Hydrological Data Projection Using Empirical Mode Decomposition: Applications in a Changing Climate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEditor-in-Chief
water-3201387
Manuscript Title: Hydrological Data Projection Using Empirical Mode Decomposition: Applications in a Changing Climate
Having carefully evaluated the manuscript, I would like to offer some comments for the authors’ consideration throughout the revision process, Additionally, I believe that the work is well organized. The paper can be accepted after a major revision according to the following inputs.
Comments:
-It is recommended to include some of the key outcomes and numerical results in the abstract.
- In lines 27 to 30, explain what factors cause changes in the hydrologic data patterns. Provide explanations about various human and climatic factors.
- Lines 31 to 50 refer to relevant sources.
- It is recommended to include a "Literature Review" section in the introduction. This section should describe several appropriate research backgrounds and offer a summary to emphasize the significance of the work.
- Adding much more literature would help in which be of interest for the readers from different backgrounds.
- Prior to stating the objective, a summary of previous research should be provided, and the significant aspects of the research conversation should be highlighted for better emphasis.
- Provide the closure statement, demonstrating what just your research examines.
- In line 63, enter the location of the stations, explain why these stations were chosen?
- What characteristics do the selected stations and data have that are emphasized in the title "Changing Climate"?
- In the research method section, explain what advancements have been made in the method, such as those mentioned in the abstract. "a significant advancement in data-driven hydrological time series modeling."
- The statistical information of Figures 1 and 2 should be presented in a table (including minimum, maximum, coefficient of variations, skewness and kurtosis, etc…).
- On the data presented in Figure 2 and 4, should a Trend test be performed (such as Mann-Kendal) to determine whether the increasing trend is statistically significant or not?
- The title of Figure 5 is not clear; it should be written more informative.
- In the case of Figure 5, additional explanations should be provided, such as 1, 2, 3, P and. Residue to be described.
- Doublecheck the number provided in line 293, is it correct?
- The applicability and assumptions of the developed/presented method to other data types should be explained.
- Provide some practical recommendations for the data analysis in the conclusion section.
- What is the theorical and practical implications of the work in short.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript’s English proficiency is good, but some minor revisions are needed. These can be addressed by revising the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached files.
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors applied the EMD method for prediction of El Niño events based on daily SST data within the El Niño 3.4 region. The overall logic of the thesis is relatively clear, but some of the contents are incomplete, and the format of the thesis as well as the presentation need to be further strengthened. Specific comments are as follows:
1. The abstract lacks necessary results about the simulation performance, such as the quantitative index. Please add more objective results, not just some subjective deduction.
2. The introduction is too short to reflect the research progress and findings in the field. Time series forecasting methods like EMD have been widely used in hydrological and meteorologic simulations. The current version has no sufficient literature review for the study focus of this paper. Please improve this part and add more relevant and recent references.
3. Section 2 is lack of description of the study area.
4. Figure 1 doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s only a time series of SST without trend line or statistical characteristic.
5. The analysis of the projected SST by EMD has no quantitative evaluation index, Figures 10&11 only show the time series of projected and observed SST.
6. Please double check the format of the manuscript based on the requirements of this journal. Such as, titles of “Introduction” and “Conclusion” are not numbered; vertical axis label of Figure 3 is not clear; Figures 5, 6, 7 are not clear; the equations are not centered; section number (2.1 & 3.1) is duplicated; reference format is not consistent.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHello,
While considering the comments, the manuscript has been improved and is acceptable.
Final Referee
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comment.
