There are many models available for convection-permitting simulations. Which model was used specifically in this paper? If it is a long-term climate simulation, were the effects of ocean-atmosphere coupling considered?
(2) The 3km resolution model used in the paper and the 25km PRECIS model likely have many differences apart from resolution, such as dynamical framework and physical processes. These factors can also impact forecasts. Therefore, when analyzing the differences in results, focusing solely on resolution differences is one-sided.
(3) In Figures 11, 12, 14, and 15, it would be beneficial to include actual observational data as validation for the statistical results of the past 20 years.
(4) I am unclear about how "frequency" and "fraction" were specifically calculated in the paper and what the difference is between the two.
(5) The quality of Figures 13 and 16 is poor.
Overall, the quality of English language in this paper is good. I don't have any suggestions for revisions..
Author Response
Thank you so much for your careful review of our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The detailed corrections and changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red color (see the revised manuscript file). Our responses to reviewers’ comments are attached in the file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your careful review of our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The detailed corrections and changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red color (see the revised manuscript file). Our responses to reviewers’ comments are attached in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigaes the spatial vatiations of compound heat-precipitation events in Guangdong province through CPM model. Some comments are as follows:
Ÿ It is suggested that paragraphs 5 and 6 be merged into a single paragraph；paragraphs 7 and 8 be merged into a single paragraph in Introduction Section.
Ÿ For the compound extremes, how to define the extremely high temperature and the extreme precipitation event? What is the threshold?
Ÿ What’s the spatial resolution of the final outputs of CPM? The 25km is too coarse for the study area.
Ÿ How about the computational efficiency of CPM?
Ÿ Added some discussions about the uncertainty of the ERA.
Ÿ How to select the 10 GCMs? What’s the criterion?On what bais? Add some references.
Ÿ Except the PRECIS model used for comparision, I suggest to compare the results of CPM to site observations.
Ÿ Discuss some limitations of this study, including the model, the uncertainty arised, and the threhold used.
Ÿ Figures 2,4 6,and 8 can be attached in the supplement materials.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your careful review of our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The detailed corrections and changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red color (see the revised manuscript file). Our responses to reviewers’ comments are attached in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the revision, the authors have addressed most of my concerns in the first review report, which is appreciated. The manuscript has been greatly improved and is ready to be published. There is one more point I would like to raise here, regarding my first review comment. I found insufficient information about the model configurations (including the parameterization schemes, simulation time steps, etc.) in the revised manuscript. To make sure the research is reproducible and replicable, it is important that the authors give all details about their experiment design. No further comments from me.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your careful review of our manuscript and for providing us with helpful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. The detailed corrections and changes to the manuscript are highlighted in red color (see the revised manuscript file).
Best regards,
Jinxin Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. Your input has been immensely helpful in improving the quality of our work. Your expertise and insights have made a significant difference, and we truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our submission.
Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution.
Best regards,
Jinxin Zhu
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no other comment.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. Your input has been immensely helpful in improving the quality of our work. Your expertise and insights have made a significant difference, and we truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our submission.
Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution.
Best regards,
Jinxin Zhu
