Precipitation and Temperature in Costa Rica at the End of the Century Based on NEX-GDDP Projected Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study analyses future projections of the precipitation and temperature in Costa Rica using NEX-GDDP dataset. Results of the study is inconclusive and remains to be confirmed with other GCM outputs. Comparison with in-situ measurements doesn’t provide clear correlation or match, thus making it difficult to make any conclusions of future climate, other than northern part of the country.
Although, authors mentioned limitations of the dataset projections of the rainfall distribution, it is more important to address the biggest shortcoming of this study in limited in-situ data analysis.
Authors mention (in lines 47-51) two patterns of rainfall distribution. Rainfall distribution of the figure 3, also shows the same rainfall distribution patterns, but in analysis region is combined into Pacific watershed based on only central in-situ observations. Literature review suggest, that most studies divide region into 5 groups, separating the Southwest and the Northwest, what was the reason to combine them in your analysis?
What was the criteria of the representative stations choice? 2 stations are basically next to each other, and results are almost same.
Figure. 2 and Figure 4, suggestion to use term – historical NEX-GDDP
223 I am not sure if Pacific Watershed should be included as a reliable. Observation data shows overestimation of the precipitation and temperature trends, although could somewhat capture climatology. It is still requires an comparison from the southwest side station to declare such conclusion. Variations in the historical and in-situ observation in middle section are somewhat significant and inconclusive.
Please, indicate shortcomings and results from this study in abstract.
It is recommended to include additional station to the southwest side of Pacific Ocean for comparison.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with projections of precipitation and temperature in Costa Rica at the end of the 21st century, based on NEX-GDDP scenarios. In my opinion the study is interesting and can be accepted for publication. However, some improvements are still required, including:
- Introduction: this chapter should be supplemented with a literature review on the existing projections of temperature and precipitation changes in the analyzed region. Also, results of other studies using changes in temperature and precipitation based on the NASA's Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections (NEX-GDDP) should be discussed.
- Table 3: please add some basic data, for example on the average, maximum and minimum precipitation and temperature recorded at the analyzed stations. Such information should also be shortly described in the text.
- Fig. 2 A.) and B.): in my opinion it would be more reasonable to present the distribution of precipitation (A) and precipitation change (B) in mm per month rather than per day. Please reconsider.
- Tab. 4 caption: what is the meaning of “m” in “(m°C / decade)”? Please explain.
- Conclusions: please add information about the projection of changes in the diurnal temperature range (DTR).
- What is the difference between “historical precipitation and temperature” and “in-situ data” mentioned a couple of times in the text? Please explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for inviting me to review this interesting article. Overall the manuscript is clear and well written. Below are some specific suggestions to help clarify this and a few other aspects. This manuscript will be suitable for publication after minor revision.
1. The abstract should clearly state the novel benefit of the findings and their application. The abstract needs more of a ‘hook’ to engage the reader and establish the novelty of the analysis in the scientific literature.
2. Overall, the Introduction section should be reorganized, provide additional information related to the methods followed in previous studies and highlight the gap of knowledge that this study seeks to fill.
3. Clearly state the objective(s) in the last paragraph of the introduction.
4. Please, explain in the discussion the limitations of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved, however results and significance of the outcomes are questionable. Mainly, due to the NEX-GDDP inability to reproduce climatology correctly over Costa Rica.
Nevertheless these are important outcomes for modelling purposes. Though, addressing biggest issue of the limited in situ observation analysis and NEX-GDDP shortcomings will have to become a future task.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion explanations and corrections made by the Authors are satisfactory. I recommend to accept the paper for publication in present form.
