One of the Referees raised an issue regarding whether this paper is presenting any new information besides what has already been published in the paper by Kim et al (2015). The authors' response is that they are applying the same methodology to another region. The important issue to ascertain is whether this paper provides new findings or not. The response of the authors was that the study is being applied in another region with large population and farming areas. This response does not suggest that this paper is presenting new material. The authors should clearly demonstrate that this paper is contributing something new besides what they have already published.

It will be helpful if the authors briefly explain whether the gridded datasets used differ in their derivation. Were these datasets not derived using the same station observations? Assuming the answer is yes, then will the differences be due to the gridding procedure?

Taking into account that precipitation tends to have long-term variations, and therefore use of a 25 year record for trend analysis is not advisable, the authors need to justify why this was done. Positive and negative trends may simply be due to the influence of the conditions at both the starting and ending points, i.e. wet/dry periods.

It is not clear which data was used to derive Figure 1. Was this done using observational data or one of the gridded datasets?

There is no indication regarding whether the significance of trends was statistically evaluated.

Some of the conclusions seem obvious or an established fact, e.g. high uncertainty in estimating mean annual precipitation and variability in the sparsely populated areas, deserts, Tibetan plateaus with limited observational data.

It is already an established fact that investment in setting up climatological stations is necessary to reduce uncertainty.

The authors need to clarify these issues before a decision can be made regarding whether to accept the manuscript or not. Authors need to take note that the following criterion will be taken into account when deciding to accept the paper:

Scientific significance:
Does the manuscript represent a substantial contribution to scientific progress within the scope of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (substantial new concepts, ideas, methods, or data)?