Comparison of Multiple Maximum and Minimum Temperature Datasets at Local Level: The Case Study of North Horr Sub-County, Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript evaluates the performance of climate model reanalysis products for minimum and maximum temperatures over some locations in northern Kenya. This kind of evaluation is needed in order to understand the uncertainties associated with the different products, which will inform the proper use.

For the most part, the manuscript is well written, though there are areas that need some revision (I have indicated some of these in the manuscript). The manuscript has also some issues that need to be addressed or corrected before publication. I have indicated most of these issues in the manuscript. And below I describe my major concerns, which must be addressed before publication:

• Only 3 stations are used to compare the performance of the different datasets. Even though the time series is long enough, the spatial representations of these stations are very limited.
• The different datasets compared in the manuscript have different spatial resolutions. Given that this was a pixel-to-point comparison, the results may not be comparable. It is worth noting that the product with the best overall performance is the one with the coarsest spatial resolution (ORH). Thus, these datasets may need to be converted to a common spatial resolution for proper comparison. It should also be noted that point-to-pixels comparison by itself is problematic.
• Figure 5 should also be done for the other products (should at least include KMD)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read this manuscript thoroughly, and think that the study is of significance for evaluating climate change over the regions with limited and even no land-based observations. However, there remain some issues in this study. Therefore, before acceptance, this study should be conducted a moderate revision.

1. The figures look blurry. It is difficult to extract the important message from them. Please redrawn them.
2. In the abstract, ORH should be shown the full name. Please delete the second words “data validation” in the keywords.
3. In figure 1, what is main locations? Automatic meteorological stations?
4. Please delete the sentences between Line 229-240, and Line 242. It is not necessary.
5. Please integrate Table 1 and 2 into a table. Moreover, please use the point “.” to decimal point.
6. In figure 5, please delete the sentence of “Cyan boxplots represent ORH temperatures, orange boxplots represent ground observations.” You have shown the legend in figure.
7. Why you use a number of 2 to set the reference range? Why not 1, 1.5 or 3? Please shown the reason.
8. Do the spatial resolution of the multiple datasets influence the validation metrics?
9. KMD is a reanalysis dataset? Not a satellite-based product?
10. The abstract should be greatly revised. Please shown the main results or conclusions, but not what you have done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments

The paper comprehensively evaluated 4 different temperature climatic products (KMD, ERA-Interim, ORH and CLAM) on a monthly basis for northern Kenya using historical station observations. The product (ORH) with the most reliable performances was then utilized for the development of monthly averages of maximum and minimum temperature for 8 villages in northern Kenya. The evaluation research performed by the author is overall convincing and the developed monthly averages provide valuable data sources for the potential application in sustainable development. However, some issues regarding the technical aspects of the research and formats of the manuscript should be revised.

Major Issues

Line 23: the authors just argue that the ORH product is the most reliable without some figures or metrics supporting it. It could be more informative when some general or overall evaluation results are included in the abstract.

Line 107, 166, 183, 263: the four figures are slightly blurred. I recommend increase the resolution of the figures in the final subscription to the editor.

Line 241: the performance metrics of the four selected datasets (KMD, ERA, ORH and HAD) are computed for each ground station separately. You could use all three station records (Lodwar Marsabit, Moyale) to calculate the overall performance metrics of the four different products.

Line 245: the sample size used for the calculation of the metrics should identified in the tables or the table captions the two tables (1 and 2).

Minor Issues

Line 111 and 169: the two different subsections are identical in text. Section 2.3 actually contains the description of the overall

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript by Siciliano et al. submitted to Climate, entitled “Comparison of multiple maximum and minimum temperature datasets at local level: the case study of North Horr sub-county, Kenya” examine different temperature datasets with surface observations to determine the reliability of each product, including satellite-derived temperatures and reanalysis. This study is relevant to understand how these datasets represent temperature at local scale. The manuscript is well written and presents a good structure. However, some aspects of the methodology are not clear to me, as well as how the results were discussed and the final conclusions. These points are details below.

 

Major comments

1. In the abstract, it is not clear what is the motivation of this study. The authors did not explain why they chose the study area and what is the relevance of their research.
2. My main concern about this study is about how the methodology was applied along the research. The authors state that their objectives are to “determine the most reliable climatic products”, but the datasets are left behind along the study. The number of analyzed surface stations also decrease along the study, and it is not clear why this happens. For example, the authors identify in Table 1 the datasets that best suits the station data (it varies among the stations), but only one dataset is used for subsequent analysis, even if it is not the best for all stations. Moreover, the authors merge the results and discussion sections, but there is no discussion in this paper, as they did not compare their results to other African regions, or to other local studies, or to similar methods used in other studies.
3. The figures are really hard to see, please improve the quality and size of them. I could not evaluate Fig. 5 because the details are too small and with no resolution.

 

Minor comments

1. Figure 1 should include the study area in a broader region, I could not locate it in a continental scale.
2. Both items 2.2 and 2.3 have the same title, please check it.
3. Which dataset is used in Figures 7 and 8? Add this information to the Figures titles.
4. I recommend to include the annual cycles of each station examined in this study, or at least the mean annual cycle of the study area.
5. L270-274: the authors mention “conflicting outcomes” in the results, but no explanation is provided. Please, add this discussion to the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have not made substantial changes to the manuscript; however, they have addressed my major concerns. I am convinced that the paper can serve the purpose it is intended for. Thus, I recommend publications.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments, and have improved the manuscript. Thus, I recommend it for publication in Climate.