Analysis of Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Global TCWV and AI Hybrid Model Prediction

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. These comments have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each comment and made corresponding revisions and additions in the revised manuscript. Detailed responses are provided below, with the relevant changes highlighted in red in the resubmitted files. We hope these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and further enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the paper.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thanks

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thanks

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thanks

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thanks

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We have made revisions.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thanks

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically explores the spatiotemporal variation characteristics and predictive potential of TCWV from 1959 to 2023. Overall, the paper has conducted extensive and meticulous research work, with rigorous and standardized writing, and the research results possess strong innovativeness.

Comments 1: In Section 2.2, the authors mention the use of radiosonde data. It is recommended to supplement the distribution of radiosonde stations and a description of data availability; additionally, a brief explanation of the cross-validation process and results between radiosonde data and ERA5 data is suggested.

Response 1: Thank you for your guidance. We have made revisions, and the changes are as follows:

The updated text now includes a detailed description of the IGRA dataset, which covers vertical profiles of temperature, humidity, and pressure from approximately 1,500 global weather stations. Although the station distribution has limited density, it covers major climate zones, primarily concentrated in Northern Hemisphere land areas, with data availability extending from 1905 to near real-time, making it suitable for validating ERA5 data. The cross-validation process, by comparing IGRA data with the nearest ERA5 grid points from 1959 to 2023, shows correlation coefficients exceeding 0.9 and mean biases below 1 kg/m². For example, the scatter plot for a U.S. station shows an R² of 0.948 and an MAE of 0.189 kg/m² (see Supplementary Figure S1 and Table S1), confirming the reliability and consistency of ERA5 TCWV data.

Specific revisions are marked in red in the original text, see lines 143–155 for details.

Comments 2: There are issues of repeated annotations for abbreviations in the text: the annotations for DWT in lines 189 and 280 are repeated, and the annotations for GRU in lines 298 and 347 are repeated. Please review the entire text to check and correct all instances of repeated annotations for abbreviations.

Response 2: Thank you, we have made revisions.

We have corrected the redundant annotations for “DWT” on lines 192 and 294, as well as for “GRU” on lines 316 and 370. Additionally, we conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript, correcting all instances of repeated abbreviation annotations to ensure consistency throughout the document.

Comments 3: Improvements are needed for figures and tables: Figures 4(a) and 14 lack clarity and should be replaced; it is recommended to increase the font size in Figures 6, 9, and 10; the numerical values on the color bars of Figures 9 and 10 have excessive decimal places, and it is suggested to retain at most 2 decimal places; Figures 12 and 13 appear to be compressed and should be adjusted and corrected. Furthermore, it is recommended to add unit labels to all color bars.

Response 3: Thank you, we have made revisions. The changes are as follows:

Figures 4 and 14 have been replaced with high-resolution images to enhance clarity; the font sizes in Figures 6, 9, and 10 have been increased to improve readability; the decimal places of the color bar values in Figures 9 and 10 have been adjusted to three decimal places, accounting for null values in some cases; Figures 12 and 13 have been replaced and their layouts optimized. Additionally, we have replaced all unclear figures and tables in the paper, added unit labels to all color bars, and included unit information in the captions of relevant figures. If display issues arise due to Word document format limitations, we can provide high-resolution images directly. Due to manuscript length constraints, some figures and tables have been moved to the supplementary materials, resulting in changes to the original figure numbering.

The current Figure 3 corresponds to the original Figure 4, please see lines 445–446 in the text.

Figure 5 to the original Figure 6, please see lines492–493 in the text.

Figure 6 to the original Figure 7, please see lines 516–519 in the text.

Figure 7 to the original Figure 9, please see lines 554–556 in the text.

Figure 8 to the original Figure 10, please see lines 575–577 in the text.

Figure 10 to the original Figure 12, please see lines 620–622 in the text.

Figures 11 and 12 have been renumbered to original Figures 13 and 14, respectively, see lines 648–651 and 678–681.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation and guidance.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to addressing the reviewers' comments, we conducted a comprehensive review and optimization of the entire manuscript. We enhanced the clarity and accuracy of the language to ensure the overall quality of the paper better meets the journal's requirements. Additionally, all figures and tables were reviewed and replaced, updating low-resolution figures to high-resolution versions. We also reorganized the layout of certain figures and tables, moving some content to supplementary files to further reduce the manuscript's length.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. These comments have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each comment and made corresponding revisions and additions in the revised manuscript. Detailed responses are provided below, with the relevant changes highlighted in red in the resubmitted files. We hope these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and further enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the paper.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thanks

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thanks

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thanks

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thanks

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thanks

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thanks

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the paper interesting. I have only a few comments, hoping they help the authors improve their extensive work.

Comments 1:

Line 252. UF and UB were not previously defined.

Line 258. Equation 7: I suggest using a different letter for the variance.

Line 271. Equation 8: Who is "t" in this equation?

Response 1: Thank you for your guidance. We have made revisions, and the changes are as follows:

Line 252: UF and UB were not previously defined.

We have revised the text, where UF represents the standardized normal value of the forward cumulative statistic, and UB represents the standardized normal value of the backward cumulative statistic. See line 262 in the text, marked in red font for details.

Line 258, Equation 7: It is suggested to use different letters to represent variance.

We have revised Equation 7, replacing the original variance symbols with different letters. See line 271 in the text, marked in red font for details.

Line 271, Equation 8: Who does “t” represent in the equation?

We have revised the text, adding the definition of “t” in Equation 8, specifying it as the time variable (year). See line 285 in the text, marked in red font for details.

Comments 2:

Lines 409-422. Please add some references to support these ideas.

Lines 479-482, 487-491. Please add some references to support these ideas.

Response 2: Thank you, we have made revisions. We have added the corresponding references to support these viewpoints, see lines 435-443 and 501-512 in the text, marked in red font.

Comments 3: Lines 744-757. To make this part about seasonal variation of TCWV more robust, I suggest the authors include a plot of seasonal solar radiation for the same period. It could be included as supplementary material.

Response 3: Thank you for your excellent suggestions. We highly agree with this perspective, as solar radiation is a key factor driving the seasonal fluctuations of water vapor content, particularly evident in the contrast between summer peaks and winter lows. We have made corresponding revisions based on your suggestions.

Specifically, we calculated seasonal solar radiation data for the period from 1959 to 2023, ensuring alignment with the temporal scope of the TCWV seasonal analysis. These data clearly reflect the regulatory role of solar radiation on atmospheric water vapor, with particularly pronounced effects in equatorial and tropical regions (e.g., Southeast Asia and the tropical Pacific). Based on this, we generated four seasonal solar radiation maps and included them in the supplementary materials, specifically Figure S4. Additionally, at lines 762-764 in the main text, we optimized the relevant content by adding a reference to the solar radiation maps and a brief explanation, further strengthening the scientific basis for the seasonal variation analysis.

Comments 4: Lines 761-773. These ideas should be supported with references.

Response 4: Thank you, we have made revisions. We have added the corresponding references to support these viewpoints, see lines 771-779 in the text, marked in red font.

Comments 5: Lines 813-814. I suggest rewriting the sentence “we demonstrate that such insights facilitate the optimization of irrigation management, ...” to “we show that such insights could facilitate the optimization of irrigation management, …”

Response 5: Thank you, we have made revisions. We have replaced “demonstrate” with “show” and “facilitate” with “could facilitate.” For specific revisions, please see lines 823–824 in the text, marked in red font.

Comments 6: Lines 822-841. In this paragraph, I believe it is important to mention that TCWV analysis alone may not be enough. It should be combined with temperature, precipitation, number of frozen days, and drought analysis to provide a broader basis for these recommendations.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. we have made revisions.

We have added descriptions regarding precipitation, temperature, and drought, emphasizing that TCWV analysis should be considered in conjunction with other factors to enhance the scientific rigor and practicality of the recommendations. Additionally, we have included relevant references. For specific revisions, please see lines 832–853 in the text, marked in red font.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation and guidance.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to addressing the reviewers' comments, we conducted a comprehensive review and optimization of the entire manuscript. We enhanced the clarity and accuracy of the language to ensure the overall quality of the paper better meets the journal's requirements. Additionally, all figures and tables were reviewed and replaced, updating low-resolution figures to high-resolution versions. We also reorganized the layout of certain figures and tables, moving some content to supplementary files to further reduce the manuscript's length.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. These comments have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each comment and made corresponding revisions and additions in the revised manuscript. Detailed responses are provided below, with the relevant changes highlighted in red in the resubmitted files. We hope these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and further enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the paper.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We have made revisions.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thanks

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thanks

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thanks

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We have made revisions.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thanks

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The Abstract section is well-written.

Provide references for these statements “These events resulted in reduced crop yields and decreased land use efficiency. “and “Such precipitation events are closely linked to anomalous increases in Total Column Water Vapor (TCWV),”

Response 1: Thank you for your guidance. We have made revisions. We have added the corresponding references to support these viewpoints, see lines 42 and 45 in the text, marked in red font.

Comments 2: From lines 57 to 72, you mentioned studies conducted in only China. Provide some other case studies in other regions included in your study.

Response 2: Thank you for your excellent suggestions. We have made revisions.

To broaden the global perspective of our study, we have included examples of atmospheric water vapor (TCWV) research from various countries and regions, extending beyond China. For example, studies in the Amazon Basin show that increased TCWV is linked to enhanced rainfall intensity, affecting agricultural irrigation and planting. Similarly, research in Pakistan indicates that elevated TCWV is associated with flooding events, impacting agricultural production and land management. For specific revisions, please refer to lines 55-77 in the text, marked in red font.

Comments 3: You need to replace Figure 1 with a map including information, such as the north direction, the scale, the name of the regions, etc.

You need to mention that Figure 1 refers to TCWV values along the study area. I suggest to move this Figure to the results section.

Response 3: Thank you for your good suggestions. We have made revisions.

We have replaced the original Figure 1, which included results, and redrawn the study area map, incorporating elements such as latitude and longitude, a scale bar, a north arrow, and regional names. Additionally, we used distinct colors to categorize regions based on tropical, subtropical, and temperate characteristics. For specific revisions, please refer to Figure 1 on line 157 in the text.

Comments 4: Lines 761-773. Many figures presented in this paper; I suggest to move some figures to a supplementary file.

Response 4: Thank you, we have made revisions.

We have optimized the layout of figures and tables in the text and moved certain figures, such as the neural network structure diagram, selected atmospheric water vapor variation graphs, and several tables, to the supplementary materials without affecting the core results of the paper. For specific revisions, please refer to the revised manuscript and supplementary materials.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation and guidance.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to addressing the reviewers' comments, we conducted a comprehensive review and optimization of the entire manuscript. We enhanced the clarity and accuracy of the language to ensure the overall quality of the paper better meets the journal's requirements. Additionally, all figures and tables were reviewed and replaced, updating low-resolution figures to high-resolution versions. We also reorganized the layout of certain figures and tables, moving some content to supplementary files to further reduce the manuscript's length.