Circulation Patterns Associated with Current and Future Rainfall over Ethiopia and South Sudan from a Convection-Permitting Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Circulation patterns associated with current and future rainfall over Ethiopia and South Sudan from a convection-permitting model” for Atmosphere.
I am satisfied with the authors’ response to my previous comments and their revisions in the resubmitted manuscript. I only have a few minor comments listed below.
- What time period is used to calculate the climatology in Figure 2? Are the time periods for the model simulation and satellite data consistent? Please clarify in the caption.
- Line 429 “Figure 9 shows the projected future mean changes between current and future (end-of-century-2100) rainfall metrics under …”. This sentence is awkward. Maybe rewrite as “Figure 9 shows the projected future mean changes of rainfall metrics by the end of 21st under …”
- In Figure 10, given the dark green shading, the vectors are not very clear. It would be better to use light green instead of dark green.
- Line 563 “Low level westerlies were found to play key role on days with extreme rainfall in both models, but this was more …” => “Low-level westerlies play a key role on the days with extreme rainfall in both models, but this is more …”
- Line 576 “Projected end of century seasonal (July-August) average rainfall increased over most parts of the domain in both models.” => “Projected seasonal (July-August) average rainfall increased over most parts of the domain by the end of 21st century in both models.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Circulation patterns associated with current and future rainfall over Ethiopia and South Sudan from a convection-permitting model” for Atmosphere.
In this study, the authors investigated the historical simulations and the future projections of the rainfall and the associated circulation patterns over Ethiopia and South Sudan in two sets of model simulations. They demonstrated that the explicit convection and high resolution were critical to the simulation of the rainfall frequency, intensity, and diurnal cycle over that region. They found a large decrease in rainfall days with an increased rainfall intensity in the future projection over that region. The associated circulation patterns were also explored and discussed. This comprehensive study improves the understanding to the model simulation and future projection of the rainfall over the Ethiopia and South Sudan region. I only have some minor comments listed below; and my general suggestion is minor revision.
- In section 2.1, please include more details about the model simulations, although the authors cited the relevant papers. Some details are very important for understanding the results of this study. For example, I see the CP4 domain shown is Figure 1, but I didn’t see the information about the P25 model domain. Is it the same with CP4 domain? Is the vertical resolution of the two models the same or not?
- Lines 116-117: “The lateral boundary conditions in both models were provided by global climate model driven by sea surface temperature (SST).” Which global climate model and which SST? This comment is similar to comment 1; please include more important details for the model configuration.
- Lines 112-114 “One simulation allows convection to … hereafter as P25).” This sentence is difficult to follow, please rewrite.
- Line 126 “FCFA IMPALA”, please define them.
- Line 125 “CP4A”, what’s the difference between CP4A and CP4?
- This is similar to comment 5: line 144 “TRMM-3B42”, what’s the difference between TRMM and TRMM-3B42? If they are the same, please keep consistent; if not, please clarify.
- Line 131, what’s the resolution of CMORPH?
- Figure 1, what is the data source of the orography? I suggest plotting the orography in the two models, CP4 and P25. The authors recommended the importance of the orography details in CP4 (i.e. lines 20-21), so I think it’s worth to show the different orography in the two models at their native grid.
- Line 188 “wet day intensity” sounds weird. Maybe use “rainfall intensity in wet day”?
- Lines 213-214 “Interactions of winds in this region with the mountains are key to generating the spatial difference in rainfall …” Please add reference.
- Lines 250-252 “However, P25 has stronger … , Figure 4a, d.” This sentence is difficult to follow, please rewrite.
- Figure 4 a and d: it is difficult to tell the differences of GPH and wind. It would be helpful to include a panel showing the differences of GPH and wind in Figure 4 a and d over the geophysical map.
- Line 308 “At around …”?
- Figure 9 is a very nice figure. However, it would be better if the authors can add a few contours showing the percentage difference. The absolute values are important, but the percentage differences (relative differences) are also informative.
- Figure 10, similar to Figure 9, it would be better if the authors can add a few contours showing the percentage difference.
- Line 499 “CMIP & CORDEX”, please define them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think that this manuscript is worth publishing in the Atmosphere journal because there are several new results. The authors had better modify the error sentences or words by themselves. So this is recommended for publication in Atmosphere.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for taking time to read our manuscript. We have made the necessary corrections in the new (resubmitted) manuscript.
