- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Climate model performance and change projection for freshwater fluxes: comparison for irrigated areas in Central and South Asia”
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 9 (2017) 17–18
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrh
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Climate model performance and change projection for freshwater fluxes: comparison for irrigated areas in Central and South Asia”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author: Climate model performance and change projection for freshwater fluxes: comparison for irrigated areas in Central and South Asia: Review Comments: The research presented in the manuscript compares hydro-climatic parameters precipitation, temperature, runoff, ET and changes in water storage, modeled in CMIP5 and CMIP3 global climate models with respect to observed records for the historical periods in two different basins in Asia. In addition, the manuscript also evaluates future projections of the same hydro-climatic parameters modeled in CMIP5 global climate models for the same basins. The manuscript is well written with clear objectives and descriptive enough to address each of the objectives. Here are some recommendations I felt will add value to the manuscript thus the research. 1. More explanations on the used observed data are needed. According to Mitchell and Jones, 2005 It’s a 0.5◦ x0.5◦ interpolated ¨ raster data constructed from station anomalies and published normal from 1961-1990. It’s not clear what is published ¨ normaland how many stations were within the two study basins. 2. In the introduction importance of considering change drivers of the landscape such as irrigation water withdrawals has been emphasized while analyzing climate change impacts on freshwater availability, this is good. However, results and analysis discussion in the successive sections of the manuscript barely relates irrigation water usage to the analysis findings. No projection of irrigation or agricultural expansion were presented and discussed in accordance with the future scenarios of hydro-climatic fluxes. (IMAGE Team, 2001) can be consulted to obtain agricultural land use projections. 3. Section 3.1, in figure 2, the CMIP3 and 5 ensemble values for 30-year mean were compared against 10-year observed running average. I think it will make more sense if the averages are from the same time period (for all either 10-year or 30-year). 4. Section 3.3, I wonder, in figure 4 why the same variables from CMIP3 were not presented! It is understandable there are differences between A2 scenario and RCP 2.6 and 8.5. However, the CMIP3 and 5 variables were presented together in figure 2. I think analysis can be presented same as figure 2 analyses for figure 4 analyses with the exception it would be for future time period. Then the differences could be more understandable between CMIP3 and 5 models for projections.
DOI of the original article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.018. 2214-5818/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.11.010
18
Peer review report / Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 9 (2017) 17–18
5. Line 415-416, this statement needs to be backed up by explaining why, is it just because standard deviations were larger for precipitation than temperature? I think more robust uncertainty analysis needs to be performed first before concluding to this statement in lines between 415 and 416. 6. Although there were no clear evidence of scale effect for CMIP3 and 5 estimates, doing the same analysis with downscaled same hydro-climatic variables from these same CMIP3 and 5 models may yield different results. Thus manuscript should clearly state that the scale effect findings are explicitly applicable to these two basins only and may not be generalized for other geographically different basins. 7. In figure 5, inconsistent time period has been used in comparison. True that runoff data were not available for 30-year period, but the precipitation were available for 30-year period. Minor comments: Line 181-184: Reference required in this statement. Line 331: shouldn’t it be -0.02-0.43◦ C Overall, I think the research findings would be helpful to the scientific community; therefore I support its publication after addressing the above concerns. References: IMAGE Team, 2001. The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: a comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. RIVM CD-ROM Publication, 481508018. First revision Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to the author: The Authors satisfactorily responded the comments and concerns from the previous review except for the following. 1. These are not 30-year running average (figure 2). They have not been recalculated as it claimed (Reviewer #3 comment #3 response). To me it looks 15-year running average. 2. Caption for figure 4 has not been updated reflecting changes to new color scheme. Md Shahriar Pervez (Ph.D.) ResearchEarthScientist, Senior ASRC Federal InuTeq/USGS EROS Science, 47914 252nd Street Sioux Falls, SD 57198 United States
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrh
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Climate model performance and change projection for freshwater fluxes: comparison for irrigated areas in Central and South Asia”
Original Submission Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to Author: Climate model performance and change projection for freshwater fluxes: comparison for irrigated areas in Central and South Asia: Review Comments: The research presented in the manuscript compares hydro-climatic parameters precipitation, temperature, runoff, ET and changes in water storage, modeled in CMIP5 and CMIP3 global climate models with respect to observed records for the historical periods in two different basins in Asia. In addition, the manuscript also evaluates future projections of the same hydro-climatic parameters modeled in CMIP5 global climate models for the same basins. The manuscript is well written with clear objectives and descriptive enough to address each of the objectives. Here are some recommendations I felt will add value to the manuscript thus the research. 1. More explanations on the used observed data are needed. According to Mitchell and Jones, 2005 It’s a 0.5◦ x0.5◦ interpolated ¨ raster data constructed from station anomalies and published normal from 1961-1990. It’s not clear what is published ¨ normaland how many stations were within the two study basins. 2. In the introduction importance of considering change drivers of the landscape such as irrigation water withdrawals has been emphasized while analyzing climate change impacts on freshwater availability, this is good. However, results and analysis discussion in the successive sections of the manuscript barely relates irrigation water usage to the analysis findings. No projection of irrigation or agricultural expansion were presented and discussed in accordance with the future scenarios of hydro-climatic fluxes. (IMAGE Team, 2001) can be consulted to obtain agricultural land use projections. 3. Section 3.1, in figure 2, the CMIP3 and 5 ensemble values for 30-year mean were compared against 10-year observed running average. I think it will make more sense if the averages are from the same time period (for all either 10-year or 30-year). 4. Section 3.3, I wonder, in figure 4 why the same variables from CMIP3 were not presented! It is understandable there are differences between A2 scenario and RCP 2.6 and 8.5. However, the CMIP3 and 5 variables were presented together in figure 2. I think analysis can be presented same as figure 2 analyses for figure 4 analyses with the exception it would be for future time period. Then the differences could be more understandable between CMIP3 and 5 models for projections.
DOI of the original article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.018. 2214-5818/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.11.010
18
Peer review report / Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 9 (2017) 17–18
5. Line 415-416, this statement needs to be backed up by explaining why, is it just because standard deviations were larger for precipitation than temperature? I think more robust uncertainty analysis needs to be performed first before concluding to this statement in lines between 415 and 416. 6. Although there were no clear evidence of scale effect for CMIP3 and 5 estimates, doing the same analysis with downscaled same hydro-climatic variables from these same CMIP3 and 5 models may yield different results. Thus manuscript should clearly state that the scale effect findings are explicitly applicable to these two basins only and may not be generalized for other geographically different basins. 7. In figure 5, inconsistent time period has been used in comparison. True that runoff data were not available for 30-year period, but the precipitation were available for 30-year period. Minor comments: Line 181-184: Reference required in this statement. Line 331: shouldn’t it be -0.02-0.43◦ C Overall, I think the research findings would be helpful to the scientific community; therefore I support its publication after addressing the above concerns. References: IMAGE Team, 2001. The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: a comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change and impacts in the 21st century. RIVM CD-ROM Publication, 481508018. First revision Recommendation Minor Revision Comments to the author: The Authors satisfactorily responded the comments and concerns from the previous review except for the following. 1. These are not 30-year running average (figure 2). They have not been recalculated as it claimed (Reviewer #3 comment #3 response). To me it looks 15-year running average. 2. Caption for figure 4 has not been updated reflecting changes to new color scheme. Md Shahriar Pervez (Ph.D.) ResearchEarthScientist, Senior ASRC Federal InuTeq/USGS EROS Science, 47914 252nd Street Sioux Falls, SD 57198 United States