Review Reports
by
- Yiwen Wang 1,
- Zhiming Zhang 2,* and
- Yang Wang 4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Mustafa El-Rawy Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: David Ching-Fang Shih
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The topic is interesting and the manuscript is well-written. Listed below are some suggestions that could help the improving the manuscript.
Abstract: Please start the abstract with a sentence highlighting the importance of the research topic.
Please make the objective and novelty of the research considerably clearer as they are not very clear.
The most important conclusion should also come at the end of the abstract. The most important conclusion should be added at the end of the abstract.
Materials and methods:
Please replace "illustration" in Figure 1 with "legend"
Please provide a justification for using data from these 10 climate models (CMIP6).
What level of uncertainty exists in the precipitation data obtained from these 10 climate models, each of which has a different resolution?
Results and conclusions: The current research findings need to be compared to other published case studies with similar climate conditions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This study provides a useful analysis of the impact of climate change on future rainfall and waterlogging scenarios in urban areas, specifically in Beijing. The methodology used to evaluate the simulation capabilities of different models and screen the optimal model is appropriate, and the results obtained appear reliable. The use of the SWMM model to simulate future scenarios is also appropriate. The study's major findings, including the identification of the best-performing models, the increase in annual precipitation under future climate circumstances, and the potential for more severe urban surface runoff and nodal overflow, are significant and have important implications for urban planning and management.
However, there are some areas where the study could be improved.
1. I don’t see any new findings and the uniqueness of this study, nor the scientific problem the author mentioned. I would suggest improving the focus and concentrating on this manuscript's main objectives.
2. In the abstract, it's necessary to add a general sentence to describe the background of this study.
3. The writing has to be improved throughout the manuscript. For example,
Line 117, it should not be Simple Future Tense.
Line 348, Table 4
Not list all
4. Line 379. There is no need to keep so many decimal places
Moderate editing of English is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
1. Please provide the validation and verification of the SWMM model.
2. In Abstract: EC-Earth3GFDL-ESM4 和 MPI-ESM1-2-HR. You need to add notes for what they are.
3. Add a section that addresses uncertainty and parameter sensitivity analysis.
4. In L148-150: you stated, "Due to the typical character of Beijing's urban climate and precipitation, simulations 148 of future rainfall and waterlogging in Beijing can serve as a representative global model 149 of future urban hydrological response to precipitation." What is your basis?
5. You do not have consolidated and systematic results that can provide to the office manager department as a way of improving city development.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
The authors have addressed the detailed questions I raised in my previous review in the revised version of the manuscript. I have no further comments
I recommend accepting the manuscript in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Thank you for addressing all the problems.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Review comments have been provided to Editors.
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
My comments are in the uploaded file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Wang et al. submitted the article "Precipitation simulation capability evaluation and waterlog-ging prediction based on CMIP6: A case study of a plain urban area in northern China" to mdpi water. The paper investigating mainly the performance of CMIP6 model in simulating rainfall and dry period. The study build up on previous CMIP6 study selecting the 10 best model and then investigation their performance at local area using a combination of 3 metrics: Interannual Rainfall, Rainy Season Rainfall and Dry season Rainfall to establish a final ranking. Then data are downscaled and return period curve estimated for the 3 best model. Finally, the results of the best model were used to illustrate rainfall event and waterlogging for the three classical climate scenario SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5.
Results are somehow expected as already water logging is occurring, climate change degrade the situation. The exact location of the study need to be precise as northern China is too vague. Please add a Figure that show the exact location of the study area. The study follows a classical approach that has already been used in several study. Moreover, the absence of the exact location of the study, it is difficult to appreciate the novelty of the study.
Questions
#1
What the conclusion of previous study on CMIP6 performance over China and the region you focusing on. In there not already literatures indicating optimal model. Then explain why you prefer to use your own metric to estimate the best models meaning the combination of annual/monthly and dry season.
#2
In which sense this study focus on waterlogging as the study does not conclude clearly on the future of waterlogging occurrence in the area as it only used an example.
Tables
Table 1
resolution --> grid dimesnion
you could aslo add teh resolution in meter or deg
Figures
Need a Figure to show the region you’re studying, many people are not familiar with China regional area
Figure 2
Why not showing the observation 2015-2022 if available, it will then give idea of the model performance on a time basis
Line 13-14
Explain your general approach; we do not know how the problem is handle by the authors
Line 14
The simulation capability of each model
--> explain which model you refer to
Line 39
"...provide theoretical participation and decision-making support ..."
-->
Not clear why that important here
Line 49-50
Alignment issue
China
[7-13]
-->
China [7-13]
Line 45
Misplacement
nd other [7]software
-->
nd other software [7]
Line 51
s Y. Kexin et al.[14]based
-->
s Y. Kexin et al.[14] based
Line 61
under different climate scenarios with climate change
-->
under different future climate scenarios with climate change
Line 62
Mei Chao et al. c
Article not cited [xx] ??
Line 64
Wang Shijing et al.
article not cited [xx] ??
Line 66
ods [17]; P. Chen et al. d
-->
ods; P. Chen et al. [17] d
Line 125
Precise the exact location of teh study in northern China
Line 130-131
61% + 28% = 90%, what the remaining 10% rainfall ? Moonson ?
Line 140
in the table 1
-->
Table 1
Line 155
, which you can learn more about at
-->
based on
Line 159
forcing; T
-->
forcing. T
Line 168-169
Add a Blanc space between
Line 366
The figure 5
-->
Figure 5
Reviewer 3 Report
What do you mean by a plain megacity?
Study area has to be strengthened by a clear map.
How did you corrected the Bias?
The overall idea of Waterlogging is not here. May be authors have to re-structure the title and the paper. If you are looking at Waterlogging you need to come up with it rather than precipitation interested. Your outcome is more to precipitation and where is waterlogging in it?
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is very important, and the paper is very interesting to read. Some comments and suggestions for improving the work are provided below.
This study used ten CMIP6 models, please give us reason why are you select those models. Because you haven't verified the results and observation data.
The mainly data used from the 10 CMIP6 models is rainfall, it is better to show the Box Plot of residual errors for the rainfall data that downloaded from these 10 models.
Study area: There is no detailed map of the study area's location. Please include a map indicating the location of the study area in Chain (including all details related the paper goal).
Most of the figures are unreadable (example see Fig, 1); please increase the font size of the legends of all figures in the manuscript.
Figures 7 and 8: The legends are unreadable and please add a scale for these two maps.
In figure 8, you show the nodal overflow at the moment 17:05 for the 5-year return period, SSP2-4.5 scenario. What about other scenarios, especially the SSP5-8.5 (High emissions)?