the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Jul 2026
Development and comparison of documentary-instrumental and circulation-based multi-centennial precipitation reconstructions for Dublin, Ireland
Abstract. This study develops a multi-centennial reconstruction of precipitation for the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland, using documentary, instrumental, circulation-based, and proxy evidence. Three independent reconstructions are produced for two contrasting water-resource domains, including: a monthly scaled version of the Jenkinson documentary-instrumental rainfall dataset for 1711–1977 produced by an earlier analysis for the island of Ireland; a circulation-informed monthly statistical ensemble based on Lasso and Random Forest models for 1748–1994; and an annual oak cellulose δ¹⁸O reconstruction of May–August precipitation extending to 1200 CE. Reconstructions were assessed against 1 km gridded rainfall observations for the common overlap period 1865–1977 using correlation, bias, error metrics, SPI-based event detection, and agreement in ranked wet and dry extremes. Long-term UK rainfall series and an extended Dublin snow and sleet series were used as independent comparators. Both the Jenkinson and statistical ensemble reconstructions reproduce observed monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall variability, but the Jenkinson reconstruction shows the strongest agreement across most metrics and better captures wet and dry extremes. The statistical ensemble provides an independent, physically interpretable reconstruction, although it tends to smooth variability and under-represent event magnitude. The δ¹⁸O reconstruction shows weaker interannual agreement with observed May–August rainfall but provides a valuable longer-term perspective on summer hydroclimatic variability. Divergence between the Jenkinson and ensemble reconstructions before the mid-nineteenth century, particularly in winter and spring, is consistent with possible snow- and sleet-related undercatch in early precipitation sources which affects the Jenkinson reconstruction. Summer rainfall during the eighteenth century remains uncertain, with evidence for increased regional hydroclimatic heterogeneity. Together, these reconstructions provide a stronger basis for contextualising historical droughts and pluvials affecting Dublin and for stress-testing water-resource systems beyond the instrumental period.
- Preprint
(4360 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(354 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3352', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jul 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Csaba Horvath, 04 Aug 2026
Summary: The manuscript presents several reconstructions of monthly and seasonal precipitation in two regions close to Dublin, covering the past few centuries. The reconstructions are based on observational data sets from a gridded, station-based long record from the Irish Weather Service, documentary-observational data from two statistical models that take long records of circulation and temperature indices from the Western North Atlantic and Western Europe, and finally, a time series of Delta O18 that is linearly translated to seasonal (mostly summer) precipitation.
Thank you for this nice summary.
Recommendation: I have a very positive impression regarding the technical aspects of the manuscript, but I also have more critical suggestions regarding the target journal and the quality of the figures. Both critical remarks are related, and the way to address them depends on the objectives of the authors and the editor's opinion.
We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our manuscript. We address each point below.
Main points
1) The statistical and data-handling aspects are very good, and I wish to congratulate the authors for the thorough statistical analysis and the methodological descriptions. They are very clear and comprehensive. I do not have suggestions for any improvement in this regard, other than the minor point that the physical units of RMSE and MAE are missing in all tables.
Thank you, we address this point below.
2) My critical comments are as follows: whereas the statistical and data aspects are flawless, the manuscript does not contain any discussion of physical drivers for rainfall variability or of possible imprint of volcanic eruptions or greenhouse gases (trends in the 20th century, sudden changes during the Krakatoa or Tambora eruptions?, Any connection to the Year of the Slaughter in Ireland 1739-1740 (Jones and Briffa, Climatic Change (2006) 79: 361–379? Any connection to the Central England temperature series? The study is silent about all these aspects, which leads me to my second critical comment.
Thank you for these points. The aim of our paper is to present the reconstructions. The paper is more than just a data paper, which also relates to the next point. It details the development of methods for reconstructing and comparing reconstructions. These methods and findings (especially regarding sleet and snow) are of interest beyond the datasets produced. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to fully explore drivers and volcanic eruptions, we can provide insight into how known extreme years/periods are represented in the reconstructions, e.g., the “Year of the Slaughter”, 1816, etc. We provide some initial analysis at the end of the response document, which can form an additional results section.
3) Is Climate of the Past the correct target journal? Evaluating the present version of the manuscript, I would rather believe that it would be better hosted by ESSD, given that it is very data-centric and void of other climatological or dynamical elaborations. Depending on how this question is answered, the manuscript could go to ESSD with, in my opinion, rather minor revisions, or it may remain in Climate of the Past, but then a whole new section should be included, for example, focusing on the dynamical aspects that I mention in my point 2.
I do think that the reconstructions are very interesting, and they are definitely worth deeper exploration. I would welcome it if the authors wished to pursue the second path and expand the study. If not, however, I believe that the present version is a bit short of content for Climate of the Past. Alternatively, the authors may consider converting this manuscript to Part I of a two-part manuscript, with Part1 published in ESSD and Part 2 in Climate of the Past.
We thank the reviewer for this reflection and for highlighting how interesting the reconstructions are. However, we believe that Climate of the Past is the best home for this paper. The journal frequently publishes similar papers. For example, Herzschuh et al. (2026) provide quantitative climate reconstructions from sedimentary ancient DNA, and focus on the framework and applications of these reconstructions. Murphy et al. (2018) provide an equivalent rainfall reconstruction for the island of Ireland back to 1711. To appease the reviewer’s concern we propose adding an additional results section on trends in the reconstructions and a reflection on notable extremes.
4) Related to the previous point is the issue of the quality of the figures. They are all of low resolution, which in principle should not be a terrible problem. In this case, however, it does become an issue. I have been trying to discern by eye whether one can see an impact of volcanic eruptions in the series, or whether rainfall anomalies can be related to previously published temperature reconstructions, but the low resolution does not allow me to really assess the timing of peaks in the time series. To be fair, the data have been made available, but an interested reader should be able to clearly see all details of the time series in the manuscript. As all plots include several time series, with different colours that are not well defined in the low-resolution figures either, this is not easy at all. The clear value of the reconstructions is somewhat diminished by the low figure resolution.
Apologies for this, not sure why. We will ensure all figures are high resolution.
Minor points
5) Figure 1, please include geographical coordinates.
Will do this.
6) ‘We assess the consistency of the top 20 wettest and driest years between 1865 and 1977 across each reconstruction and observations using the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient...’
This suggestion is more a matter of taste but it would help the reader to add that the JI is related to the more usual F1-score by JI=F1/(2-F1). Or is JI in this case based on three (plus,neutral,minus) categories?
Thanks, we can add that detail.
7) Table 2 ,3 4,5 , include units of RMSE, MAE and PBIAS
Thanks, will do this
8) All reconstructions seem to underestimate the observed variability. For instance, in the scatter plots shown in Figures 4 and 5, the range of the x-axis (observations) is always larger than the y-axis (reconstructions). This difference in range can be misleading. The text does discuss the underestimation of extremes, but I do suggest redrawing the scatter plots using the same range for both axes.
Related to this point, it seems to me, just by eyeballing, that these scatter plots indicate a non-linear link between observations and reconstructions. Even with the unequal axis ranges, it seems that the data cloud is ‘bent’ . This, of course, may be related to the underestimation of extremes, or perhaps a deeper issue throughout the whole range of the reconstructions.
Thanks, we can redraw the scatter plots to have the same axis ranges and insert a 1:1 line to more clearly show this. We disagree that eyeballing indicates non-linear behaviour. Statistical evaluation shows no evidence of systematic non-linear behaviour across the reconstructions, most likely due to underestimation of high rainfall totals. We also note that the primary use of these reconstructions will be for historical drought analysis in the Dublin region, which is a focus of ongoing work.
References
Herzschuh, U., Böhmer, T., Jia, W., and Lisovski, S.: Quantitative climate reconstruction from sedimentary ancient DNA: framework, validation and application, Clim. Past, 22, 1159–1180, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-22-1159-2026, 2026.
Murphy, C., Broderick, C., Burt, T. P., Curley, M., Duffy, C., Hall, J., Harrigan, S., Matthews, T. K. R., Macdonald, N., McCarthy, G., McCarthy, M. P., Mullan, D., Noone, S., Osborn, T. J., Ryan, C., Sweeney, J., Thorne, P. W., Walsh, S., and Wilby, R. L.: A 305-year continuous monthly rainfall series for the island of Ireland (1711–2016), Clim. Past, 14, 413–440, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-413-2018, 2018.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-AC1 -
AC5: 'Updated Reply on RC1', Csaba Horvath, 28 Sep 2026
Updated Response to Reviewer 1
We thank Reviewer 1 for their comments. Here we provide our updated respond to each point raised (Italics font). We have implemented many of the suggested changes and recomendations in anticipation of the next review stage. With the editor’s approval we can proceed with integration of these changes.
Reviewer summary
The manuscript presents several reconstructions of monthly and seasonal precipitation in two regions close to Dublin, covering the past few centuries. The reconstructions are based on observational data sets from a gridded, station-based long record from the Irish Weather Service, documentary-observational data from two statistical models that take long records of circulation and temperature indices from the Western North Atlantic and Western Europe, and finally, a time series of Delta O18 that is linearly translated to seasonal (mostly summer) precipitation.
Response
Thank you for this nice summary.
Reviewer recommendation
I have a very positive impression regarding the technical aspects of the manuscript, but I also have more critical suggestions regarding the target journal and the quality of the figures. Both critical remarks are related, and the way to address them depends on the objectives of the authors and the editor's opinion.
Response
We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our manuscript. We address each point below.Main comments
Comment 1
1) The statistical and data-handling aspects are very good, and I wish to congratulate the authors for the thorough statistical analysis and the methodological descriptions. They are very clear and comprehensive. I do not have suggestions for any improvement in this regard, other than the minor point that the physical units of RMSE and MAE are missing in all tables.
Response
We thank the reviewer. Units have been added for RMSE and MAE in the relevant tables.Comment 2
2) My critical comments are as follows: whereas the statistical and data aspects are flawless, the manuscript does not contain any discussion of physical drivers for rainfall variability or of possible imprint of volcanic eruptions or greenhouse gases (trends in the 20th century, sudden changes during the Krakatoa or Tambora eruptions?, Any connection to the Year of the Slaughter in Ireland 1739-1740 (Jones and Briffa, Climatic Change (2006) 79: 361-379? Any connection to the Central England temperature series? The study is silent about all these aspects, which leads me to my second critical comment.
Response
We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. Our paper presents the reconstructions. The paper is more than just a data paper, which also relates to the next point. It details the development of methods for reconstructing and comparing reconstructions. These methods and findings (especially regarding sleet and snow) are of interest beyond the datasets produced. We can modify the Results and Discussion sections to provide a more detailed analysis of the reconstructed series, including trend persistence, correlation with the NAO and reflection on notable historical extremes. We will move some material to Supplementary Information to accommodate these additional analyses. The paper is already long and we feel that analysis of volcanic and greenhouse-gas forcing is beyond the scope of this paper, but certainly fruitful areas for future work. Figure 1 (attached/uploaded) shows what we have in mind regarding the persistence of trends from the resulting reconstructions for SA9 and SA Upland. Assessment of trend persistence (i.e. dropping the start year of analysis incrementally to a set minimum number of years) provides insight into long-term variability and change and highlights the differences between reconstructions in the colder seasons. Our assessment of snow undercatch is crucial here and substantial implications for interpreting long term variability and change. The significant decreasing trends in summer, autumn and summer half year are especially important from a water management perspective.Comment 3
3) Is Climate of the Past the correct target journal? Evaluating the present version of the manuscript, I would rather believe that it would be better hosted by ESSD, given that it is very data-centric and void of other climatological or dynamical elaborations. Depending on how this question is answered, the manuscript could go to ESSD with, in my opinion, rather minor revisions, or it may remain in Climate of the Past, but then a whole new section should be included, for example, focusing on the dynamical aspects that I mention in my point 2.
I do think that the reconstructions are very interesting, and they are definitely worth deeper exploration. I would welcome it if the authors wished to pursue the second path and expand the study. If not, however, I believe that the present version is a bit short of content for Climate of the Past. Alternatively, the authors may consider converting this manuscript to Part I of a two-part manuscript, with Part1 published in ESSD and Part 2 in Climate of the Past.
Response
We thank the reviewer for raising this question. We are strongly of the mind that Climate of the Past remains an appropriate journal because the manuscript develops, evaluates and interprets historical precipitation reconstructions. Comparable reconstruction studies include Murphy et al. (2018) and Herzschuh et al. (2026). To address the reviewer’s concern, we can expanded the climatological analysis and interpretation of variability, trends and notable historical periods while retaining the methodological detail needed to establish confidence in the reconstructions.
Comment 4
4) Related to the previous point is the issue of the quality of the figures. They are all of low resolution, which in principle should not be a terrible problem. In this case, however, it does become an issue. I have been trying to discern by eye whether one can see an impact of volcanic eruptions in the series, or whether rainfall anomalies can be related to previously published temperature reconstructions, but the low resolution does not allow me to really assess the timing of peaks in the time series. To be fair, the data have been made available, but an interested reader should be able to clearly see all details of the time series in the manuscript. As all plots include several time series, with different colours that are not well defined in the low-resolution figures either, this is not easy at all. The clear value of the reconstructions is somewhat diminished by the low figure resolution.
Response
We apologise for the poor figure resolution in the discussion manuscript. In preparation for the next stage of the process figures have been replaced with high-resolution versions.Minor comments
Comment 5
5) Figure 1, please include geographical coordinates.
Response
Geographical coordinates have been added to Figure 1.Comment 6
6) ‘We assess the consistency of the top 20 wettest and driest years between 1865 and 1977 across each reconstruction and observations using the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient...’
This suggestion is more a matter of taste but it would help the reader to add that the JI is related to the more usual F1-score by JI=F1/(2-F1). Or is JI in this case based on three (plus, neutral, minus) categories?
Response
We have clarified that the Jaccard index is calculated separately for the wet and dry extremes rather than across three categorical classes. We have also added its relationship to the F1 score, JI = F1/(2 - F1).Comment 7
7) Table 2 ,3 4,5 , include units of RMSE, MAE and PBIAS
Response
Units have been added for RMSE (mm), MAE (mm) and PBIAS (%).Comment 8
8) All reconstructions seem to underestimate the observed variability. For instance, in the scatter plots shown in Figures 4 and 5, the range of the x-axis (observations) is always larger than the y-axis (reconstructions). This difference in range can be misleading. The text does discuss the underestimation of extremes, but I do suggest redrawing the scatter plots using the same range for both axes.
Related to this point, it seems to me, just by eyeballing, that these scatter plots indicate a non-linear link between observations and reconstructions. Even with the unequal axis ranges, it seems that the data cloud is ‘bent’ . This, of course, may be related to the underestimation of extremes, or perhaps a deeper issue throughout the whole range of the reconstructions.
Response
The scatter plots have been redrawn using identical ranges on both axes and now include a 1:1 line. The revised presentation more clearly shows that the apparent curvature is primarily associated with compression at high rainfall totals rather than with an obvious systematic non-linear relationship. The underestimation of high rainfall totals is now discussed more clearly. A redrawing of Figure 4 is attached/uploaded.References cited in the responses
Herzschuh, U., Böhmer, T., Jia, W., and Lisovski, S.: Quantitative climate reconstruction from sedimentary ancient DNA: framework, validation and application, Clim. Past, 22, 1159-1180, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-22-1159-2026, 2026.
Murphy, C., Broderick, C., Burt, T. P., Curley, M., Duffy, C., Hall, J., Harrigan, S., Matthews, T. K. R., Macdonald, N., McCarthy, G., McCarthy, M. P., Mullan, D., Noone, S., Osborn, T. J., Ryan, C., Sweeney, J., Thorne, P. W., Walsh, S., and Wilby, R. L.: A 305-year continuous monthly rainfall series for the island of Ireland (1711-2016), Clim. Past, 14, 413-440, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-413-2018, 2018.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Csaba Horvath, 04 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3352', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2026
In the temperate climate zone, precipitation is the meteorological variable characterised by the greatest temporal and spatial variability. It is also one of the most important meteorological variables, second only to air temperature. Therefore, reconstructing precipitation patterns over the longest possible period, particularly over the last millennium, is both important and scientifically valuable.
In the manuscript under review, the authors undertook this task for Dublin and the surrounding area. They presented three reconstructions of precipitation totals that differ in their estimated values, with each providing specific insights into the long-term variability of precipitation. The manuscript focuses primarily on the methodology used to reconstruct precipitation series from both instrumental and proxy data.
Each reconstructed precipitation series was calibrated and verified against instrumental observations using appropriate statistical methods. In conclusion, I believe that the authors have demonstrated in considerable detail that their reconstructed series are reliable and suitable for a variety of applications.
Main points
- The main weakness of the manuscript is the limited scope of the climatological analysis. The authors provide only lists of the 20 wettest and 20 driest years. It would also be valuable to identify the wettest and driest multi-year periods and to attempt to explain their possible causes. Beyond the statistical reconstruction itself, the authors could investigate the atmospheric circulation patterns or other factors responsible for these periods.
- Since several UK precipitation datasets were used in the reconstruction, the manuscript would also benefit from a brief comparison of precipitation conditions in the UK and the Dublin area, with particular emphasis on their similarities and differences. Simply stating that circulation patterns are similar in both regions is not entirely sufficient, as substantial differences may be expected, particularly in summer, as is also the case in continental Europe.
- The area referred to as “SA upland” should also be described more precisely in terms of elevation range, topography, and exposure to incoming air masses, all of which may significantly affect precipitation totals.
- Given the manuscript’s predominantly technical focus, particularly its extensive presentation of the statistical methods used to calibrate and verify the reconstructed precipitation series and to quantify their uncertainty, it may be better suited to a data-oriented journal such as Earth System Science Data or Scientific Data. One possible solution would be to move a substantial proportion of the statistical analyses to the Supplementary Material and to place greater emphasis in the main text on the climatological interpretation of the reconstructed precipitation series, including long-term variability, trends, and related aspects.
Minor points
Line 41 – Replace “climatic variability” with the more natural expression “natural climate variability”.
Line 44 – Add the missing full stop after “(Murphy, 2019)”.
Lines 115–117 – I suggest providing information on the elevation range and topography of the study area.
Figure 1 – The colour used for the urban area differs between the legend and the map; please correct this inconsistency. I also suggest using a topographic map that shows the relief and elevation. Please add geographical coordinates as well.
Line 134 – It would be useful to provide information on the number of precipitation stations located within the GDA, their exact locations, and their correspondence with the nearest grid cells in the dataset. The relevant grid cells should also be shown on the map.
Line 160 – Line 160 – Add a full stop after “al”: “et al” should be changed to “et al.”
Lines 169–175 – It is unclear which specific data from the series described above, and for which corresponding periods, were used to construct the final precipitation series. When referring to the late twentieth century, please specify the exact year.
Line 196 – Add a space: “to1994” should be changed to “to 1994”.
Table 1 – Please add information on the time period covered by each predictor.
Line 219 – Delete “May–August”, as it is repeated.
Lines 245–249 – The grid cells should be shown in Figure 1.
Figures 6 and 7 – Difficult to read. I suggest also showing, for a common period, the differences between the statistical and Jenkinson reconstructions and the observations.
Figure 8 – Too many variables are presented in a single figure, making the differences difficult to discern.
Figure 12 – There are far too many lines or curves in a single figure, making it largely illegible.
Figure 13 – The figure should show the differences relative to the observations more clearly. In its current form, it is difficult to read.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Csaba Horvath, 28 Sep 2026
We thank Reviewer 2 for their comments. Here we respond to each point raised (Italics font). We have implemented many of the suggested changes in anticipation of the next review stage. With the editor’s blessing we can proceed with integration of these changes.
Response to Reviewer 2
Reviewer summary
In the temperate climate zone, precipitation is the meteorological variable characterised by the greatest temporal and spatial variability. It is also one of the most important meteorological variables, second only to air temperature. Therefore, reconstructing precipitation patterns over the longest possible period, particularly over the last millennium, is both important and scientifically valuable.
In the manuscript under review, the authors undertook this task for Dublin and the surrounding area. They presented three reconstructions of precipitation totals that differ in their estimated values, with each providing specific insights into the long-term variability of precipitation. The manuscript focuses primarily on the methodology used to reconstruct precipitation series from both instrumental and proxy data.
Each reconstructed precipitation series was calibrated and verified against instrumental observations using appropriate statistical methods. In conclusion, I believe that the authors have demonstrated in considerable detail that their reconstructed series are reliable and suitable for a variety of applications.Response
We thank Reviewer 2 for this positive summation and for their constructive comments.Main comments
Comment 1
The main weakness of the manuscript is the limited scope of the climatological analysis. The authors provide only lists of the 20 wettest and 20 driest years. It would also be valuable to identify the wettest and driest multi-year periods and to attempt to explain their possible causes. Beyond the statistical reconstruction itself, the authors could investigate the atmospheric circulation patterns or other factors responsible for these periods.
Response
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As noted in response to Reviewer 1 we can extend the analysis to address this concern. We cannot attempt a comprehensive attribution study here given the already substantial scope of the paper, but this is valuable future work. The additional analyses we propose will provide greater climatological context for interpreting variability and change.Comment 2
Since several UK precipitation datasets were used in the reconstruction, the manuscript would also benefit from a brief comparison of precipitation conditions in the UK and the Dublin area, with particular emphasis on their similarities and differences. Simply stating that circulation patterns are similar in both regions is not entirely sufficient, as substantial differences may be expected, particularly in summer, as is also the case in continental Europe.
Response
Figure 12 in the manuscript compares the reconstructions with long-running UK precipitation series at seasonal and May-August scales using 10-year averages. It shows broad agreement but also two important differences: low Jenkinson winter totals before 1800 and high Jenkinson summer totals during parts of 1740-1800. The UK series suggest that the Jenkinson reconstruction may be too dry in winter, potentially because of snow undercatch and its reliance on Rutty’s weather diary. At the same time, the elevated summer totals may reflect either documentary-source uncertainty or genuine regional hydroclimatic heterogeneity. These similarities and differences are now explained more clearly in the Results and Discussion.
Comment 3
The area referred to as “SA upland” should also be described more precisely in terms of elevation range, topography, and exposure to incoming air masses, all of which may significantly affect precipitation totals.
Response
Thank you. We can easily expand the study-area description to include the elevation range, topography, orographic rainfall gradients and exposure of SA-upland.Comment 4
Given the manuscript’s predominantly technical focus, particularly its extensive presentation of the statistical methods used to calibrate and verify the reconstructed precipitation series and to quantify their uncertainty, it may be better suited to a data-oriented journal such as Earth System Science Data or Scientific Data. One possible solution would be to move a substantial proportion of the statistical analyses to the Supplementary Material and to place greater emphasis in the main text on the climatological interpretation of the reconstructed precipitation series, including long-term variability, trends, and related aspects.
Response
We appreciate this suggestion, but as stated above, are strongly of the mind that Climate of the Past remains the most appropriate journal because the manuscript develops, evaluates and interprets historical precipitation reconstructions. We have retained the methodological detail required for transparency while substantially expanding the climatological analysis of variability, trends and extremes. Comparable reconstruction studies have also been published in Climate of the Past. We will integrate our proposed additional analyses by moving some material on the reconstructions to supplementary information.Minor comments
Minor comment 1
Line 41 - Replace “climatic variability” with the more natural expression “natural climate variability”.
Response
The wording has been changed to 'natural climate variability'.Minor comment 2
Line 44 - Add the missing full stop after “(Murphy, 2019)”.
Response
The missing full stop has been added.Minor comment 3
Lines 115-117 - I suggest providing information on the elevation range and topography of the study area.
Response
The study-area description now includes the elevation range and topography.Minor comment 4
Figure 1 - The colour used for the urban area differs between the legend and the map; please correct this inconsistency. I also suggest using a topographic map that shows the relief and elevation. Please add geographical coordinates as well.
Response
The urban-area colour has been corrected, topographic information has been added, and geographical coordinates are now shown.Minor comment 5
Line 134 - It would be useful to provide information on the number of precipitation stations located within the GDA, their exact locations, and their correspondence with the nearest grid cells in the dataset. The relevant grid cells should also be shown on the map.
Response
The observed target is a 1 km-gridded Met Éireann dataset constructed from all available stations, with availability and continuity varying over time. The grid cells used to derive the two domain averages and the locations of contributing stations are shown in Figure S1. At the same time, the text now clarifies the composition and limitations of the gridded dataset.Minor comment 6
Line 160 - Add a full stop after “al”: “et al” should be changed to “et al.”
Response
The full stop has been added to 'et al.'.Minor comment 7
Lines 169-175 - It is unclear which specific data from the series described above, and for which corresponding periods, were used to construct the final precipitation series. When referring to the late twentieth century, please specify the exact year.
Response
We have expanded this section to clarify the changing source material used in the Jenkinson series and the periods over which the different sources contribute. These inputs were compiled in the original Jenkinson reconstruction rather than selected in the present study.Minor comment 8
Line 196 - Add a space: “to1994” should be changed to “to 1994”.
Response
The missing space has been added.Minor comment 9
Table 1 - Please add information on the time period covered by each predictor.
Response
Collation of potential predictors was performed to ensure that all predictors had data ranging from 1748 to 1994, which is the period of our reconstructions. We have added clarity to the text and table caption for this end.Minor comment 10
Line 219 - Delete “May-August”, as it is repeated.
Response
The repeated wording has been removed.Minor comment 11
Lines 245-249 - The grid cells should be shown in Figure 1.
Response
The grid cells used to extract the domain series have been added to Figure 1.Minor comment 12
Figures 6 and 7 - Difficult to read. I suggest also showing, for a common period, the differences between the statistical and Jenkinson reconstructions and the observations.
Response
We have added annual and seasonal reconstruction-minus-observation difference series for the common period 1865–1977 as Figures S3 and S4, respectively, and refer to them in the captions of Figures 6 and 7.Minor comment 13
Figure 8 - Too many variables are presented in a single figure, making the differences difficult to discern.
Response
The intention in Fig 8 is to show a comparison of the oxygen isotope reconstructions with observations and our other reconstructions for the period of overlap and for the full duration of the isotope reconstructions back to 1200. The objective is not to see individual years but to visualise the broad pattern, which is achieved in this figure. Nevertheless, Figure 8 has been reformatted from a 2 × 2 to a 4 × 1 arrangement, providing greater horizontal space for each panel and improving legibility.Minor comment 14
Figure 12 - There are far too many lines or curves in a single figure, making it largely illegible.
Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. Figure 12 is intended to show decadal variability in our reconstructions and available UK stations to add confidence or highlight differences with our reconstructions, which are highlighted in bold red (Jenkinson) and blue (Statistical Ensemble). The UK stations are in lighter colours. The intent is to show where the latter fall in relation to the period of uncertainty we draw attention to. The figure is successful at this task, highlighting the very low Jenkinson series in the winters of the 1700s and the very high summer totals in the mid-1700s. It is only necessary that the reader can see periods of agreement/disagreement from this figure to support our results and interpretation.Minor comment 15
Figure 13 - The figure should show the differences relative to the observations more clearly. In its current form, it is difficult to read.
Response
Thank you for this suggestion. The intent of this figure is not to show differences from observations but to show the broad agreement of the Pauling et al. reconstructions relative to our own. In particular, the figure makes it clear that the Pauling reconstructions agree more closely with our statistical ensemble than with the Jenkinson reconstruction, which adds weight to our findings and supports our conclusions regarding the early winter and summer totals in the Jenkinson reconstruction. In our figures, we focus on providing the necessary supporting information rather than being able to visualise all information, which is very difficult for multiple multi-century series.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-AC2
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3352', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Aug 2026
This study reconstructs monthly precipitation for two water resource domain in the Greater Dublin Area for the period 1711 to 1977 using a combination of four different statistical approaches. For each domain and calendar month, two regression approaches are applied. The statistical methodology is accessible only to specialists. The title should be shortened and refocused to reflect the study’s primary objective and key result. The abstract should indicate the available evidence and objective of the analysis. It should be intelligible to the general reader without reference to the text. This objective is not met.
Results: The reconstruction of rainfall from documentary records (Jenkinson) performs best relative to observations across nearly all temporal aggregations and in both spatial domains. At the seasonal scale the Jenkinson reconstruction again outperforms the weighted ensemble across nearly all seasons and in both domains.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Csaba Horvath, 28 Sep 2026
We thank Reviewer 3 for their comments. Here we respond to each point raised (Italics font). We have implemented many of the suggested changes in anticipation of the next review stage. With the editor’s approval we can proceed with integration of these changes.
Response to Reviewer 3
Comment 1
This study reconstructs monthly precipitation for two water resource domain in the Greater Dublin Area for the period 1711 to 1977 using a combination of four different statistical approaches. For each domain and calendar month, two regression approaches are applied. The statistical methodology is accessible only to specialists. The title should be shortened and refocused to reflect the study’s primary objective and key result. The abstract should indicate the available evidence and objective of the analysis. It should be intelligible to the general reader without reference to the text. This objective is not met.
Response
We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have shortened and refocused the title and revised the abstract to ensure it clearly states the motivation and objective, identifies the documentary, instrumental, circulation-based and tree-ring evidence used, and highlights the main findings. We have also clarified that the study evaluates three reconstruction products: the documentary-instrumental Jenkinson reconstruction, a circulation-informed statistical ensemble combining Lasso and Random Forest models, and a tree-ring δ¹⁸O reconstruction of May-August precipitation.Comment 2
Results: The reconstruction of rainfall from documentary records (Jenkinson) performs best relative to observations across nearly all temporal aggregations and in both spatial domains. At the seasonal scale the Jenkinson reconstruction again outperforms the weighted ensemble across nearly all seasons and in both domains.
Response
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this key result. The revised abstract now states that the Jenkinson reconstruction generally shows the strongest agreement with observations across monthly, seasonal, annual and event-based evaluations in both domains. We also note that this stronger performance is partly expected because the Jenkinson series incorporates early instrumental observations and is therefore not fully independent of the observational dataset used for evaluation.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-AC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Csaba Horvath, 28 Sep 2026
We thank Reviewer 3 for their comments. Here we respond to each point raised (Italics font). We have implemented many of the suggested changes in anticipation of the next review stage. With the editor’s approval we can proceed with integration of these changes.
Response to Reviewer 3
Comment 1
This study reconstructs monthly precipitation for two water resource domain in the Greater Dublin Area for the period 1711 to 1977 using a combination of four different statistical approaches. For each domain and calendar month, two regression approaches are applied. The statistical methodology is accessible only to specialists. The title should be shortened and refocused to reflect the study’s primary objective and key result. The abstract should indicate the available evidence and objective of the analysis. It should be intelligible to the general reader without reference to the text. This objective is not met.
Response
We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have shortened and refocused the title and revised the abstract to ensure it clearly states the motivation and objective, identifies the documentary, instrumental, circulation-based and tree-ring evidence used, and highlights the main findings. We have also clarified that the study evaluates three reconstruction products: the documentary-instrumental Jenkinson reconstruction, a circulation-informed statistical ensemble combining Lasso and Random Forest models, and a tree-ring δ¹⁸O reconstruction of May-August precipitation.Comment 2
Results: The reconstruction of rainfall from documentary records (Jenkinson) performs best relative to observations across nearly all temporal aggregations and in both spatial domains. At the seasonal scale the Jenkinson reconstruction again outperforms the weighted ensemble across nearly all seasons and in both domains.
Response
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this key result. The revised abstract now states that the Jenkinson reconstruction generally shows the strongest agreement with observations across monthly, seasonal, annual and event-based evaluations in both domains. We also note that this stronger performance is partly expected because the Jenkinson series incorporates early instrumental observations and is therefore not fully independent of the observational dataset used for evaluation.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3352-AC4
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Csaba Horvath, 28 Sep 2026
Data sets
Multi-centennial Rainfall Reconstructions for the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland Version: 1.0 C. Horvath et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20605304
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 61 | 25 | 226 | 35 | 18 | 17 |
- HTML: 140
- PDF: 61
- XML: 25
- Total: 226
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Summary: The manuscript presents several reconstructions of monthly and seasonal precipitation in two regions close to Dublin, covering the past few centuries. The reconstructions are based on observational data sets from a gridded, station-based long record from the Irish Weather Service, documentary-observational data from two statistical models that take long records of circulation and temperature indices from the Western North Atlantic and Western Europe, and finally, a time series of Delta O18 that is linearly translated to seasonal (mostly summer) precipitation.
Recommendation: I have a very positive impression regarding the technical aspects of the manuscript, but I also have more critical suggestions regarding the target journal and the quality of the figures. Both critical remarks are related, and the way to address them depends on the objectives of the authors and the editor's opinion.
Main points
1) The statistical and data-handling aspects are very good, and I wish to congratulate the authors for the thorough statistical analysis and the methodological descriptions. They are very clear and comprehensive. I do not have suggestions for any improvement in this regard, other than the minor point that the physical units of RMSE and MAE are missing in all tables.
2) My critical comments are as follows: whereas the statistical and data aspects are flawless, the manuscript does not contain any discussion of physical drivers for rainfall variability or of possible imprint of volcanic eruptions or greenhouse gases (trends in the 20th century, sudden changes during the Krakatoa or Tambora eruptions?, Any connection to the Year of the Slaughter in Ireland 1739-1740 (Jones and Briffa, Climatic Change (2006) 79: 361–379? Any connection to the Central England temperature series? The study is silent about all these aspects, which leads me to my second critical comment.
3) Is Climate of the Past the correct target journal? Evaluating the present version of the manuscript, I would rather believe that it would be better hosted by ESSD, given that it is very data-centric and void of other climatological or dynamical elaborations. Depending on how this question is answered, the manuscript could go to ESSD with, in my opinion, rather minor revisions, or it may remain in Climate of the Past, but then a whole new section should be included, for example, focusing on the dynamical aspects that I mention in my point 2.
I do think that the reconstructions are very interesting, and they are definitely worth deeper exploration. I would welcome it if the authors wished to pursue the second path and expand the study. If not, however, I believe that the present version is a bit short of content for Climate of the Past. Alternatively, the authors may consider converting this manuscript to Part I of a two-part manuscript, with Part1 published in ESSD and Part 2 in Climate of the Past.
4) Related to the previous point is the issue of the quality of the figures. They are all of low resolution, which in principle should not be a terrible problem. In this case, however, it does become an issue. I have been trying to discern by eye whether one can see an impact of volcanic eruptions in the series, or whether rainfall anomalies can be related to previously published temperature reconstructions, but the low resolution does not allow me to really assess the timing of peaks in the time series. To be fair, the data have been made available, but an interested reader should be able to clearly see all details of the time series in the manuscript. As all plots include several time series, with different colours that are not well defined in the low-resolution figures either, this is not easy at all. The clear value of the reconstructions is somewhat diminished by the low figure resolution.
Minor points
5) Figure 1, please include geographical coordinates.
6) ‘We assess the consistency of the top 20 wettest and driest years between 1865 and 1977 across
each reconstruction and observations using the Jaccard Similarity Coefficient...’
This suggestion is more a matter of taste but it would help the reader to add that the JI is related to the more usual F1-score by JI=F1/(2-F1). Or is JI in this case based on three (plus,neutral,minus) categories?
7) Table 2 ,3 4,5 , include units of RMSE, MAE and PBIAS
8) All reconstructions seem to underestimate the observed variability. For instance, in the scatter plots shown in Figures 4 and 5, the range of the x-axis (observations) is always larger than the y-axis (reconstructions). This difference in range can be misleading. The text does discuss the underestimation of extremes, but I do suggest redrawing the scatter plots using the same range for both axes.
Related to this point, it seems to me, just by eyeballing, that these scatter plots indicate a non-linear link between observations and reconstructions. Even with the unequal axis ranges, it seems that the data cloud is ‘bent’ . This, of course, may be related to the underestimation of extremes, or perhaps a deeper issue throughout the whole range of the reconstructions.