Future Scenarios for Aridity under Conditions of Global Climate Change in Extremadura, Southwestern Spain
, Cristina Aguirado 2, Virginia Alberdi 1, Luis L. Paniagua 2, Abelardo GarcÃa-MartÃn 2 and Francisco J. Rebollo 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is focused in a current topic such as the evolution of the aridity of a territory under the conditions of global climate change. The article is well structured and exposed. However, I raise the following questions:
1. Why is the reference period considered only up to the year 2005? There are data that allow us to extend this period to dates close to the current one.
2. The authors should explain the utility of figures 3 and 4 because the information they represent can be deduced from figures 6 and 7. In the event that these figures 3 and 4 are maintained, they should be commented because in the periods P1 and P3 the maxima of the RCP4.5 scenario match with the minima of the RCP8.5 scenario and vice versa.
3. In figure 6, in the maps corresponding to the period P1, the grid nodes are not well appreciated. In addition, in the map corresponding to P1 4.5 the limit that separates the provinces has disappeared.
4. Some comments should be included on the high % semi-arid conditions for the RCP8.5 scenario shown in figure 7.
Author Response
Please, see the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors.
I am grateful for the opportunity to review the article “Future scenarios for aridity under conditions of global climate change in Extremadura, Southwestern Spain”.
The article is interesting and relevant. However, in general, the article needs to be improved.
I had the following questions while reviewing the article:
1. Show Figure 1 in color. In black and white shades, the picture is poorly readable.
2. Why did you use EURO-CORDEX data? Why are they better than other databases? Please give a comparison and prove that EURO-CORDEX is better.
3. Why do you call the calculated value "index" in formula 1? You don't specify the unit of this value anywhere - mm/degrees Celsius ?
4. Table 2 and row 166 show 2 different historical observation periods. Perhaps this is a mistake? Why are you using data from 2006 to 2022 in the model, and not data obtained from instrumental measurements? It seems to me that there is a methodological error here. Please explain this in more detail.
5. What does P1, P2, P3 mean in table 3? As I understand it, these are the time periods indicated in lines 182-183? Why not write these time series in a table?
6. There is no “Discussion” section in the article. In section 3 "Results and discussion", I did not see discussion. Only a description of the results is presented. Compare your data with other regions of the Mediterranean, other regions of the world. Describe the problems that arose during the research.
The article can be accepted after elimination of remarks.
Author Response
Please, see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors.
Thank you for responding to the reviewer's comments.
The article can be published in a present form.
