Climate-dependent propagation of precipitation uncertainty into the water cycle

Fallah, Ali; O, Sungmin; Orth, Rene

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3725-2020

Articles | Volume 24, issue 7

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3725-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3725-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 24, issue 7

Research article

|

23 Jul 2020

Research article |

| 23 Jul 2020

Climate-dependent propagation of precipitation uncertainty into the water cycle

Ali Fallah, Sungmin O, and Rene Orth

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Jul 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 06 Jan 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Climate-dependent propagation of precipitation uncertainty into the water cycle', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Feb 2020
- AC1: 'Climate-dependent propagation of precipitation uncertainty into the water cycle', Ali Fallah Maraghi, 08 Apr 2020
RC2: 'Some potential, but more information is needed', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Mar 2020
- AC2: 'Climate-dependent propagation of precipitation uncertainty into the water cycle', Ali Fallah Maraghi, 08 Apr 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (20 Apr 2020) by Graham Jewitt

AR by Ali Fallah Maraghi on behalf of the Authors (21 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 May 2020) by Graham Jewitt

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (19 May 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (27 May 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (11 Jun 2020) by Graham Jewitt

Dear Authors
Thank you for your efforts in addressing the reviewer comments. Both are now happy for the paper to proceed to publication, subject to to some minor revisions.
From Reviewer 1 - please consider and respond to these comments:
P3L97 – NSE<0.36. Why this number? Maybe you could justify the use of this threshold? I see you do this later to a certain extent but I would still like to know why you chose this number. Is it random or was there a reason?
P4L141 – I would suggest moving figure S3 into the main article as you are comparing figure 4 and S3 within your results discussion. This would make it easier for the reader to follow.
Otherwise, I am happy they have taken the advise that was given and I find the paper much more structured and informative.

Personally, I am not sure that S3 should move to the main body of the manuscript as this is not the only Supplementary figure you compare to other figures, but please do consider the query and amend if you feel otherwise.

From Reviewer 2
a) Can you include in the supplement the formulation of the new "streamflow recession parameter and an implicit form of the water balance equation." and demonstrate its benefits as compared to the "model version introduced by Orth and Seneviratne 2015".
b) Nice that you explain how you calibrate the model. Your sentence on line 101: "Note that we perform only calibration of the model, and no validation." is for me a sign of poor relevance of all outcomes coming afterwards. I would really expect an effort of independent validation.

Please consider and respond to these comments. Regarding the validation component, I do think that you could provide a stronger motivation through the focus on precipitation influence and perhaps, by bringing some of the comments around previous validation (Line 197-199) into the paragraph at Line 101
REgards
Graham Jewitt

Hide

AR by Ali Fallah Maraghi on behalf of the Authors (15 Jun 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (27 Jun 2020) by Graham Jewitt

Short summary

We find that simulated runoff values are highly dependent on the accuracy of precipitation inputs. In contrast, simulated evapotranspiration is generally much less influenced in our comparatively wet study region. We also find that the impact of precipitation uncertainty on simulated runoff increases towards wetter regions, while the opposite is observed in the case of evapotranspiration.