I believe the authors have done a good job in revising the manuscript and have taken on board many of my previous suggestions and have responded in a positive manor. Overall, I believe the re-structuring has helped the readability immensely and all the points of clarification etc. work towards producing a better paper. While the authors did make an attempt to use a few more papers from international scientific forecasting literature, I still do feel the Introduction and Discussion sections are light on more recent published papers. I do acknowledge the limited previous work on statistical seasonal forecasting in Peru and don’t think this is a critical factor and therefore recommend for publication in the HESS special issue. I have spotted a few minor edits from reading the revised manuscript that the authors may wish to correct:
Pg1; L22-24: Check tense/revise the sentence “Extending the lead time of and spatially disaggregating…”, it reads as if this is work you might do in future to further assist regional stakeholders, but you’ve already done it in the paper.
Pg15; L4: Change “significant” to “significantly”
Table 2, 3, 5, and 6: The line numbers have got mixed in with these tables, so just to be aware.
Pg23; L2: Wet/dry day frequency analysis is a good addition. However could you please state at the beginning what you define as a ‘wet day’. Some use >= 1mm? (e.g. http://etccdi.pacificclimate.org/list_27_indices.shtml), 0.2 mm is also common?
Pg27; L17: Sentence beginning with “This, as opposed…” does not appear to be complete.
Pg28; L2-9: These two sections aren’t very well expanded upon and I can’t help but feel the paper could end on a more positive note.
References: Van loon (2015) is in the reference list but not cited in the text |