Modeling Long-Term Temporal Variation of Dew Formation in Jordan and Its Link to Climate Change
, Anwar Jiries 4, Henri Vuollekoski 2, Markku Kulmala 2, Timo Vesala 2,5 and Tareq Hussein 2,6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors studied the spatial, seasonal, and annual dew formation in Jordan during 40 years (1979–2018). They claimed, a modified version of the global dew formation model, which was developed by Vuollekoski et al. (2015), was applied to this study. All detail of model development was placed in supplementary materials. My main concern with this paper is that it is a technical report about a really important problem in the area but there is no map for decision makers. Although, there is no novelty in the manuscript, but the subject in the selected area in important and it could be considered for the publication after major revision. I have three major concerns:
- Please change studied period to 1979-2020
- Add a brief description of the global dew formation model development in the paper, add a flowchart and clarify the procedure of model development and all improvement you made on the original model. Do you have any special treatments to the data when they go through the algorithms? Was any transformation applied to the data? need to be detailed.
- Add more details about available water resources in Jordan and connect the results of this study for decision makers with a discussion about how they manage water in three distinguished seasonal patterns
In figure 2 cumulative ice is not clear. Could you present these figures with contour map?
Add detail analysis about the difference between mean yearly dew yield and yearly long term mean and discuss about its impact on water resources.
Figure 4, keep the same legend for Ice and dew yield (color bar should be identic with the Figure 2)
What is the next step in advancing the obtained results for managing water resources in the area?
Author Response
Response to Comments by Reviewer #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors studied the spatial, seasonal, and annual dew formation in Jordan during 40 years (1979–2018). They claimed, a modified version of the global dew formation model, which was developed by Vuollekoski et al. (2015), was applied to this study. All detail of model development was placed in supplementary materials. My main concern with this paper is that it is a technical report about a really important problem in the area but there is no map for decision makers. Although, there is no novelty in the manuscript, but the subject in the selected area is important and it could be considered for the publication after major revision.
Response: we thank the prospective reviewer for the critical comments and supporting publication of this manuscript as it is covers an important topic in the area.
I have three major concerns:
- Please change studied period to 1979-2020
Response: The input data-base is available for 40 years only (1979-2018) by the ERA. The satellite for ECMWF daily data was stopped monitoring in August 2019. Therefore, at this stage, we shall keep the study for the 40 years 1979 – 2018. However, for future investigations, we shall include up to date data when made available by the ERA.
- Add a brief description of the global dew formation model development in the paper, add a flowchart and clarify the procedure of model development and all improvement you made on the original model. Do you have any special treatments to the data when they go through the algorithms? Was any transformation applied to the data? need to be detailed.
Response: The detailed model description was moved from the supplementary material to Appendix A. These points mentioned in this comment were also covered in the detailed model description.
- Add more details about available water resources in Jordan and connect the results of this study for decision makers with a discussion about how they manage water in three distinguished seasonal patterns
Response: details about water resources were added to the materials and methods section as a separate subsection “2.2.1. Fresh water resources”
In figure 2 cumulative ice is not clear. Could you present these figures with contour map?
Response: According to the model simulation, The amount of ice (i.e. hoarfrost) was too little when compared to the dew water amount. However, we presented ice amount for the completeness of the model simulation results.
Add detail analysis about the difference between mean yearly dew yield and yearly long term mean and discuss about its impact on water resources.
Response: The Mann-Kendal trend analysis was already introduced in the results section (Table 3) and the annual cycle was also discussed.
Figure 4, keep the same legend for Ice and dew yield (color bar should be identic with the Figure 2)
Response:
What is the next step in advancing the obtained results for managing water resources in the area?
Response: This is the same comment point out by Reviewer 3 (last comment). In the revised version, we covered this by adding more insight into the results and how this can be forwarded to decision makers. Also we illustrated the future studies as a continuation of this research in the conclusions section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The role of dew in arid and semi-arid regions is considered to be of great importance. In this ecosystems the dew is an important source of water for plants and animals. In highly polluted areas the dew can absorb and dissolve atmospheric gases and aerosols.
The presented scientific article "Modelling the Long-Term Temporal Variation of Dew Formation in Jordan" deals with the results of modelling the amounts of dew in the extremely dry climatic conditions of Jordan. Therefore, I consider the article to be interesting and inspiring for the journal "Water". From a hydro - meteorological point of view, I appreciate the medium-long 40-year time series of dew modelling (model simulations cover a period during 1979-2018). Methodologically, the article is based on a model that was developed by Vuollekoski et al. (2015), and was modified to accommodate for environmental conditions in Jordan. The results are documented by concise tables and graphically well-managed pictures.
Recommendations:
- Part "2.2. Case Study Description" in the description of climatic and hydrological conditions is absent of the citation of a literary source.
- I recommend to consider using the term "hoarfrost" instead of "ice".
- The territory of Jordan is relatively mountainous, the selection of localities lacks the selection of higher mountain locations, for example above 1200, 1500 m a. s .l. (the highest locality in Table 1 is Maan (Badia region) only at a height of 890 m a. s. l.). In the arid climate of Jordan, these sites can be hydrically interesting and important.
- The work presents modelled dew amounts, in the Discussion (or Results?) I would expect a comparison of these results with direct experimental measurements of dew amounts. The added value of this article could be e.g supporting table with actual measured results of dew amounts compared with modelled amounts.
- Supplementary Materials page 5. In the text should be correct figure 1 (resp. Figure S1) not figure 2.
Author Response
Response to Comments by Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The role of dew in arid and semi-arid regions is considered to be of great importance. In this ecosystems the dew is an important source of water for plants and animals. In highly polluted areas the dew can absorb and dissolve atmospheric gases and aerosols.
The presented scientific article "Modelling the Long-Term Temporal Variation of Dew Formation in Jordan" deals with the results of modelling the amounts of dew in the extremely dry climatic conditions of Jordan. Therefore, I consider the article to be interesting and inspiring for the journal "Water". From a hydro - meteorological point of view, I appreciate the medium-long 40-year time series of dew modelling (model simulations cover a period during 1979-2018). Methodologically, the article is based on a model that was developed by Vuollekoski et al. (2015), and was modified to accommodate for environmental conditions in Jordan. The results are documented by concise tables and graphically well-managed pictures.
Response: we thank the reviewer for pointing out the value of this study and supporting publishing in “Water” journal.
Recommendations:
- Part "2.2. Case Study Description" in the description of climatic and hydrological conditions is absent of the citation of a literary source.
Response: two recent references were added:
- Abdulla, F. 21st Century Climate Change Projections of Precipitation and Temperature in Jordan, 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design (OPTARCH 2019). Procedia Manufacturing 2020, 44, 197–204.
- Freiwan, M.; Kadioglub, M. Climate variability in Jordan. Int. J. Climatol. 2008, 28, 69–89.
- I recommend to consider using the term "hoarfrost" instead of "ice".
Response: Indeed, “hoarfrost” is a better term than “ice” in this context. Therefore, we replaced “ice” by “hoarfrost”.
- The territory of Jordan is relatively mountainous, the selection of localities lacks the selection of higher mountain locations, for example above 1200, 1500 m a. s .l. (the highest locality in Table 1 is Maan (Badia region) only at a height of 890 m a. s. l.). In the arid climate of Jordan, these sites can be hydrically interesting and important.
Response: This is absolutely true. Our next step of the model simulation will be including complete gridded model domain covering the whole Jordan. In this study, in order to make the comparison among different locations we tried to keep the height almost the same foe all locations except for Aqaba and the Dead Sea areas.
- The work presents modelled dew amounts, in the Discussion (or Results?) I would expect a comparison of these results with direct experimental measurements of dew amounts. The added value of this article could be e.g. supporting table with actual measured results of dew amounts compared with modelled amounts.
Response: This is a very important point. Actually, model calibration should be done against experimental data with respect to different environments. Experimental dew formation data in Jordan is not very limited to few days (measured by us in 2015), which is not enough for model calibration. However, this model was previously compared to experimental data measured in Finland (Vuollokoski et al., 2015).
In fact, we are currently preparing for a project to collect long term dew formation experimental data in Jordan. This model simulation was very important for us to select the right locations for dew collection.
- Supplementary Materials page 5. In the text should be correct figure 1 (resp. Figure S1) not figure 2.
Response: Corrected…
Reviewer 3 Report
The author conducted modeling study for simulating dew yield in Jordan. Although it is valuable to understand water scarce issue due to climate change, there are a few points that I feel should be addressed prior to publication.
- It seems to a report, not an original research paper. Author just described major results and there are no new findings and methodological approaches to understand major results.
- The authors should explain about the background of these research processes in the section of Introduction. The authors should think more about the objective of this study and only elucidate relevant information that truly benefits the interested reader.
- There is not enough information of advantages of modeling part in introduction and material methods part. Why are you used this model and what is the main advantage comparing with other models? Actually, I don’t know what the benefit of selected model is.
- The discussions confirm previous observations and do not extend the available knowledge base of modeling. The authors also need to include some limitations in this study and suggest future study direction.
Author Response
Response to Comments by Reviewer #3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author conducted modeling study for simulating dew yield in Jordan. Although it is valuable to understand water scarce issue due to climate change, there are a few points that I feel should be addressed prior to publication.
Response: we thank the reviewer for pointing out the critical comments on this manuscript. Certainly, these improved the manuscript in the revised form.
- It seems to a report, not an original research paper. Author just described major results and there are no new findings and methodological approaches to understand major results.
Response: We disagree with the prospective reviewer that this manuscript might seem to be as a report rather than an original research paper. However, we hope that the manuscript was improved in the revised version.
- The authors should explain about the background of these research processes in the section of Introduction. The authors should think more about the objective of this study and only elucidate relevant information that truly benefits the interested reader.
Response: This comment consists of two parts: (1) improving the introduction by explaining the background research processes and (2) make the objectives more clear for the reader. As for the first part, a new literature review was made to add more information in the introduction about the previous experimental and theoretical approaches. As for the second part, the objectives (i.e. last paragraph in the introduction) was rewritten and made more clear.
- There is not enough information of advantages of modeling part in introduction and material methods part. Why you used this model and what is the main advantage comparing with other models? Actually, I don’t know what the benefit of selected model is.
Response: the details of this model were explained in the supplementary materials. We moved the model description from the supplementary materials to Appendix A.
- The discussions confirm previous observations and do not extend the available knowledge base of modeling. The authors also need to include some limitations in this study and suggest future study direction.
Response: This is the same comment point out by Reviewer 1 (last comment). In the revised version, we covered this by adding more insight into the results and how this can be forwarded to decision makers. Also we illustrated the future studies as a continuation of this research in the conclusions section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be considered for the publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author well reflects comments and I think that it is ready to publish in the Journal.
