Time Series Analysis of Monthly and Annual Precipitation in The State of Texas Using High-Resolution Radar Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your time and please check the attachment for our response.
Regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

In the introduction, the authors discussed the issue of rainfall in terms of the use of radars and rain gauges.  In this regard, the relevant literature has been accurately cited, indicating the problems and limitations related to the use of the above-mentioned precipitation devices / radars rainfall. The introduction was focused on the issues of using data from rainfall radars and on the correlation between changes in rainfall and the analyzed region.  It can be mentioned that the content of the introduction was well-prepared, although in my opinion there is no information about  possible applications of the obtained research results.  Why this research is important has not been described. I would suggest adding 2-3 sentences that would specifically indicate the application possibilities of using the obtained results or the direction of their further development.  Certainly, at this stage, it can be stated that the obtained results of the conducted research can be used in the water management of the analyzed region's catchment area. They can be particularly useful in the preparation of design guidelines for hydro technical devices or drainage systems, e.g. retention reservoirs.

Study Area and Datase

This section of the manuscript extensively describes the 'key study' - the region with its climate and the research data, including their scope and origin.

Methodology

The methodology used is clearly described. The applied statistical equations were listed - which were appropriately selected. I would suggest analyzing the text in terms of markings. Using variable markings interchangeably, reduces the readability of the article. In some places, variables are presented in italics, and in another normal font. I would suggest a normalization (e.g. line 272). I can guess that the analyses were made using computer software. Were statistical analyzes performed with the use of software such as Statistica, MatCad? - if so, it is worth adding this information in the methodology.

Results and Discussion

The section describing the results was well and legibly described. Descriptions and comments to the results obtained are reflected in the graphically presented results. Please verify the text between lines 306 - 314, probably there is no reference to fig. 3 here. In addition, in my opinion, there is no comparison of the results obtained from radars with the results for this region from rain gauges.
I would suggest a check-up of the radar results with those from at least one weather station (in that particular region where rain gauge data would be available). Of course if it is possible.  Also, to be improved are the symbols in the figures shown, e.g. Fig. 12, 13.  In most drawings, "D" is illegible. Overall, it can be stated that the obtained research results have been presented in a very clear manner and have been accompanied by exhaustive comments.

Summary and Conclusions

The conclusions result from the research carried out. No methodological or calculation errors were found in the article. The summary and final conclusions from the article are interesting for this region and may be used in the future in application work.

The three main comments:

• improved article editing
• selection of literature items

42 items (of which 18 are publications over 18 years old), while some of them have actually been accurately cited (11 items), some of them require updating or specifying research dates in the manuscript. Possibly, I suggest increasing the number of current publications to change the proportion of these articles.

[1] - 2003     „Intermittency is one of the main defining characteristics of precipitation, making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to fully capture the spatial and temporal variability of precipitation” The publication can be replaced with a more recent one, for example:

https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0263.1

https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122616

[3] – 1998

„Most of the studies that addressed a long-term temporal evolution of precipitation 41were conducted using data from rain gauge networks” The publication can be replaced with a more recent one, for example:

            DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.026

[6]-1992  publication relevant, should remain

[9] – 2002  publication relevant, should remain

[13] - 1981  „A national study 83conducted on the seasonality of monthly precipitation examined teleconnections that might influence precipitation in parts of Texas [13]”  If there are no more recent publications in this regard, it would be useful to add in the text of the manuscript the date that the research - 1981.

[14] – 1990   -  If there are no more recent publications in this regard, it would be useful to add in the text of the manuscript the date that the research - 1990.

[17] – 1998   -  If there are no more recent publications in this regard, it would be useful to add in the text of the manuscript the date that the research - 1998.

[19] 2001  publication relevant, should remain

[24] 1983 If there are no more recent publications in this regard, it would be useful to add in the text of the manuscript the date that the research - 1983.

[25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42] - publication relevant, should remain

• Verification of the results from weather radars -
  This is my personal suggestion and I do not consider the authors' approach as a mistake, but in my opinion this remark is quite important.
  Compare radar results for at least one rain gauge weather station to verify the results.  The authors base the results from radars as "certain", but they do not always coincide with the results from stations based on rain gauges. Often the results differ to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes it concerns e.g. the time shift of the measurements. If in the case of rain gauges the obtained results are different from in the case of Radars, this would be the basis for the next stage of the research. Verification of the results from weather radars -
  This is my personal suggestion and I do not consider the authors' approach as a mistake, but in my opinion this remark is quite important.
   Compare radar results for at least one rain gauge weather station to verify the results.  The authors base the results from radars as "certain", but they do not always coincide with the results from stations based on rain gauges. Often the results differ to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes it concerns e.g. the time shift of the measurements. If in the case of rain gauges the obtained results are different from in the case of Radars, this would be the basis for the next stage of the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your time and please check the attachment for our response.
Regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "TIME SERIES ANALYSIS OF MONTHLY AND ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS USING HIGH-RESOLUTION RADAR PRODUCTS"  is very interesting for readers and it has technical sound.

Precipitation is the main source for many beneficial purposes, no only in arid and semi-arid regions as in the described area of Texas but over the world. 

For many professionals the main goal of this study - to understand the spatio-temporal variability of precipitation in our century and examine climatic controls behind this variability in selected area is very interesting and important.

* The title, key words, abstract and introduction is appropriate. They help other researchers in the area to find this paper and read it further. Abstracts is clear, it is a short summary of the full manuscript. 

* Materials & methods:  The authors combined different research methods for case study in Texas state. The suitability and technical standards of the methods is applicable everywhere. Sufficient details of the methods is provided so that another researcher is able to reproduce the experiments described. But I am afraid that not all coutries have the necessery input tools available (high spatial resolution stage-IV radar data, etc...).

* Results & discussion: The results could contribute to improving water resources management strategies and policies. The used data are well controlled and robust. Authors provided relevant and current references. Discussion and conclusions are based on actual facts and figures.

* Conclusion: Authors provided adequate proof for their claims. Also they wrote about negatives of their research and necessary improvements for the future.

* All the references cited are relevant and adequate.

The overall idea of the paper is fine.  I do not feel qualified to fully evaluate the statistics, that´s why  my comments are not about statistical analyses and results.

However the manuscript, in its present form do need only small corrections in the Figures: 5, 6, 9-14 because of bad visibility of big red letters (mainly D).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your time and please check the attachment for our response.
Regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are still grammatical errors in the text. There are some instances where it says "Stage VI" instead of "Stage IV". 

There is a typo in the word mosaicking (it's missing the k in at least one instance).

The last paragraph in section 2 refers to the discontinuities maybe affecting the results. How would the discontinuities have affected the results? This needs some more details and interpretation.

I still think the colorscale in Figure 2 being continuous instead of having 6 or 7 fixed colors makes it hard to see the detailed changes in amounts across the region.

Figure 4: What does the shading mean?

Author Response

Thank you again for taking the time to review our work and provide us with constructive comments. 

Please find our point-by-point response to your comments.

Regards,

Dawit Ghebreyesus 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx