Climatological Increased Precipitation from July to August in the Western North Pacific Region Simulated by CMIP6 Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The overall manuscript looks refined and the ease of reading has been maintained. I would still like to suggest the authors to improve it if possible but the amount of work done to address all the comments is commendable and worthy of publication.

Author Response

Thanks the reviewer for the constructive comments in the first round review. In this round of revision, we revised the manuscript according to the comments from the Academic Editor. We hope the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an updated version of the manuscript and all amendments are highlighted by the authors. My suggestions have been taken into consideration and also further improvements have been made. Before possible publication, minor editing is needed regarding format, figures’ alignment, page breaks etc.

Author Response

Thanks the reviewer for the constructive comments in the first round review which helps to improve the manuscript. In this round of revision, we revised the manuscript according to the comments from the Academic Editor. In addition, we will modify the format according to the journal's requirement in the article production process.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments

The overall reading has been arduous and difficult to comprehend initially. This article has issues with the missing conjunction or connective words, such as a, an, the. For example, line 47 misses the word 'the' making the line grammatically incorrect. There are many examples of missing conjunction words that should be corrected to improve the article’s flow. There are also serious issues with incorrect and/or poor choice of words, confusing connecting words, and undefined acronyms.

The introduction of the work seems to be largely missing the purpose of the entire research. The insights regarding how the precipitation change and the claimed sub-seasonal variability affects the overall region is what I think a reader wants to be aware about before moving forward. Although the need for the research seems to have been mentioned in technically sophisticated manner in the second paragraph of the introduction, the lines do not seem to be placed coherently which meddles the understanding. I strongly suggest the authors to consider rephrasing the sentences in the second paragraph of the introduction and add more details regarding the thing that will be addressed through this work.

Although model-projected temperature is considered certain in general, precipitation is not and it is often uncertain. That makes these kinds of analyses highly unreliable, in particular when extensive uncertainty quantifications are not performed or at least some bias correction. Since CMIP6 is a latest product and much has not been done in the world of climate science to quantify the uncertainty of the climate variables. This overall casts doubt on the eligibility of the results and makes the author's claims weak.

Specific Comments

Major Comments:

The focus of the study to emphasize the period from July to August needs to be explained. How is the period from July to August different from rest of the year?

Line 98- How does spatial standard deviation is reasonable and worthy of being adopted in this work? Brief explanation of how it works and is interpretated will be helpful.

Lines 103 to 107- As the results are expressed relative to the physical locations of the sea, river and valley, it would be sensible to add a map showing those. This would ease the reading and help to comprehend the results for someone not aware of the geographic and physical setting of the concerned region.

Suggest adding a table to show the summary of the skills score, correlation coefficient in easy readable manner.

Line 181- The fact that MME cannot capture the change is a bold claim. I suggest including a bar graph of some sort to show the comparison with other models for a specific region or as a regional average. Something similar to Figure 5 would be better.

Minor Comments:

Capitalization of all first letters of acronyms like Western North Pacific (WNP) in the line 32.

Two periods at the end of a sentence in the line 37.

Sudden change of the font in the lines 38 and 39.

Suggest changing the structure of the sentence spreading in the lines 40, 41, and 42. Or, simply remove the redundant ‘and’ from the line 41 after which the sentence might make better sense.

Suggest changing the structure of the sentence of the lines 44 and 45. Does not provide proper sense to the readers regarding the need of the study.

Adding a conjunction ‘the’ in the line 47 will make the sentence grammatically correct.

Suggest rephrasing the sentence in the lines 47, 48 and 49.

Line 61- The word ‘grant’, I believe is a wrong choice of word here. The sentence suggests that the challenge to reproduce the zonal shifts is tough.

Line 63- Acronym AMIP is not defined.

Line 67- “Less than summer mean”? Precipitation or temperature or any other measure?

Line 75- “These models are selected due to that both…..” I believe the authors need to rephrase this sentence because while the meaning of the sentence can be speculated it still is technically wrong.

Line 81, 82- Acronym not defined.

Line 81- Was evaporation also extracted from the reanalysis data? Apart from evaporation all the other variables are mentioned, so suggest mentioning the missing variable as well.

Line 96- The acronym SDR is not defined.

Line 121- The acronym AGCM is not defined.

Line 128- "........downward shortwave decrease,....", the word 'decrease' is better choice here compared to 'decreasing'.

Table 1- The font needs to be similar to other text. The details in the table should be well managed so that it will easily readable.

Line 168, 169- The previous study needs to be cited.

Line 171, 172- Please state some reference to support your claim.

Line 182- Rephrase the sentence as the term July-August is placed more than once leading to confounding summary.

Line 183- Rephrase the sentence as there is a grammatical error.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks the reviewer for the constructive comments. Please see the attached file for our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments: Atmosphere-104712

The paper reports the climatological precipitation increase from July to August over the western North Pacific region simulated by CMIP6 AMIP and historical experiments are investigated. The paper fails to establish any new or interesting finding that would warrant its publication in Atmosphere. This is immediately clear when one reads the abstract section, which is a collection of obvious/general statements, rather than a set of new findings that derive from an original analysis after explaining brief methods used in the study. There is no logical discussion in this manuscript (repetition of results only). Explanations of methods are inadequate. Overall, I recommend the major revision.

The work reported suffers from several major limitations.

• The writing and English need thorough polishing. Numerous grammatical and rhetorical issues too.
• Authors should provide better and more current literature in the field.
• I have many concerns about the introduction section. I think that if the authors wish this paper is well considered by experts, more attention should be devoted to discussing the application scenarios. non-inclusive literature review related to topics such as climate change and downscaling techniques. In essence, the introduction is short and boring. Moreover, the introduction and methodology section needs to re-write as these sections are lacking clarity and sufficient motivation. I suggest to improve them or better explain with realistic examples.
• The methodology is not described in brief. Authors must describe the methods in detail. How they select the CMIP6 models for their study and for what duration they have used the data of these models?
• no information, support, or justification for the use of bias correction in the CMIP6 models? It is better for the authors must describe how they have corrected bias from these models.
• There must be an explanation of the study area along with its neighboring countries in the form of a figure as without any explanation the results are not clear.
• It is not clear why the authors have used the reported approaches in the study? It is as if the authors have picked techniques that are available to them and went ahead with their use. No justification or support is provided.
• minimal insights from the results reported with no possible contribution to existing literature related to future projections.
• The abstract is not written well. The authors need to explain a little bit about the methods they have used in the study and then discuss the results.
• Line 1: SST stands for? Kindly explain abbreviation when using the first time
• Line 37 has two full stops
• Line 61: I think authors wish to write great challenge instead of “grant challenge”?
• Line 88: increase or change?

Author Response

Thanks the reviewer for the constructive suggestions. Please find the attachment for our reply.

Reviewer 3 Report

Water vapor budget analysis and further simulations that are presented enrich the content of the research. However, language editing from a native English speaker is necessary. The paper is well organized and the references are given accurately. The content is rich and the description is supported by extra digital evidence of high quality.

Regarding the structure of the paper, Section Results is detailed and very informative, however, the description of the Methodology (Experiments, Data and Methods) is less informative – Authors are advised to discuss further in this section e.g. the models of Table 1 and to explain the content of results. Overall presentation is fine.

Author Response

Thanks the reviewer for the comments. Please find the attached file for our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx