Monthly Precipitation Forecasting in the Han River Basin, South Korea, Using Large-Scale Teleconnections and Multiple Regression Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review included in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank your for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of the paper is to forecast monthly precipitation in the Han River basin in South Korea with the use of selected large scale teleconnections and multiple regression models. In my opinion the submission is interesting as it provides new findings related to the problem of accurate forecasting monthly precipitation in the conditions of changing climate. As such the paper can be published in the journal. However, there exist some shortcomings, which require improvements or additional explanations before its final acceptance for publication. Major drawbacks are as follows:
- What is the source of data of 39 global climate indices used in the study and their time resolution (daily, monthly data?). Have they been all obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Please add this information as a caption under Table 1.
- What is the justification for choosing these indices? Is it justified by any physical processes affecting the amount of precipitation (e.g. NAO, AO) in Korea? Does the existence of correlations have any reasonable justification? Can these correlations be explained by physical processes related to, for example, the NAO, AO intensity? Or perhaps these could be accidental relationships? Please explain.
- Figure 1: in the small sketch map please add the names of the neighboring countries around Korea.
- Figure 1: in the large map please mark major cities. Moreover, if possible, mark the analyzed meteorological stations – you can mark them with numbers and add a table with relevant numbering, names and geographical coordinates of these stations.
- Figure 1: elevations should be given in meters above sea level (m a.s.l.). Please correct.
- Meteorological stations in the northern part of South Korea are lacking, which may have impact on credibility of the obtained results.
- Page 3, lines 106-108: what is the reason for averaging data used in the study, as for example precipitation from 35 stations? I am wondering if this is methodically correct?
- Why was the correlation of 0.4 taken as a threshold value? Was it due to its statistical significance? Please explain.
- Figure 3: is some cases (for example, EASMI 1-4, 8-16 in Fig. 2a) there is no color filling in the graphs. What is the meaning of it? Please explain.
- Figures 9-13: the vertical axes labelling “Monthly Value” is rather too generic and confusing. Perhaps it would be better to change it into “Monthly Sum of Precipitation (mm)”. Please reconsider.
- Figure 9-13: please explain the meaning of the particular elements of the presented box-plots, i.e. the meaning of the whiskers, etc.
- It is strongly recommended to expand discussion on the obtained results, and add the missing “Discussion” chapter after “Conclusions”.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of The manuscript is of interest for the readership of the Water journal.
The authors attempted to develop the precipitation forecasting models capable of reflecting constantly changing climate characteristics.
The presentation is good; anyway, I have detected some criticisms in the text that should be properly addressed. The Authors can benefit from the comments below to improve their paper.
In my opinion, the model in its current form is not suitable for commercial use. The authors argue that the results of the goodness-of-fit test analyzed oceniają model dobrze lub bardzo dobrze, cytując „In other words, the predictability for some specific periods was low, but the predictability over a long period was found to be satisfactory”. The problem is that the predictability was poor especially during the summer, which is crucial e.g. for water resource management in the catchment. And this issue should be emphasized in the article.
To sum up, please indicate in the manuscript that the model in its current form does not satisfactorily reflect the amount of rainfall in summer peroids.
However, I appreciate the work as put into the development of this manuscript. That is why I am proposing to accept the article after making minor changes.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded satisfactory on my comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have made considerable corrections in the submission, in accordance with remarks made in the peer-review report. Consequently, I would recommend publication of the paper in present form.
