A Review of Extreme Air Temperature Analysis in Croatia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This paper proposes a review of the knowledge of the extreme temperature events in Croatia, presenting theoretical aspect, but also applications to weather station data. The manuscript allow to disseminate the results of previous studies written in local language, improving our knowledge of global climate change impact in South-Eastern Europe.
This is the second version of the manuscript, and shows significant improvements: it is well structured, and explains clearly the topic, so I suggest to accept it after some Minor Revisions.
- line 103: Gambel. Typo: maybe Gumbel
- line 106: ofwhole. Typo: space
- line 249, 283, 286: muster. Maybe master
- line 364: andmore. Typo: space
- line 580: appliedfor. Typo: space
- line 585-586: improvementsin. Typo: space.
Author Response
Dear reviewer;
Thank you for your efforts. Corrections are visible in enclosed manuscript in track changes.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
1. page6, line 181-211, Makjanić described a history of theory of extremes, whether this description is correct, I think the author needs to revise and simply express it. In addition, in lines 256-267 and 284-331, this part needs to be modified.
2. The author's paper is not sufficiently cited, and it is necessary to cite literature and recent research results from other regions, such as:
ž Changes in the risk of extreme temperatures in megacities worldwide
ž Effects of urbanization on heat waves based on the wet-bulb temperature in the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China
ž Spatiotemporal Patterns of Extreme Temperature across the Huai River Basin, China, during 1961–2014, and Regional Responses to Global Changes
ž Extreme Temperature Events (ETEs) in South Africa: a review
ž Amplification of non-stationary drought to heatwave duration and intensity in eastern China: Spatiotemporal pattern and causes
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your efforts. Corrections are visible in enclosed manuscript in track changes.
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors made an attempt to improve the content of the article. My comments were taken into account. Therefore, I recommend the article to be printed. It can be useful for familiarizing the world scientific community with the state of research on this issue in Croatia.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your efforts.
Best regards,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Accept in present form
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
This paper proposes a review of the knowledge of the extreme temperature events in Croatia, both in theory, and analysing weather station data. The paper examines the previous studies in the light of new knowledges, to try to improve understanding of global climate change impact in South-Eastern Europe.
The manuscript is well structured, and the field is presented clearly, even if there are some long quotations that risk interrupting the speech. However, it is not clear for me how the sum of the discussed knowledges improves to understand the impact of global climate change in Croatia. In addition, I suggest the author to carefully re-read the manuscript: I found lots of typing errors.
So, I suggest to accept the manuscrip after one Major Revision a some Minor Revisions.
Major Revision: I suggest to improve the Conclusions to clearly understand how the evolution of the knowledge of the cited works help to understand global climatic changes.
Minor revisions:
lines 45-46: [...] including description their application on available [...]. This sentence is not clear.
line 57 (fig 1a): less numbers on x-axis, and use a larger font.
line 66 (and in other part of the manuscript): school year. I suggest to use "academic year"
lines 78-80 and 81: after the citations, the text should be normal, not italic.
line 238: "There is a very good agreement between [...]". Is it possible to quantify by how much? For example with R2 or other statistical parameters.
line 276 (table 1): WDSI and CSDI need a measure unit: days, weeks, months?
Finally: there is some citations of works written on Croatian speech. It is not clear in the text if traslations have been made by the authors of this manuscript of by other people.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors read a large body of literature to provide a lengthy review of research related to extreme temperatures in Croatia. Although extreme temperatures are a hot topic for current research, the paper mechanically piles up existing research results and does not bring new insights or ideas to the reader. Therefore, I have some major concerns about this manuscript and I consider this version to be unacceptable.
1. In the introduction, the authors introduce that extreme value theory or extreme value analysis (EVA) has become one of the most important statistical disciplines, and then begin to present the main review of this paper. The introduction is written too generally and briefly, and further enrichment of the introduction is recommended.
The first paragraph writes about the significance of extreme value theory or extreme value analysis (EVA) research, and the second paragraph needs to make a statement about the significance of research on extreme high temperatures in the study area to highlight the importance of regional research. The third paragraph presents an overview of the previous work and research done in the related field. Finally. , based on the shortcomings of the current research status, the research content and innovation points of this paper are proposed, the necessity of the research is argued, and the purpose of the research is stated.
2. I did not see any new understanding or new insight in section of 2.1 and 2.2, and the lack of connection between the various parts makes it difficult for the reader to understand what is actually being done.
3. “2.5. On doubled length of western European summer heat waves since1880……”, I think the cited literature can only be counted as a doubling of extreme heat because heat waves should have a temporal continuity, which is defined in this paper only by extreme temperature indicators.
4. In the section of abstract,“Using homogenised time series of extreme air temperature data for more than 50 weather stations and period 1880-2010, authors, beside other, found that, “western European summer heat waves doubled length since 1880….”, The conclusions found by the authors, only through a literature review, are not those obtained using more than 50 weather stations and time series of homogenized extreme temperature data for the period 1880-2010.
5. It is suggested that the authors could enrich the study in terms of the mechanisms related to the induced extreme high or extreme low temperatures, instead of only getting the extreme high temperatures induced by global warming.
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented historical overview of the analysis of air temperature extremes in Croatia is relevant to the field, but is based only on a limited list of citations. The actual review is based on 3 documents: monograph, 1977 (chapter 2.1), master thesis, 1976 (chapter 2.2), climatic atlas of Croatia, 2008 (chapter 2.3). As an additional document, the authors used the Sixth Communication Report for Croatia in accordance with the UNFCCC3, 2014.
The authors use very limited list of real and modern scientific works. Modern studies of the last 5 years are not taken into account. Emphasis is placed on the review of outdated research, only one article from 2022 is mentioned.
The review does not link the research of Croatian scientists with the research of scientists from other countries, the contribution of Croatian scientists to the development of extreme air temperature analysis methods is not evaluated, the review clearly limits the research only to the territory of Croatia. It is necessary to show the role of Croatian scientists in the development of world science.
Figures and tables do not fit well with the review nature of the article. Some of them are completely inappropriate. For example, fig. 1. does not have a clear connection with the review of research presented in the text of the article.
