Using a Simple Methodology to Assess the Acceleration in Daily Precipitation Extreme Events in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The first sentence in the abstract: "In this study it is analyzed changes in the".
Kindly rephrase the sentence for clarity.
2. The objective of work could have been specified in a better way. Moreover, after stating the objective, the author went to literature review again, and the site description also comes in the introduction section. I can also see the methodology in the final para of Introduction. Kindly re arrange the Introduction section.
3. It will be better if you have a separate methodology section from the results.
4. The author did not talk about the bias of data from 1930 and subsequent years?
5. Figure 3 is misleading. If you are plotting the cumulative values, obviously things will add up and you will show increasing numbers over time. How it is helping for the present work where the cumulative is increasing from 1930 to current time?
6. Same as above comment is true for Figure 4 and 5 also.
7. Conclusion section: We know that extreme events are increasing. What new information the current work adds to the existing knowledge? Please make the pointwise conclusions for the work.
8. The introduction and data section are more or less completely copied from published works and have high similarity. As the author might be aware, you should not copy and paste sentences from published works but right your own sentences inferred from the knowledge gained by published works, with proper reference. Kindly check the similarity of your work and reduce it as per the Journal's requirement.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments and for the important points raised during your review process. All of them are certainly major issues and addressing them improved the manuscript. The reply to your comments is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of geographies-1908375: Using a Simple Methodology to Assess the Acceleration in the Daily Precipitation Extreme Events in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region
General comments
In this manuscript, the author reported his analysis of daily precipitation indices related to extreme events in the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo, Brazil, for the period 1933-2020. The analyses were carried out for five thresholds, i.e. daily precipitation higher than 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90 mm. The data were analyzed at decadal scale. The authors found the indices exhibited positive trend in both precipitation intensity and frequency, for all thresholds. In general, the approach is easy to follow, and conclusion seemed to support general consensus that extreme precipitation events have increased in the last several decades globally. I have some the following comments.
1. The analysis was mostly superficial. While the author detected some interesting changes in extreme events at decadal scale, there was no analysis of underlying mechanisms. The author stated the main objective to understand “the drivers of extreme urban precipitation”, but did not offer new understanding of the drivers. This is a major shortcoming of the study.
2. Why did the author pack an intensity of 50 mm/day as a starting threshold? Did the annual precipitation change significantly during the study period? If not, then there must be a dividing point of daily intensity below which more precipitation falls at annual or decadal scale. Did the dividing point exist?
3. “Simple methodology” in the title does not tell anything about the study. Should be something much more specific. In the Abstract, “a rarer methodological approach” and “an appropriate methodology” don’t tell readers anything about what approach was actually used either. The author should think about more precise but technically telling phrase so readers at least have some scientific sense before getting into details much later in Methods.
4. The authors specifically analyze trend of > 50 mm/day and the interval 50 ~ 60 mm/day and found both had increasing trend. How about other interval of 60 ~ 70 mm/day, 70 ~80 mm/day, 80 ~ 90 mm/day and >90 mm/day? They may not exhibit increasing trend. If so, what did it tell us?
5. The author first indicated linear trend and then used second-order polynomial to fit the trend. If the linear trend works fine, why second order, but not higher order that should fit the data even better?
Some specific comments.
Delete the half quotation mark in the title.
Some format issues such as different font size, inconsistent reference citing in the text and the list of references, and incorrect order of listing references (neither sequential numbering nor alphabetical order) etc. The author should be more careful.
Methodology and Results should have separate section.
There were also awkward/incorrect uses of words/phrases from time to time that should be polished.
In summary, a major revision is required.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments and for the important points raised during your review process. All of them are certainly major issues and addressing them improved the manuscript. The reply to your comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
May be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Your comments were really appreciated.
The English was revised by a team of native English and technical experts.
Reviewer 2 Report
geographies-1908375-Review
Review of geographies-1908375: Using a Simple Methodology to Assess the Acceleration in the Daily Precipitation Extreme Events in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region
This is a revised manuscript. While the author tried to address some of the comments/suggestions made in the previous version, I still want to at least see some analysis with respect to extreme precipitation in relation to annual precipitation. That will clearly show if the increase was only in the extreme events or across the broad spectrum. If the total annual precipitation did not change much, then small events must have decreased?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Your comments on the first revision as well as this revision helped to correct some errors as well as make the text clearer.
Considering the question raised in this review about: "I still want to at least see some analysis with respect to extreme precipitation in relation to annual precipitation" a paragraph was added to the conclusions.
regards
