Changing Trends in Temperatures and Rainfalls in the Western Pacific: Guam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract: Improve the quality of the abstract. give some result data for justification of your statements.

 

Change point analysis for monthly rainfall data has not been studied. The authors also give results of Pettitt test of all the stations with static and p-value in tabular form.

The authors have done a non-parametric trend analysis. But in Figure 3 they have given a linear trend. I sugget go give Mann Kendal trend line instate of linear trend. 

I suggest authors to give relults of figure 6-8 in tabular form and develop extrapolation maps of sanes slope values for figures 6-8

Author Response

Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the reviewed manuscript is interesting, especially in the age of climate change. However, in the reviewed manuscript there are a few points that should be complemented/corrected:

 Point “Abstract” – ‘In this study, Mann-Kendal’s tau-based slope estimator was implemented to detect statistical trends in daily maximum and minimum temperatures and daily rainfalls at 14 stations over Guam for the period of 1953 – 2021’ - the notation needs to be expanded/complemented in the scope of:

-        Meteorological stations which have been taken into account – 14? – in point ‘Introduction’ has been given ‘…historical daily temperature and rainfall records available at two temperature gauge stations and fourteen rainfall gauge stations, respectively’ – have 14 (table 1) or 16 meteorological station been taken into account?

-        Research period: 1953-2021 – according to Table 1, nearly half of the area were monitored after 1970,

 The lack of line numbering makes it difficult to identify comments

 the "Introduction" requires complementing the information with the results of research of scientists from other regions of the world in the field of elaboration, including air temperature variability, precipitation

 point 2.1. Figure 1, page 4 – in Figure 1 has not shown ‘Geological Information’, I suggest changing title to ‘Localisation of meteorological stations’.

 Table 1 page 4 for the Geomag meteorological  station, I suggest checking the year of the measurements started  -1912?

 point 2.1. Figure 2 , page 5 – I suggest changing Figure 2’s title – the title ‘Homogeneity test for monthly mean temperatures at Guam International Airport’ is not clear.

What is the reason of the significant jump in temperature values in 1995 – requires explanation

 point 2.1 – I suggest adding the description of Pettitt’s Test

 point 2.2 page 6 ‘…four-seasonal (January – March, April – May, June – August, and September – December)’ - why these seasons were adopted?

 The reviewed manuscript needs to be complemented with a brief characterization of the variability of air temperature and precipitation, including the frequency of occurrence in the study area and their intensity, which has been mentioned on page 12 (‘Figure 5 has indicated that strong trends in rainfall amounts, occurrences, and intensities are detected over the northern Guam’)

 Table 2, page 7 – ‘R10mm no. of heavy-rain days 10mm count of days when PRCP ≥ 20mm days’ – ≥ 20mm? – I suggest checking.

 Point 2.3 page 7 - for the clarity of the text - I suggest enriching the manuscript with a mathematical notation of the Mann-Kendall test

 Point 2.3 page 7, I suggest correcting Case 2 - incorrect notation

 Point 3.1 page 7 ‘Daily maximum temperature (Tmax) and daily minimum temperature (Tmin) are available for only two stations…’ – it is not clear in what way Tmax and Tmin have been determined.

 Table 3 and table 4 - the title of the table states: '(0.1 < p-value < 0.05)' - incorrect notation - I suggest correcting

 Table 3 i Table 4 page 8 and 9 – seasons’ designations have been introduced – which makes tables not readable, e.g. in Table 4 J-M, and in Table 3JFM, I suggest the designations given in the table explain below the table

 Point 3.2.2, page 13 ‘Extreme rainfall index’ – in what way extreme precipitation was determined: maximum and minimum precipitation values;

 Figure 5 page 13 - The drawing is not legible – I suggest reducing the amount of small drawings, and present the results on 3 or 4 aggregate drawings. For clarity, I suggest writing full names instead of abbreviations / indexes placed above the drawing. The suggestion concerns the following drawings, i.e. figure 6, figure 7 and figure 8

 Point ‘Conclusion’, page 21 – ‘…Guam will receive more amounts of rainfalls and more days exceeding 10 mm/day or 20 mm/year during the wet season’ – the notation is not clear – the given value 20mm/year raise doubts.

 Point ‘Conclusion’, page 21 – ‘It implies that the climate system over Guam would be getting more extreme’ – the notation is not clear

Conclusions too general - I suggest adding more details

Author Response

Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic but needs further improvement. The paper needs the below-mentioned editing and revision before it is considered for publication in the Journal.

 

1.     In the abstract, please define Tmax. And add some quantative estimation of changes in temperature and rainfall.

2.     In the keyword, temperature should be considered.

3.     The introduction section has some gaps, that need to be revised focusing on the background, motivation, objectives, and significance of the study. I would suggest to add more detailed overview of these. Please add more recorded information about temperature and precipitation related extreme events and associated socioeconomic and environmental impact in the study area.

4.     A series of similar studies have already been carried out, what’s new in your study, please specify.

5.     In section 2.1 (as study area description), please describe here some major information focusing on overall climatological status (annual average temperature, rainfall, evapotranspiration etc), and socioeconomic status (i.e. population, livelihoods etc.) of the study region.

6.     The discussion of this paper needs to be improved. It should highlight the insights and the applicability of your findings/results for further work. There is a lack of justifications and reasoning behind the changes. Please compare your findings with previous studies and most importantly, need in-depth and more concrete discussion regarding why the area is prospective to warmer as well as wetter , and how climate change/global warming influences the process.

7.     Please mention some shortcomings in this research; uncertainties involved with data and methods.

 

 

Author Response

Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank Authors of the manuscript for their answers;

However, Figures 5-8 are illegible

Author Response

Sincere appreciation for your valuable comments. With your comments, my manuscript was improved. I updated the figures.

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors satisfactorily revised the manuscript considering all of my suggested comments which certainly improved the quality of the paper. I would suggest to accept this paper to publish in the journal.

Author Response

Sincere appreciation for your valuable comments. With your comments, my manuscript was improved.