Articles | Volume 27, issue 5
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How well does a convection-permitting regional climate model represent the reverse orographic effect of extreme hourly precipitation?
- Final revised paper (published on 15 Mar 2023)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 17 Oct 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1037', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Nov 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Eleonora Dallan, 17 Dec 2022
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1037', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Nov 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Eleonora Dallan, 17 Dec 2022
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1037', Anonymous Referee #3, 10 Dec 2022
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Eleonora Dallan, 17 Dec 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (30 Dec 2022) by Nunzio Romano
AR by Eleonora Dallan on behalf of the Authors (04 Jan 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Jan 2023) by Nunzio Romano
AR by Eleonora Dallan on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Jan 2023) by Nunzio Romano
RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (21 Jan 2023)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (20 Feb 2023)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (23 Feb 2023)
ED: Publish as is (24 Feb 2023) by Nunzio Romano
AR by Eleonora Dallan on behalf of the Authors (27 Feb 2023)
The authors offer a well-presented manuscript examining the ability of a convection-permitting (CP) model (ERA-Interim-driven COSMO-crCLM) to represent the reverse orographic effect at the northeastern Italian Alps area. The manuscript is well-written, and concise, with a good flow and sufficient discussion. The contribution of the manuscript is significant since it gives answers to an issue which may arise for many researchers dealing with CP models.
Every query or suggestion I had during the first part of the manuscript was explained or applied in the next sections, therefore I only have a few minor suggestions, mainly grammatical-syntax comments and typos.
Some minor/discussion comments:
It would be helpful to see a short literature review on existing CPM permitting models (probably in the Introduction), and comments on their performance. This would help you justify better the selection of the ERA-Interim-driven COSMO-crCLM.
Lines 17-19: “We introduce the use of a non-asymptotic statistical approach (Simplified Metastatistical Extreme Value, SMEV) for the analysis of extremes from short time slices such as the ones of CPM simulations” The word “introduce” is a bit misleading, since SMEV has already been introduced; maybe rephrase it to “We propose” or something like this?
Lines 55-57: “Over the Alps, but also elsewhere, CPMs tend to generate more precipitation at higher elevations than in reality, thus reducing the bias with respect to observations compared to RCMs (Lind et al. 2016, Reder et al. 2020).” This sentence is confusing to me, it sounds like CPMs overestimate precipitation at higher elevations than in reality, but at the same time, they reduce the bias compared to RCMs. Could you rewrite this?
Lines 143-144: “We considered only rain gauges with at least 9 valid years during the period 2000-2009,” Could you explain here why you chose this period?
Lines 153-154: “More details on the used physical parameterisations can be found in Leutwyler et al. (2016).” Give two-three sentences on the basics of the process.
Some suggested syntax changes:
Line 25: “SMEV’s capability”
Line 26: “promises further applications”
Line 45: “In CMPs,”
Lines 51-53: “In areas with a complex terrain, the possibility of explicitly resolving convection along with a more detailed representation of orography and surface properties are crucial elements for correctly capturing the initiation and development of convection”
Line 269: Do you mean “A spatial pattern” instead of “organization”?
Lines 361-363: I think a verb like “show” is missing from that sentence: “The consistency of the return level estimates obtained from the full record and from the 10 yr record, and the small increase in the associated uncertainty show that, once its assumptions are verified, SMEV is a reliable statistical method for the analysis of extreme precipitation from short time slices.”
Line 415: “n” in italics
Line 480: “100 yr, and parameters of…”
Figure 2, Figure 4 and rest of the figures showing linear regression: do you want to also show the coefficient of determination R2?
Figure 4: “(SC_CPM), and all CPM”
Figure 4: “the linear regressions lines shown as a solid line, are expressed as..”
Figure 4: Could you change color for the observations, it is the same as CPM
Figure 4: You do not focus on the orographic effect for daily but still can show the slope for the 24-hour case
Figure 7: remove “,” from: “grid, CPM”
Figure 7: “are significant” instead of “result significant;”