Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The authors should present their analyses in detail: please add maps with the trend results for all stations and analyzed parameters (statistical significance and trend magnitude), as well as correlation maps with the teleconnection indices and a summary table. The maps with the spatial distribution of trends should differentiate between significant and non-significant trends. The manuscript would benefit immensely from adding the aforementioned figures and table. 

The overall statements and conclusions are based on results that are not statistically significant: this is a major drawback of the paper, as it represents a logical inconsistency throughout the manuscript. The authors acknowledge that most trend coefficients of determination are between 0.02 and 0.24, which seem statistically negligible. Nevertheless, the Abstract and the Conclusions present confident findings as though significant trends have been detected. For example, stating that the average height of snow increased by 3 cm and the maximum decreased by 4 cm (lines 411-413) without mentioning these results are within statistical error is misleading.

Also, how come the average height is increasing while the maximum is decreasing? It it worth a discussion.

The correlation analysis is weak and incompletely justified. The Spearman correlation coefficients reported in Tables 3 and 4 (lines 337-341) range from –0.33 to 0.40, but most values seem well below conventional thresholds of practical significance. The authors have to report p-values for all correlation coefficient, in order to assess the statistical significance of the values. The authors should also make a clear distinction between statistically-significant and non-significant relationships. 

The authors should avoid completely interpreting non-significant correlations in the text, e.g., “The correlation dependence confirms that” (lines 418-419). 

Clearly mention in the Conclusions the absence of statistically-significant trends, as this also represents a scientifically valid and publishable result. 

 

Specific Comments

Lines 22-24: Please mention the p-values / the statistical significance of the coefficients.

Line 24: The sentence "Changes, but it is influenced by many local factors." is incomplete. Please rewrite the phrase or delete it.

Line 27: The keyword "Big Data Analytics" is unjustified, since the methods used in the study are classical statistical analyses / tests. The paper does not employ any big data analytics methodology so please remove the keyword as it is misleading.

Line 32: The reference to IPCC refers to a report of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Furthermore, a governmental communication is not an inappropriate source for a fundamental global climate statistic. It could be replaced with IPCC AR6 (2021) or with a newer paper tackling dealing with changes in global mean air temperature.  

Line 33: The statement “the average global surface air temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.20 °C” paper mentions an IPCC figure of +0.6 ± 0.2 °C over 140 years (Reference 1), is from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) that appeared in 2001 or so. The current Assessment Report AR6 (2021) reports warming of approximately +1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. I suggest the authors to update the 25-year-old estimation on global warming with the newest findings.

Lines 37-58: There are references in the Introduction that are mentioned as URLs rather than formal bibliographic entries (e.g., WMO, Global Water Commission, UNU-INWEH). These should be formatted consistently according to journal’s instructions – with author, title, year, and DOI where available. The UNU-INWEH 2026 report is particularly important given its relevance and should be cited properly.

Figure 1: "Homogeneous" instead of "Gomogeneous"

Lines 144-171: The paragraphs provide a detailed narrative of the 2024 flood event, but the Discussion does not explicitly link the statistical findings of the study to this event.

Lines 175-176: Please offer some details about the characteristics of the stations in a table.

Lines 197-243: Section 2.3 has to be rewritten as it looks like a textbook introduction to statistical methods. Phrases like “A time series is a sequence of observations arranged in chronological order” are useless here. The section should describe specifically which tests were applied, which significance thresholds were used, etc.

Lines 295-297 (Table 1): Table 1 lists a row "Average: 31 cm, 78 mm, 138 days" for the Aktobe region, which does not correspond to the decadal averages shown in the same table (which is approximately 37.4 cm). Similarly for the West Kazakhstan region. This inconsistency has to be explained or corrected.

Lines 321-326 (Figure 3): The figure caption is described as showing "time course of snow cover characteristics" but the caption lacks detail on which stations are aggregated for each region, and what the grey lines represent (probably the linear trends). Figures should be self-explanatory with complete captions.

Line 362: The caption of Table 6 is titled "Statistical characteristics of data series," which is identical to the caption of Table 5. Please correct it, as Table 6 seems to report trend results. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper contains grammatical errors, few incomplete sentences, and some technical inconsistencies that affects readability. It requires English language editing. 

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have carefully considered your recommendations and updated the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attached file for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: CHANGES IN SNOW RESOURCES OF WESTERN KAZAKHSTAN IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL WARMING

Manuscript Number: water-4383971

 

The manuscript investigates long-term changes in snow resources in Western Kazakhstan using observations from 50 meteorological stations. The topic is relevant, and the long-term dataset is valuable. However, the manuscript still requires substantial improvements in the scientific framework, methodology, interpretation of results, and presentation before it can be considered for publication. My comments are as follows.

 

 

General comments

 

Comment 1. Abstract. The abstract should be revised. It contains excessive background information but lacks a clear description of the study period, objectives, main findings, and scientific contribution. More quantitative results should be included to better highlight the main conclusions.

 

Comment 2. Introduction. There are too many paragraphs, which need to be merged without distinction. The literature review is obviously insufficient, the stratification is chaotic, and there is a lack of a logical main line. On the basis of summarizing and generalizing the progress of previous research, a summary should be made, and the focus should be on this research area, highlighting the main work that needs to be solved and the innovative points of this research. Finally, the research objective of this study is too simplistic and has not been summarized. Why such a research objective was set, as well as what the urgency and necessity of carrying out this work are.

 

Comment 3. Data and Methods. The data section needs to be greatly improved and enhanced. For instance, during the current introduction process, the data source information of the 50 sites used in the research is incomplete. What is the research period of the data? What is the spatial distribution (such as name, region, time, altitude, etc.)? What is the quality? Are there any omissions? What parameters and variables are mainly used in the snow cover data in the data information? In the description and introduction of methods, the corresponding formulas and other calculations are missing. The process of data processing and statistical test information, etc. should all be improved. In addition, in the selection of global climate indices, the basis for selection and the time periods should all be fully explained.

 

Comment 4. Results. How are the North of the Aktobe region and the West Kazakhstan region divided? Are there any relevant schematic diagrams or other introductions? More obvious spatial change trend charts and other information should be added. Currently, mainly tables and line graphs are used, which weakens the analysis of the results. In addition, the author should note that in the analysis of the results, they should not describe too much but focus on the analysis of the main mechanisms and revolve around the main content of this study, "changes".

Furthermore, the title of the paper contains "global warming". Then, for the study area "North of the Aktobe region West Kazakhstan region", what changes have occurred in the climate under the background of global change? And what are the impacts of this change on regional snow water resources? These should all be the contents that the author should explore and analyze in depth.

 

 

Comment 5. Discussion. The discussion is relatively weak and mainly repeats the results. More attention should be given to the physical mechanisms and comparisons with previous studies.

 

Comment 6. Conclusions. The conclusions are too general and largely repeat the results. In addition, this part should be compared with similar international studies. This part should not repeat the result content but should conduct in-depth discussion and analysis.

 

Other specific comments

Figure 1: The legend is difficult to distinguish because several colors are too similar. Please improve the figure for better readability.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have carefully considered your recommendations and updated the manuscript accordingly. Please see the attached file for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my observations in the revised version of the manuscript. No further review necessary. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper contains grammatical errors, few incomplete sentences, and some technical inconsistencies that affects readability. It requires English language editing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version of the paper still has many problems, such as unclear logical structure, insufficient scientific nature in many parts of the content expression, and insufficient coherence between the beginning and the end. The authors must take it carefully.

Comment 1: The title is currently too broad. What is the connection between the use of "global warming" in the title and this study? How has the climate in this region changed? What are the comparisons and particularities with the background of global warming? None of these were reflected in this study.

Comment 2: the phrase "Region 1 - the north of the..." in the research results should be included Move it to the overview of the study area. In addition, the location of the study area and the meaning annotations such as ΙΠШ should be indicated in Figure 1.

Comment 3: The specific indicators referred to as "Snow resources" in this study should be clearly stated in the research methods, as there are many snow cover indicators in this study, but only "snow cover" is mentioned in the research methods.

Comment 4: The abstract is currently poorly written. It fails to indicate which scientific issues this study has addressed and what changes have occurred in the "Snow resources" section for this title. The entire paragraph needs to be reorganized and improved.

Comment 5: Introduction also needs to be greatly improved. The introduction should introduce the domestic and international research progress of this study. The first paragraph is not well-written and should be reorganized and improved. This paragraph is also relatively short. The logical relationship before and after it should be sorted out clearly. The relationship between the scientific problems to be solved in this study and the title of this study has not been well organized and clarified at present.

Comment 5: Supplement the meteorological station data and analysis of this study in response to "in the context of global warming" in the title of the paper.

Comment 6: The conclusion section should be distinguished from the research results and analysis, highlighting the main findings, supplementing the research deficiencies and future prospects.

Comment 7: There are many formatting and layout issues in the paper. The author should carefully and meticulously revise it!!

Author Response

Dear editors,

Please kindly consider our report in response to the re-review comments:

Comments 1 and 5.

We clarified the article title by adding that we used weather-station data.

Comment 2.

We moved the region descriptions to the region of research section and added clarifications to the figure.

Comment 3. We clarified the concept of snow reserves. We indicated that these are depth, water content, and the number of days with snow; we provide this information in the Research Methods section.

Comment 4.

We corrected and clarified the annotations and indicated the scientific issues that need to be addressed.

Comment 5.

We revised the introduction section. We rewrote the first paragraphs and added a more detailed description of similar studies abroad and in Kazakhstan.

Comment 6.

We revised the conclusions section to distinguish it from the discussion section. We updated the descriptions of shortcomings and research prospects.

Comment 7.

We submitted the article for re-translation.

 

Sincerely, the group of authors!

Akhmetkal Medeu.

Victor Blagoveshchensky.

Zhdanov Vitaly.

Nina Pimankina

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Much improved, I have no other coments.