CO Editor

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to Reviewer #1 comments', Christoph Ritschel, 26 Jul 2017
RC2: 'reply to reviewing paper', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 May 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to Reviewer #2 comments', Christoph Ritschel, 26 Jul 2017
RC3: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 May 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to Reviewer #3 comments', Christoph Ritschel, 26 Jul 2017

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (08 Aug 2017) by Carlo De Michele

AR by Christoph Ritschel on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Sep 2017) by Carlo De Michele

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (18 Sep 2017)

RR by Reik Donner (09 Oct 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Thanks to the original three reviewers of this manuscript, I don’t need to provide complete details on the contents and relevance of this manuscript at the present stage. Having studied the original reviewer comments and the authors’ response to them, I have to conclude that the manuscript has greatly improved and is almost ready for possible publication in HESS now. To this end, I would however request a couple of amendments relating to notation, a very large amount of typos and improvements of the artwork, which I would deem necessary before this work can be finally accepted.

General comments:
• Please comment shortly on the specific selection of the weights for the different moments in Eqs. (1) and (2) (around p.6, ll.136-138). Why do you specifically choose these values?
• Many of the figures have far too tiny labels and should be replotted so that all axis labels and legends can be properly read.
• Section 5.3: If I understand correctly, “Kyrill” would represent a “dragon king” rather than a “black swan”, i.e., an extreme event that would be unprecedented given the (known) distribution of extremes in the considered time series. Maybe it would be worth briefly referring to these (colloquial) terms (but this is just a suggestion).

Typos etc.:
• P.2, l.40: remove point in reference “Onof et al. (2000)” (cf. p.22, l.479)
• P.2, l.46: “proportion dry” sounds very sloppy
• P.2, l.49: “lonter” => “longer”
• P.2, l.58: “models” => “model’s”
• P.3, l.76: “discussed” => “discusses”
• P.4, ll.103-104 “each clusters” => “each cluster”
• P.5, Fig. 2, caption: “The top layer…”
• P.5, Fig. 2, caption: check the physical units: “h-1” should read “h${-1}$” throughout the caption
• P.5, l.120: “type” => “types”
• P.6, l.131: I recommend specifying here which variable “moments” refers to (i.e., moments of precipitation sums).
• P.6, l.134: Don’t put the unit “h” in italics.
• P.6, l.136: Please clarify if i=1 applies to the mean at a specific aggregation scale or at all of them.
• P.6, l.141: “with Latin Hypercube” is again too sloppy, please rephrase.
• P.6, ll.164-165: This information seems to be partially redundant with ll.149-152, please condense.
• P.7, l.167: Please provide a reference to your R package BLRPM (webpage if no publication is available).
• P.7, l.185: Don’t put the unit “h” in italics.
• P.7, l.187 and below: Please do not use the same symbol “T” for the return period as for the empirical moments T_i in Section 2. This might confuse the reader.
• P.7, ll.198-199: remove line break
• P.8, l.208: “can not” => “cannot”
• P.8, l.218: Don’t put the unit “h” in italics.
• P.8, l.231: “show” => “shows”
• P.9, Fig. 3, caption: “month” => “months”
• P.9, l.232: “Sec.” => “App.” (?)
• P.9, l.234: “derived” => “derive”
• P.10, l.248: “of the same”
• P.10, l.261: Why do you provide this information in an Appendix instead of just here?
• P.11, Fig. 5, caption: “shading” => “shadings”
• P.12, ll.283-284: This sentence reads quite odd and should be rephrased.
• P.12, ll.286-287: “unrealistic” => “unrealistically” (two times)
• P.12, l.292: remove “is” at the beginning of the line
• P.13, l.300: “with in” => “within”
• P.13, l.302: “...(red line), whereas…”
• P.16, l.332: “individual durations GEV” => “individual duration GEV distribution” (as in l.334)
• Section 6: It is very unusual to write the complete conclusions section in present tense, present perfect would be much more appropriate here in my opinion.
• P.18, ll.374-375: The end of the sentence “does change the GEV distribution” appears grammatically misplaced.
• P.18, l.377: “questions” => “question”
• P.18, l.380: “suggest” => “suggests”
• P.18, ll.381-383: Something seems to be wrong with this sentence, please check and rephrase.
• P.18, l.393: “modifies” => “modify”
• P.18, ll.396-398: I hardly understand this short paragraph. Please cross-check and rephrase if necessary.
• I did not find Tab. 2 being referenced in the text.
• P.19, Table 3, caption: “month” => “months”
• P.19, l.406: This equation is identical to Eq. (6) and therefore redundant.
• P.19, l.410: close bracket after “line”
• P.19, ll.408-409: Again, this sentence reads somewhat odd and needs polishing.
• P.19, l.411: “shows a general”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (09 Oct 2017) by Carlo De Michele

AR by Christoph Ritschel on behalf of the Authors (18 Oct 2017) Author's response Manuscript