Added Value of Atmosphere-Ocean Coupling in a Century-Long Regional Climate Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of "Added value of atmosphere-ocean coupling in a century-long regional climate simulation" by Kelemen et al.
The topic of the manuscript (impact of regional air-sea coupling on air temperature and precipitation over Europe and North Africa) is interesting and appropriate for the journal. However, there are two major issues that need to be dealt with before the manuscript could be considered for publication. They are important enough that my recommendation at this stage is to reject and encourage to resubmit.
Main issues:
The first part of the manuscript motivates the problem well and describes the methodology with an appropriate amount of detail. I like the idea of the sensitivity tests with the uncoupled model to get a feel for how the coupled model may respond to different ocean forcing. I was looking forward to a rigorous comparison of the coupled model output to the uncoupled model and the observations to show when/where the coupled model is better. However, I found no direct assessment of the change in skill going from the uncoupled to coupled model, just comparisons between the coupled and uncoupled and bias in the coupled model. I can see differences between the coupled and uncoupled in Figs. 3-5, but it's not clear to me whether the coupled model gives better results compared to observations. A direct comparison between the coupled and uncoupled needs to be made, highlighting when/where each model performs better.
There is no in-depth analysis of the reasons why the coupled model performs better than the uncoupled model. This is needed to give credibility to the claim that the coupled model improves simulation of air temperature and precipitation. There is a comparison of soil moisture, but this might not be the cause of the air temperature and precipitation differences. A more rigorous comparison and attribution is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached report for more detailed review comments.
Major reviews are recommended, given a need to better justify some aspects of the paper, rebalance the discussion of results, and clarify the relative impact of this manuscript relative to Primo et al (2019). These seem to be important clarifications before the paper can be considered suitable for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Second review of "Added value of atmosphere-ocean coupling in a century-long regional climate simulation" by Kelemen et al.
The authors have improved the descriptions of the methods and the interpretation of the results. The manuscript may be suitable for publication after consideration of this:
It seems like the improvement of the coupled model over the uncoupled model is due mainly to the colder SST in the coupled model, which reduces rainfall, humidity, etc. This reduces the overestimation of rainfall present in the uncoupled model. My question is whether the coupled model is improving rainfall for the wrong reason and whether this is an important point worth emphasizing in the paper. My basis for this comment is that SST in the uncoupled model is too low relative to observations, and the coupled model SST is lower than in the uncoupled model. This is why I think the manuscript would benefit from more in-depth analysis of the mechanisms. It's important to know why the coupled model is better, not just the magnitude and location of the improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have provided a considered response to my original review, and I am content that the new submission is improved as a result.
I do not have any further substantive comments, given that the authors have expanded the rationale for their work and improved the extent of physical insights drawn from their results. In general, I found the updated figures to be very clear.
Two minor suggestion:
abstract: I am still not convinced the language is quite right - either the description of the coupled system as being "complex", or that the Med region is "intricate". Perhaps stay with the description of the Med geography as being 'complex' (or heteorgenous, perhaps?). More useful to instead highlight that most current regional climate studies are conducted as atmosphere-only (or ocean-only) studies. If summarising in one word, maybe go for a more 'holistic' or 'complete' modelling system?
line 373: "for sake of completeness" rather than "sake of complexity"
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
