the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Jan 2024
Assessment of Future Precipitation Changes in Mediterranean Climate Regions from CMIP6 ensemble
Abstract. Previous studies have indicated a large model disagreement in the future projections of precipitation changes over the regions featuring Mediterranean climate. Many of these highly populated regions have been experiencing major droughts in the recent decades, raising concerns about future precipitation changes and their impacts. Here we investigate precipitation projections across the five Mediterranean climate regions in the CMIP6 ensemble, and study their respective model agreements on the sign of future precipitation changes. We focus on the period 2050–2079 relative to 1970–1999, and consider two climate change scenarios (ssp2-4.5 and ssp5-8.5) over the Mediterranean Basin (MED), California (CAL), the central coast of Chile (SAA), the Cape Province area of South Africa (SAF) and southwest Australia (AUS).
The CMIP6 ensemble mean suggests that annual mean cumulative precipitation will decrease over all the regions studied with the exception of northern California. In most cases, this decline is primarily attributed to a reduction in winter precipitation, except over the Mediterranean Basin, where the most significant decrease occurs in autumn. The model agreement on the sign of future precipitation changes is generally high over the regions and seasons where the ensemble mean indicates the precipitation decline in the future, and low over the regions showing the precipitation increase or no change. Specifically, the model agreement is low in southern California during all seasons, in northern Mediterranean during winter and autumn, and in southwest Australia during austral summer and autumn. CMIP6 ensemble means also indicate that the consecutive dry days (CDD) will increase in the future in all regions, but again the model agreement on this increase is low over southern and central California, the southern Mediterranean, and parts of southwest Australia. Similarly, the ensemble mean consecutive wet days (CWD) indicates a decrease in all regions, with weak model agreement on the sign of future changes over CAL, northeast AUS and part of the MED region. The ensemble mean maximum one-day precipitation increases over all the regions, the most over the parts of southwest Australia and the Mediterranean.
We conclude that despite substantial improvements to the new CMIP6 generation of models, the intermodel differences in future projections of precipitation changes continue to be high across parts of California, the Mediterranean Basin and southwest Australia. Impact studies need to account for these uncertainties and consider the whole intermodel range of projected precipitation changes.
- Preprint
(2146 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1876 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Chiyuan Miao, 29 Jan 2024
This study aimed to assess the precision of projected precipitation in Mediterranean Climate Regions utilizing CMIP6 model outputs. The employed methods are robust, and the obtained results are acceptable. However, it's worth noting that CMIP6 data has been available for an extended period, and numerous studies have already scrutinized its accuracy. Unfortunately, this study lacks innovation in terms of introducing new data or methods. Consequently, the novelty of the current research may not meet the standards expected by high-profile journals such as NHESS, in my view. Similar findings have been documented in numerous prior studies, both in Mediterranean regions and globally. Consequently, these results do not come as a surprise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC1 -
CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
This study compares the impacts of climate change across five Mediterranean climate regions using CMIP6 models. We are not aware of any other CMIP6 study in the existing literature that extensively focuses on all five Mediterranean climate regions, especially given that our analysis includes daily data from 25 CMIP6 models. We are considering the model uncertainty of the precipitation projections, and discussing the very different outcomes of the models in some of the regions, which has a direct implication on their usefulness for mitigation and adaptation of climate change. Regarding the existing studies, Polade et al. 2017 and Seager et al. 2019 both use CMIP5 data. Petrova et al., 2024 and Cos et al., 2022 compare CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections for California and Mediterranean region, respectively. None of these studies examines CMIP6 model agreement, or the impacts of precipitation changes over each specific Mediterranean region, and this is what we address in our manuscript. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide us with concrete references to other studies you think we should mention so we can discuss the novelty of our work in comparison to those.
Furthermore, one of the challenges we wanted to address in the discussion of this paper are the overall implications for decision making. We make an in-depth effort to discuss the current situation in each region, reflect on recent droughts and their impacts and finally, discuss how our findings regarding the future precipitation changes can be further interpreted for decision makers, having in mind large uncertainty that remains in CMIP6 projections. Our aim was to bring these results to a wide interdisciplinary audience that includes policy makers as well as scientists. It is exactly for this reason that we chose NHESS, a journal that targets a diverse community including “practitioners, and decision makers concerned with … the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies, including economical, societal, and educational aspects.”
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC4
-
CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Dragan Burić, 31 Jan 2024
I appreciate that the authors have made a comprehensive effort to put their results into the impacts context by first discussing the recent droughts and their socio-economic consequences. This will make it relevant for a wider non-scientific audience. I also appreciated brief discussion of the existing water policies in the context of future precipitation changes, stressing how far we are from the adequate adaptation plans.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC2 -
CC5: 'Reply on CC2', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We are pleased that our excessive effort to contextualize our results in relation to recent droughts and their socio-economic impacts resonated with you. It is gratifying to know that our aim to make the research accessible to a decision maker, non-scientific audience has been recognized. We also appreciate your acknowledgment of our discussion on existing water policies and their relevance in the face of future precipitation changes. Your encouragement further motivates us in our commitment to providing valuable insights for decision-makers. We are very encouraged by your comment. Once again, thank you for your insightful comments.
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC5
-
CC5: 'Reply on CC2', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Carsten Frederiksen, 02 Feb 2024
My comments on this paper are contained in the attached Supplement.
Dr Carsten Frederiksen
CSIRO
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC3', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In our revised version, we will certainly enhance the introduction and discussion related to Southern Australia and Chile to provide a more extensive and balanced perspective alongside our focus on the Mediterranean basin and California. Additionally, we are grateful for the references you have suggested. We recognize the importance of these studies and acknowledge that their inclusion will significantly strengthen the depth and breadth of our analysis. Once again, thank you for your constructive input that will help us refine our study.
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC3', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2024
The paper of Tarín-Carrasco et al. provides an overview of the precipitation projections in the five Mediterranean climate regions from a noticeable CMIP6 ensemble. The paper can be positioned among the increasing number of evaluations of the new GCM generation climate projections. From this point of view, the paper adds some small value to existing literature, which already provided results especially for the Mediterranean Basin (e.g., Seker and Gumus, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106440; Cos et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-321-2022; Babaousmail et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7644), trying to provide a comprehensive analysis for all the Mediterranean climate regions in the world. Nevertheless, despite this effort of systematizing, I've detected some significant drawbacks in the research design and paper structure, leading me to suggest a deep review of the work done before considering it publishable in NHESS.
First, any reference to GCMs' performance with historical simulations is missing. Therefore, the authors consider each model to have the same "weight" as others. This conclusion is not necessarily correct. Several models demonstrated to be unable, especially in relatively small areas (with an extent like that, e.g., of South Africa or southwest Australia), to reproduce precipitation seasonality. A preliminary analysis of historical simulations for all the analyzed areas is mandatory to provide robust information about climate change. From this analysis can descend helpful information, such as ranking (e.g., Peres et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3057-2020) and weighting (e.g., Cos et al., 2022; Peres et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2217332; Alsafadi et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-023-00273-y).
Second, the structure of the manuscript appears unbalanced. The space devoted to some regions is much greater than others. What are the motivations behind this choice? Why are some results presented in the article and others in the supplementary? Since a possible added value of the paper is a comprehensive view of all Mediterranean climate regions, I believe that the results should all be presented at the same level of depth, possibly modifying the structure of the paper (I provide specific comments about the Discussion section below). In particular, the analysis of the Mediterranean Basin includes information that is in many ways repetitive of previous literature.
Related to the previous point, study areas must be defined rigorously, specifying the respective boundaries and other fundamental information (e.g., number of inhabitants). This task could also be accomplished with the help of a new Figure 1 regarding the study area. The maps shown throughout the paper do not provide complete information (e.g., none of them indicates the scale).
Another critical point is the treatment of the uncertainty, which cannot be reduced to sign agreement. For example, if the sign of the majority of the models is weakly positive, but a significant number of models provides a strongly negative sign, this situation should clearly emerge. Besides analyzing the ensemble mean, an overall study of the variance is needed.
Regarding paper structure, most of the time, I felt I was reading a (interesting, of course) technical report rather than a scientific paper. I ask the authors to make an effort to summarize the large number of results provided sharply.
On the other hand, concerning Discussions, I suggest reshaping this Section completely. Too many arguments are treated. Therefore, even though the effort is appreciable, the reconstruction of the state of the art is inevitably limited. The study of the impact can be postponed to later work. Instead, I think that the main results compared to previous works should be better highlighted here. In particular, if the authors want to go into details up to the local scale, please take in mind that local scale analysis can lead to different results (for example, the Pyrenees or southern Italy) compared to large-scale analysis. This could be a discussion topic (authors should refer to the many local-scale studies available).
Related to the previous point, more specific information is needed about the single models listed in Table S1, e.g., resolutions, differences between different versions of the same model, etc.
Finally, please find below some minor comments that should be addressed in any way.
Methods: Why is the historical baseline 1970-1999?
Section 3: the first part of the Section also needs a definition as a subsection with a corresponding title (thus, subsection 3.1 needs to become 3.2 and so on)
Table S2 is redundant with respect to Figure 1
LL260-262: unclear.
L307: for CAL. Please specify.
L432: The Colorado River regime does not regard the present analysis over California.
Mediterranean: L462 is a repetition. LL447-487 is like another introduction
Tables S3, S4 and S5: please check consistency. I understand this: Table S3 tells me that under SSP2-4.5, the mean winter increase for CAL is +18.7 mm/season. However, Table S5 tells me that the multi-model ensemble spatial range is between -1.3 and +15.3 mm/season. If I understand well, that's not consistent.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Feb 2024
- The authors of the paper titled 'Assessment of Future Precipitation Changes in Mediterranean Climate Regions from CMIP6 ensemble' conducted a comprehensive study to understand the projected precipitation changes over Mediterranean Climate Regions. The study was carried out using state-of-the-art CMIP6 data, and the results were presented using graphs and maps. Overall, the paper offers many insights into understanding how precipitation has changed over Mediterranean Climate Regions; however, the paper primarily focuses on the application of available data and methods in these regions. Additionally, the results of the paper are not properly structured. I have the following comments on the paper, which can help the authors improve it:
- Authors have mentioned that they used 25 CMIP6 GCMs. The performance of GCMs varies by area. Some GCMs perform well in certain areas and poorly in others, and this discrepancy may also be observed at different time intervals, such as monthly or daily. However, the authors have not mentioned which GCMs perform better. Therefore, prior to the application of GCMs, authors should select a subset of GCMs that perform well in the area under study.
- Before presenting future results, it is better to validate the model agreement in the past by comparing the historical period of GCMs with observed data. This comparison should not only involve the mean but also standard deviation, skewness, and other statistics. Area-averaged time series of historical data compared with different GCMs can also be shown.
- Normally, GCMs data exhibit biases in comparison with historical data. In order to reduce the biases, downscaling and bias correction approaches are applied. However, in this paper, it's not clear how biases are reduced.
- The method section of the paper is very short. Authors should provide details of the applied methods and rationale for their use. 'For consistency, monthly and daily precipitation data were regridded to a common 0.7°x 0.7° latitude-longitude grid.' Authors have not mentioned what kind of observed data was used. Whether it was satellite-based or any other type of gridded data. Authors have also not mentioned how many grids were produced after regridding.
- The abstract of the paper is lengthy. Please consider shortening it according to the journal's word limit requirements. It appears that all results of the paper are discussed in the abstract. Please mention the important results in the abstract. Additionally, Key words are missing.
- Several statements lack supporting references. Please cite some papers for these statements.
- In the introduction section, the author should provide a brief review of all regions such as the Mediterranean Basin, California, the central coast of Chile, the Cape Province area of South Africa, and southwest Australia where climate has negative impacts. The actual problem of the paper is not clear from the introduction. Authors should clearly state why this study is being carried out.
- Authors mentioned that they have used the 'intermediate ssp2-4.5 and the most extreme ssp5-8.5 scenarios focusing on the future 2050-2079 period, and we use the 1970-1999 as a reference baseline period.' It is not clear from the paper why authors are considering only two scenarios and why the reference period is 1970 to 1999. I am sure there will be differences in the climate of 1970 to 1999 compared to 1970 to 2024. It's better to consider data from the last thirty or fifty years.
- “winter (Northern Hemisphere (NH): December-January-February; Southern Hemisphere (SH): June-July-August), spring (NH: March-April115 May; SH: September-October-November), summer (NH: June-July-August; SH: December-January-February) and autumn (NH: September-October-November; SH: March-April-May).” Please clear whether it’s a standard classification of climate or authors has made it?
- The results of the paper are not properly structured. It is better to use headings and subheadings for each assessment.
- In some cases, the mean of SSP245 is higher compared to SSP585. Please explain the reasons.
- Conclusion of the paper also contains citations. Authors should present the conclusions of the conducted study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-RC2
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Chiyuan Miao, 29 Jan 2024
This study aimed to assess the precision of projected precipitation in Mediterranean Climate Regions utilizing CMIP6 model outputs. The employed methods are robust, and the obtained results are acceptable. However, it's worth noting that CMIP6 data has been available for an extended period, and numerous studies have already scrutinized its accuracy. Unfortunately, this study lacks innovation in terms of introducing new data or methods. Consequently, the novelty of the current research may not meet the standards expected by high-profile journals such as NHESS, in my view. Similar findings have been documented in numerous prior studies, both in Mediterranean regions and globally. Consequently, these results do not come as a surprise.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC1 -
CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
This study compares the impacts of climate change across five Mediterranean climate regions using CMIP6 models. We are not aware of any other CMIP6 study in the existing literature that extensively focuses on all five Mediterranean climate regions, especially given that our analysis includes daily data from 25 CMIP6 models. We are considering the model uncertainty of the precipitation projections, and discussing the very different outcomes of the models in some of the regions, which has a direct implication on their usefulness for mitigation and adaptation of climate change. Regarding the existing studies, Polade et al. 2017 and Seager et al. 2019 both use CMIP5 data. Petrova et al., 2024 and Cos et al., 2022 compare CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections for California and Mediterranean region, respectively. None of these studies examines CMIP6 model agreement, or the impacts of precipitation changes over each specific Mediterranean region, and this is what we address in our manuscript. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide us with concrete references to other studies you think we should mention so we can discuss the novelty of our work in comparison to those.
Furthermore, one of the challenges we wanted to address in the discussion of this paper are the overall implications for decision making. We make an in-depth effort to discuss the current situation in each region, reflect on recent droughts and their impacts and finally, discuss how our findings regarding the future precipitation changes can be further interpreted for decision makers, having in mind large uncertainty that remains in CMIP6 projections. Our aim was to bring these results to a wide interdisciplinary audience that includes policy makers as well as scientists. It is exactly for this reason that we chose NHESS, a journal that targets a diverse community including “practitioners, and decision makers concerned with … the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies, including economical, societal, and educational aspects.”
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC4
-
CC4: 'Reply on CC1', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
CC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Dragan Burić, 31 Jan 2024
I appreciate that the authors have made a comprehensive effort to put their results into the impacts context by first discussing the recent droughts and their socio-economic consequences. This will make it relevant for a wider non-scientific audience. I also appreciated brief discussion of the existing water policies in the context of future precipitation changes, stressing how far we are from the adequate adaptation plans.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC2 -
CC5: 'Reply on CC2', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We are pleased that our excessive effort to contextualize our results in relation to recent droughts and their socio-economic impacts resonated with you. It is gratifying to know that our aim to make the research accessible to a decision maker, non-scientific audience has been recognized. We also appreciate your acknowledgment of our discussion on existing water policies and their relevance in the face of future precipitation changes. Your encouragement further motivates us in our commitment to providing valuable insights for decision-makers. We are very encouraged by your comment. Once again, thank you for your insightful comments.
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-CC5
-
CC5: 'Reply on CC2', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Carsten Frederiksen, 02 Feb 2024
My comments on this paper are contained in the attached Supplement.
Dr Carsten Frederiksen
CSIRO
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC3', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
Thank you for your valuable feedback. In our revised version, we will certainly enhance the introduction and discussion related to Southern Australia and Chile to provide a more extensive and balanced perspective alongside our focus on the Mediterranean basin and California. Additionally, we are grateful for the references you have suggested. We recognize the importance of these studies and acknowledge that their inclusion will significantly strengthen the depth and breadth of our analysis. Once again, thank you for your constructive input that will help us refine our study.
On behalf of all the co-authors,
Patricia Tarin
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC3', Patricia Tarín-Carrasco, 02 Feb 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2024
The paper of Tarín-Carrasco et al. provides an overview of the precipitation projections in the five Mediterranean climate regions from a noticeable CMIP6 ensemble. The paper can be positioned among the increasing number of evaluations of the new GCM generation climate projections. From this point of view, the paper adds some small value to existing literature, which already provided results especially for the Mediterranean Basin (e.g., Seker and Gumus, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106440; Cos et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-321-2022; Babaousmail et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7644), trying to provide a comprehensive analysis for all the Mediterranean climate regions in the world. Nevertheless, despite this effort of systematizing, I've detected some significant drawbacks in the research design and paper structure, leading me to suggest a deep review of the work done before considering it publishable in NHESS.
First, any reference to GCMs' performance with historical simulations is missing. Therefore, the authors consider each model to have the same "weight" as others. This conclusion is not necessarily correct. Several models demonstrated to be unable, especially in relatively small areas (with an extent like that, e.g., of South Africa or southwest Australia), to reproduce precipitation seasonality. A preliminary analysis of historical simulations for all the analyzed areas is mandatory to provide robust information about climate change. From this analysis can descend helpful information, such as ranking (e.g., Peres et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3057-2020) and weighting (e.g., Cos et al., 2022; Peres et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2217332; Alsafadi et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-023-00273-y).
Second, the structure of the manuscript appears unbalanced. The space devoted to some regions is much greater than others. What are the motivations behind this choice? Why are some results presented in the article and others in the supplementary? Since a possible added value of the paper is a comprehensive view of all Mediterranean climate regions, I believe that the results should all be presented at the same level of depth, possibly modifying the structure of the paper (I provide specific comments about the Discussion section below). In particular, the analysis of the Mediterranean Basin includes information that is in many ways repetitive of previous literature.
Related to the previous point, study areas must be defined rigorously, specifying the respective boundaries and other fundamental information (e.g., number of inhabitants). This task could also be accomplished with the help of a new Figure 1 regarding the study area. The maps shown throughout the paper do not provide complete information (e.g., none of them indicates the scale).
Another critical point is the treatment of the uncertainty, which cannot be reduced to sign agreement. For example, if the sign of the majority of the models is weakly positive, but a significant number of models provides a strongly negative sign, this situation should clearly emerge. Besides analyzing the ensemble mean, an overall study of the variance is needed.
Regarding paper structure, most of the time, I felt I was reading a (interesting, of course) technical report rather than a scientific paper. I ask the authors to make an effort to summarize the large number of results provided sharply.
On the other hand, concerning Discussions, I suggest reshaping this Section completely. Too many arguments are treated. Therefore, even though the effort is appreciable, the reconstruction of the state of the art is inevitably limited. The study of the impact can be postponed to later work. Instead, I think that the main results compared to previous works should be better highlighted here. In particular, if the authors want to go into details up to the local scale, please take in mind that local scale analysis can lead to different results (for example, the Pyrenees or southern Italy) compared to large-scale analysis. This could be a discussion topic (authors should refer to the many local-scale studies available).
Related to the previous point, more specific information is needed about the single models listed in Table S1, e.g., resolutions, differences between different versions of the same model, etc.
Finally, please find below some minor comments that should be addressed in any way.
Methods: Why is the historical baseline 1970-1999?
Section 3: the first part of the Section also needs a definition as a subsection with a corresponding title (thus, subsection 3.1 needs to become 3.2 and so on)
Table S2 is redundant with respect to Figure 1
LL260-262: unclear.
L307: for CAL. Please specify.
L432: The Colorado River regime does not regard the present analysis over California.
Mediterranean: L462 is a repetition. LL447-487 is like another introduction
Tables S3, S4 and S5: please check consistency. I understand this: Table S3 tells me that under SSP2-4.5, the mean winter increase for CAL is +18.7 mm/season. However, Table S5 tells me that the multi-model ensemble spatial range is between -1.3 and +15.3 mm/season. If I understand well, that's not consistent.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3057', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Feb 2024
- The authors of the paper titled 'Assessment of Future Precipitation Changes in Mediterranean Climate Regions from CMIP6 ensemble' conducted a comprehensive study to understand the projected precipitation changes over Mediterranean Climate Regions. The study was carried out using state-of-the-art CMIP6 data, and the results were presented using graphs and maps. Overall, the paper offers many insights into understanding how precipitation has changed over Mediterranean Climate Regions; however, the paper primarily focuses on the application of available data and methods in these regions. Additionally, the results of the paper are not properly structured. I have the following comments on the paper, which can help the authors improve it:
- Authors have mentioned that they used 25 CMIP6 GCMs. The performance of GCMs varies by area. Some GCMs perform well in certain areas and poorly in others, and this discrepancy may also be observed at different time intervals, such as monthly or daily. However, the authors have not mentioned which GCMs perform better. Therefore, prior to the application of GCMs, authors should select a subset of GCMs that perform well in the area under study.
- Before presenting future results, it is better to validate the model agreement in the past by comparing the historical period of GCMs with observed data. This comparison should not only involve the mean but also standard deviation, skewness, and other statistics. Area-averaged time series of historical data compared with different GCMs can also be shown.
- Normally, GCMs data exhibit biases in comparison with historical data. In order to reduce the biases, downscaling and bias correction approaches are applied. However, in this paper, it's not clear how biases are reduced.
- The method section of the paper is very short. Authors should provide details of the applied methods and rationale for their use. 'For consistency, monthly and daily precipitation data were regridded to a common 0.7°x 0.7° latitude-longitude grid.' Authors have not mentioned what kind of observed data was used. Whether it was satellite-based or any other type of gridded data. Authors have also not mentioned how many grids were produced after regridding.
- The abstract of the paper is lengthy. Please consider shortening it according to the journal's word limit requirements. It appears that all results of the paper are discussed in the abstract. Please mention the important results in the abstract. Additionally, Key words are missing.
- Several statements lack supporting references. Please cite some papers for these statements.
- In the introduction section, the author should provide a brief review of all regions such as the Mediterranean Basin, California, the central coast of Chile, the Cape Province area of South Africa, and southwest Australia where climate has negative impacts. The actual problem of the paper is not clear from the introduction. Authors should clearly state why this study is being carried out.
- Authors mentioned that they have used the 'intermediate ssp2-4.5 and the most extreme ssp5-8.5 scenarios focusing on the future 2050-2079 period, and we use the 1970-1999 as a reference baseline period.' It is not clear from the paper why authors are considering only two scenarios and why the reference period is 1970 to 1999. I am sure there will be differences in the climate of 1970 to 1999 compared to 1970 to 2024. It's better to consider data from the last thirty or fifty years.
- “winter (Northern Hemisphere (NH): December-January-February; Southern Hemisphere (SH): June-July-August), spring (NH: March-April115 May; SH: September-October-November), summer (NH: June-July-August; SH: December-January-February) and autumn (NH: September-October-November; SH: March-April-May).” Please clear whether it’s a standard classification of climate or authors has made it?
- The results of the paper are not properly structured. It is better to use headings and subheadings for each assessment.
- In some cases, the mean of SSP245 is higher compared to SSP585. Please explain the reasons.
- Conclusion of the paper also contains citations. Authors should present the conclusions of the conducted study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3057-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 471 | 189 | 41 | 701 | 78 | 18 | 18 |
- HTML: 471
- PDF: 189
- XML: 41
- Total: 701
- Supplement: 78
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
