Future Climate Projections and Uncertainty Evaluations for Frost Decay Exposure Index in Norway

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is a comprehensive study with quite intensive data. However, the presentation and interpretation of the data is poor, which reduces the quality of the article. In this context, I suggest you make the following corrections.

1)      You have provided climate type and precipitation maps of the study area, but the temperature map should also be included.

2)      The discussion section is inadequate. You have used only 8 sources. However, climate change is a very current issue and there are many studies on this subject. The discussion section needs to be enriched.

3)      Tables are not appropriate in the discussion section. Delete the tables in the discussion

4)      In the discussion section, references to other studies are superficial; the results need to be compared in depth and numerically.

5)      Your recommendations are not clear. List your recommendations clearly based on your results. Delete general recommendations that are irrelevant to the study.

6)      Review the text again for spelling mistakes. There are some typos. For example Line 531 “Lisø et al. (2007).”

7)      Some references are very old. If it is not absolutely necessary, delete sources before 2020 and add new dated sources.

Author Response

General comment: The study is a comprehensive study with quite intensive data. However, the presentation and interpretation of the data is poor, which reduces the quality of the article. In this context, I suggest you make the following corrections.

Response: Thank you for the comments. The revisions we have made to the presentation and interpretation of the data based on your suggestions have greatly increased the quality of the article, and we hope you agree that the revised version is acceptable for publication.

Comment 1: You have provided climate type and precipitation maps of the study area, but the temperature map should also be included.

Response 1: This is a good point, as temperature is a more direct parameter. The revised manuscript now includes a Figure 1(c) – Annual average temperature.

Comment 2: The discussion section is inadequate. You have used only 8 sources. However, climate change is a very current issue and there are many studies on this subject. The discussion section needs to be enriched.

Response 2: This is a very important point that we have tried to amend in the revised version of the manuscript. This and other comments on the discussion section have led to a major revision on the discussion section, see answer to (4) for details. We hope you find the revision adequate, and agree that it has been much improved.

Comment 3: Tables are not appropriate in the discussion section. Delete the tables in the discussion

Response 3: Thank you for the comment, we agree that these tables could rather be considered as results. The reason they were included in the discussion section in the first version of the manuscript was that they presented further treatment and analysis of the climate model results. However, by making this a separate section in the results as you suggest (see 3.4), we believe that the structure and readability of the article has now improved and hope that you agree.

Comment 4: In the discussion section, references to other studies are superficial; the results need to be compared in depth and numerically.

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion, this has also been pointed out by another reviewer and the discussion section has now undergone a major revision to that extent. By moving the uncertainty analysis and corresponding tables in the discussion section to the results section, and by including a more comprehensive comparison to related literature in the discussion, we believe that the discussion section has now been significantly improved.

As well as moving the result uncertainty treatment to section 3.4 in the results, the revision of sections 4.1-4.4 includes:

- More elaboroate analysis of future trend comparisons to the most similar other studies (Tønsberg, climate index FPC) in section 4.1, and references to more studies looking at risk development of frost decay in the same section.

- More comparison to conclusions from other studies on the uncertainty and variability of climate indices and future climate models in section 4.2. In particular a discussion on the validity of FPC vs FDEI as an indicator of frost decay risk, as well as a more elaborate discussion of climate model variability comparing the findings to more studies of future climate model predictions analysing model uncertainties.

- Elaboration on the use of FDEI as a design tool, and comparison to other methods such as material response based indices presented by others.

We hope you find this revision adequate, as we believe the discussion is much improved compared to the original manuscript.

Comment 5: Your recommendations are not clear. List your recommendations clearly based on your results. Delete general recommendations that are irrelevant to the study.

Response 5: We agree that the conclusion section could be improved by addressing the research questions in a clearer manner. This point has also been commented by another reviewer, and we have now revised the conclusion section accordingly. To clearly present the conclusions, and to avoid irrelevant discussions, each research question are now addressed in a separate point with as clear and unambiguous recommendations as the results allow for. We hope you find that the revision is an improvement.

Comment 6: Review the text again for spelling mistakes. There are some typos. For example Line 531 “Lisø et al. (2007).”

Response 6: Thank you for finding the error, we have now scanned the text carefully for other mistakes and revised accordingly.

Comment 7: Some references are very old. If it is not absolutely necessary, delete sources before 2020 and add new dated sources.

Response 7: As this research field is a highly developing one we agree that one should refer to updated literature wherever possible. Some of the older references concern fundamental works, such as WMO’s Guidelines for calculating climate normals, Köppens system for classifying climates and the climate index definitions by Lisø and Scheffer. Where updated references are appropriate however, we have now included these as well, thus strengthening the support of the arguments made. The new references added in the discussion section are also as updated as possible. We believe addressing this comment has strengthened the study, and hope you agree.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Future climate projections and uncertainty evaluations for Frost 2 Decay Exposure Index in Norway

1. The abstract is perfectly written to understand the reader's interest.

2. Limited Background of the introduction. Try to improve it.

3. Try to improve the literature in the same domain. 

4. section 1.5 moves to the method section. 

5. why equation 2 is in the result section?

6. Try to improve your discussion section with related literature and analysis. 

7. Reduce the conclusion section with a precise concluding part. 

The study is interesting and acceptable after addressing the major comments. 

Best of Luck

Author Response

General comments: The study is interesting and acceptable after addressing the major comments. 

Best of Luck

Response: Thank you very much for your kind praise, we believe revisions according to your comments have improved the quality of the article and hope you agree.

Comment 1: The abstract is perfectly written to understand the reader's interest.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback!

Comment 2: Limited Background of the introduction. Try to improve it.

Response 2: We agree that the background is limited, this has been reduced to a minimum to reduce the overall length of the article. But as you point out, the background should present an adequate introduction to the study, so we have revised it by adding more information on how uncertainties from climate modelling arise alongside an explanation for why uncertainties in future climate modelling should be evaluated. We hope you find the improvement adequate and ask for understanding that the introduction as a whole is purposely limited to a minimum due to word count constraints.

Comment 3: Try to improve the literature in the same domain. 

Response 3: This is a good point, as the introduction section has been kept to a minimum due to word constraints. We have revised the literature section by moving some of the more detailed information in the background section to a separate section (1.5), and elaborated the most important parts by adding references to other studies. In addition, the discussion section has undergone a major revision referring to more studies by others where relevant, putting the results in better context with existing literature (as per your comment #6). We hope you find the revision adequate, as we believe the quality of the study has greatly benefitted from this and other comments on the same.

Comment 4: Section 1.5 moves to the method section. 

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. We agree that this subsection is more suitably placed in the method section, as it describes the development of the FDEI index, and have moved it accordingly (now section 2.1).

Comment 5: Why equation 2 is in the result section?

Response 5: Equation 2 was originally included in the results section in relation to the comparative analysis between 1961-1990 results and 1991-2020 results. But as you rightly point out, this equation should rather be included in the methods section and referred to in the results section. This has now been amended (see section 2.5 and section 3.2).

Comment 6: Try to improve your discussion section with related literature and analysis. 

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion, this has also been pointed out by another reviewer and the discussion section has now undergone a major revision to that extent. By moving the uncertainty analysis and corresponding tables in the discussion section to the results section, and by including a more comprehensive comparison to related literature in the discussion, we believe that the discussion section has now been significantly improved.

As well as moving the result uncertainty treatment to section 3.4 in the results, the revision of sections 4.1-4.4 includes:

- More elaboroate analysis of future trend comparisons to the most similar other studies (Tønsberg, climate index FPC) in section 4.1, and references to more studies looking at risk development of frost decay in the same section.

- More comparison to conclusions from other studies on the uncertainty and variability of climate indices and future climate models in section 4.2. In particular a discussion on the validity of FPC vs FDEI as an indicator of frost decay risk, as well as a more elaborate discussion of climate model variability comparing the findings to more studies of future climate model predictions analysing model uncertainties.

- Elaboration on the use of FDEI as a design tool, and comparison to other methods such as material response based indices presented by others.

We hope you find this revision adequate, as we believe the discussion is much improved compared to the original manuscript.

 

Comment 7: Reduce the conclusion section with a precise concluding part. 

Response 7: We agree that the conclusion section could be improved by addressing the research questions in a clearer manner. This point has also been commented by another reviewer, and we have now revised the conclusion section accordingly. To clearly present the conclusions, and to avoid irrelevant discussions, each research question are now addressed in a separate point with as clear and unambiguous recommendations as the results allow for. We hope you find that the revision is an improvement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the change in FDEI in Norway based on an ensemble of GCM-RCM chains and two RCP scenarios. The methodology for this analysis is according to the state-of-the-art. An ensemble is necessary, as has been illustrated in other publications. The methodology is not very innovative in itself, but the analysis has not been performed before. The paper is therefore an added value to the community. It raises awareness about the importance of an ensemble for academics and building practitioners. 

Some minor comments:

L122: Please provide some brief introduction on where uncertainties come from. People with no background can better understand in this way.

Fig. 2: Typo: outputs

Section 2.3: more suitable in the 'results' section

L262: Never start a paragraph with 'Figure X shows...'. Always present the main information first, and later where you can see it in a figure or table. 

L268: why do you use past tense here?

L331: typo: periodby

L453: Check publication: E. Hawkins, R. Sutton: Uncertainties in projections of precipitation change (DOI 10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6)

>> yes for temperature, no for precipitation (model uncertainty higher)

L477: double space

L529: Explicitly refer to wind-driven rain load as well. WDR has a dominant impact on many degradation mechanisms.

 

Author Response

General comment: The paper discusses the change in FDEI in Norway based on an ensemble of GCM-RCM chains and two RCP scenarios. The methodology for this analysis is according to the state-of-the-art. An ensemble is necessary, as has been illustrated in other publications. The methodology is not very innovative in itself, but the analysis has not been performed before. The paper is therefore an added value to the community. It raises awareness about the importance of an ensemble for academics and building practitioners. 

Response: Thank you for the kind praise, we are grateful that you see the value this article may add to the community and agree that such analyses are important in a climate adaptation of buildings context.

Comment 1: L122: Please provide some brief introduction on where uncertainties come from. People with no background can better understand in this way.

Response 1: Thank you for the comment, it is easy to overlook this when one is immersed in details of the study. We have now revised the introduction section, by moving some of the introducing text from 1.2 to 1.1, and by adding a short section presenting the different uncertainties introduced by future climate modelling. Due to word count constraints however, we ask for your understanding that the added text has been forcibly limited to a minimum.

Comment 2: Fig. 2: Typo: outputs

Response 2: Thank you for finding the error, we have now scanned the text carefully for other mistakes and revised accordingly.

Comment 3: Section 2.3: more suitable in the 'results' section

Response 3: You raise a good point. The reason it was originally included in the methods section is that it is an evaluation of the chosen methodology. But since it also requires calculation of results, we have moved it to section 3.1 in the results together with other restructuring of the methods/results, and hope that you find the revised version improved.

Comment 4: L262: Never start a paragraph with 'Figure X shows...'. Always present the main information first, and later where you can see it in a figure or table. 

Response 4: You make a good point, the paragraph has been restructured according to your recommendation, to improve the presentation.

Comment 5: L268: why do you use past tense here?

Response 5: The section was unfortunately written with a mix of past and present tense due to being revised in the writing process. It is now fixed, and changed to present tense where apropriate.  

Comment 6: L331: typo: periodby

Response 6: Thank you, the spelling errors you have found are now fixed, and the document has been carefully scanned for other embarrassing spelling errors.

Comment 7: L453: Check publication: E. Hawkins, R. Sutton: Uncertainties in projections of precipitation change (DOI 10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6)

>> yes for temperature, no for precipitation (model uncertainty higher)

Response 7: Thank you for this insight, the difference between precipitation and temperature uncertainties analysed was unfortunately an oversight in the first version of the manuscript. This has now been remedied, with a more elaborate discussion on the subject referring to both your suggested study and other similar studies. We beleive this revision has improved the quality of the discussion, and hope that you agree.

Comment 8: L477: double space

Response 8: Thank you for finding the error, we have now scanned the text carefully for other mistakes and revised accordingly.

Comment 9: L529: Explicitly refer to wind-driven rain load as well. WDR has a dominant impact on many degradation mechanisms.

Response 9: Thank you for the observation, in the writing process it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming that the reader derives such observations on their own. We have reformulated the sentence, so it refers to WDR explicitly as it should.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revisions

Author Response

General Comments: Thank you for your revisions

Response: Thank you very much for your time and efforts in reviewing the manuscript, we are happy that you find the revisions adequate.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are revised based on the comments and suggestions. Some minor revisions are needed for publication. 

1. "EURO-CORDEX" in the abstract section. Write the full form. 

2. Line number 39, "Lisø et al. [5] showed that" improve the citation format.

3. Add some related literature and justify why this study is important in this region. 

4. Conclusion supports the study. 

Best of Luck

Author Response

General comments: The authors are revised based on the comments and suggestions. Some minor revisions are needed for publication. 

Thank you for your considerations, we hope that we have answered your minor revision comments adequately in the new version of the manuscript.

Comment 1: "EURO-CORDEX" in the abstract section. Write the full form. 

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We suggest to simply remove reference to EURO-CORDEX here, and thus avoiding a longer introductory text to describe the EURO-CORDEX initiative in the abstract section. We believe the flow in the abstract text will be better this way, and hope you agree.

Comment 2: Line number 39, "Lisø et al. [5] showed that" improve the citation format.

We are unsure as to what is meant by this comment but have suggested to take it into account by moving the citation number to the end of the sentence, for better readability. We hope this is an adequate improvement, and that the comment is taken into account by this change.

Comment 3: Add some related literature and justify why this study is important in this region.

Response 3: This is a good point, as the justification for the study may have been neglected more in the revised introduction. We have now added some sentences to the first section of the article, to better justify the importance of such studies, and included references to other studies developing climate indices for adaptation of building climate screens in cold climates as you suggest. We hope you find the revision an improvement.

Comment 4: Conclusion supports the study. 

Response 4: Thank you for the positive feedback, we are glad that you find the revised conclusion acceptable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf