Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: Overall, this is a strong study. it is comprehensive, and valuable. The multi-source approach, combining station data, and multiple reanalyses, provides a comprehensive and timely analysis of climate change in this region.

Response 1: We greatly appreciate your positive assessment of our paper.

Comments 2: It is recommended that trend testing be performed on all historical data. For this purpose, you can use the Mann-Kendall test.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have conducted the necessary calculations, and the updated information has been integrated into the article.

Comments 3: It states there is a "strong agreement" between the ERA5 reanalysis and weather station data. The term "strong agreement" is qualitative. To make this more scientifically rigorous, I would recommend quantifying this agreement.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have conducted the necessary calculations, and the updated information has been integrated into the article.

Comments 4: Standard statistical metrics like the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and mean bias between the station time series and the corresponding grid cells from ERA5 can be calculated and reported in a brief table.

Response 4: We have conducted the necessary calculations, and the updated information has been integrated into the article.

Comments 5: The discussion could be elevated by briefly exploring the broader socio-economic and ecological implications of this projected warming.

Response 5: The updated information has been integrated into the article.

Comments 6: Every study has limitations. Formally acknowledging them increases the credibility of the research.

Response 6: Thank you for your very favorable review of our manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted, no comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accepted, no comments

Author Response

Comments: Accepted, no comments

Response: We greatly appreciate your positive assessment of our paper. In response to the remark concerning English language improvements, please be advised that the manuscript underwent a review by a native English speaker, and revisions were implemented based on their recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides an in-depth statistical analysis of near-surface air temperature in the Caspian region. This analysis is based on observations, reanalysis, and state-of-the-art Earth System Models. 

It can be recommended for publication provided the following revisions are made:

1.    Tables 1-6 contain excessive data and are overcrowded; they should be condensed and reorganized. In particular:

1.1.    The mean temperatures in the "1994-2023" column of Table 2 are identical to those in the "1994-2023" column of Table 3. Duplicated information should be excluded from the tables.
1.2.    Consider removing the weather stations' coordinates from the tables, as these stations are shown on the map in Figure 1.
1.3.    If the weather station coordinates are retained in the tables, include 'latitude' and 'longitude' column headers.

2.    Figure 2 includes four linear trend lines. However, the reviewer could not find an explanation of what these four linear trends visualize, either in the figure caption or in the main text. Please provide an explanation in either the main text or the figure caption.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

The paper provides an in-depth statistical analysis of near-surface air temperature in the Caspian region. This analysis is based on observations, reanalysis, and state-of-the-art Earth System Models.

It can be recommended for publication provided the following revisions are made:

Comments 1: Tables 1-6 contain excessive data and are overcrowded; they should be condensed and reorganized. In particular:

1.1.       The mean temperatures in the "1994-2023" column of Table 2 are identical to those in the "1994-2023" column of Table 3. Duplicated information should be excluded from the tables.

Response 1: Corrections were done

Comments 1.2: Consider removing the weather stations' coordinates from the tables, as these stations are shown on the map in Figure 1.

Comments 1.3: If the weather station coordinates are retained in the tables, include 'latitude' and 'longitude' column headers.

Response 1.2 and 1.3: Corrections were done. Weather stations' coordinates were removed from the tables

Comments 3: Figure 2 includes four linear trend lines. However, the reviewer could not find an explanation of what these four linear trends visualize, either in the figure caption or in the main text. Please provide an explanation in either the main text or the figure caption.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Updated information has been integrated into the text.