Compound Extremes of Air Temperature and Precipitation in Eastern Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
First of all, we want to thank you the reading our article carefully and for your valuable comments!
Answers to your comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents and discusses the results of the analysis of compound extremes of air temperature and precipitation in Eastern Europe and their correlation with large scale patterns over the study period. The paper addresses relevant scientific questions within the scope of the Climate journal and the results discussed are interesting. The overall presentation is well structured. Therefore, I recommend publication of this manuscript after minor revisions are made by the authors – see the comments below:
1. Lines 27,41,58: I suggest the authors to avoid using phrases like "and others", "for instance", "and many others" etc when referencing.
2. Lines 143-144. The authors chose the 1961-1990 period for identifying the temperature and precipitation thresholds. Why did they use this climate period and not the more recent tricennial 1991-2010? Would this change the threshold values significantly?
3. Lines 195-196: Why did at this point the authors used monthly average temperature and precipitation data and not daily as earlier in the work?
4. Lines 211-217: According to the argument made by the authors negative correlation leads to the dominance of dry/warm and wet/cold extremes. However, given the strong negative correlation in summer (Figure 3), it appears that the CD (cold/dry) index has greater frequency in summer compared to the rest of the seasons (Figure 2). I suggest that the authors add a comment on this in the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
First of all, we want to thank you for reading our article carefully and for your valuable comments!
Answers to your comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Initially, I would like to congratulate the authors for the excellent work submitted to the journal. The importance of discussing the discussed topic is of unique relevance to environmental science as a whole. However, the work is lacking in some aspects, which end up weakening it too much.
1. Figure 01 must be changed places, and must come after line 71. Whenever a figure is mentioned, it must appear.
2. There is no reference to the geographic description of the study area between lines 69 and 94. Authors need to insert bibliographic references here that support the geographic and climatic data placed.
3. In the climatic characterization carried out between lines 101 to 128, there are only three references. It also needs to be improved.
4. In lines 131-132, the authors state the source of the data, but it would be interesting to mention how many weather stations the work of Haylock, et. al. (2008) used to understand the study area of this manuscript. It would be interesting to redraw the map from the original article, adapted to this one.
5. Figures 2 to 7 need improvement. Improve your resolution.
6. I suggest that item 4, discussions and conclusions, be broken down. Final considerations must be made taking into account the next steps and results that this research may still bring, especially for the authors, for the institution, and for Eastern Europe.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
First of all, we want to thank you for the high evaluation of our manuscript, for the reading our article carefully and for your valuable comments!
Answers to your comments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors now have provided the final version with the suggestions included. This is an important paper for precipitation studies. Congratulations. I agree wiht the publication.
