Estimation of Extreme Daily Rainfall Probabilities: A Case Study in Kyushu Region, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 The paper discusses the extreme daily rainfall probability. It is certainly an important topic that has a wide implication in several research fields. The paper introduces a method, validates it for a case study, and discusses the results.

I can see some sparks of novelty; however, I would like to encourage the authors to better discuss the outcomes to show the significance of their work. At the moment, I am not sure if this is a lack of novelty, or if the novelty is not well explained.

 I hope the following comments encourage the authors to think about the importance and novelty of their work and better clarify that.

 

Major comments:

As I already mentioned, I can see some sparks of novelty but is not well explained. According to the paper:

1. methodology has been described  i.e. “the methods for normalizing and combining daily rainfall at 23 stations in Kyushu”

 2. “the relationship between the RP and the normalized daily rainfall” has been examined and “an empirical dependence for estimating daily rainfall” has been proposed.

3. the method has been validated

So, is your contribution to the proposal of a new method? You have described the process of the method and its validation, how do you know is generally applicable elsewhere?  You have said your outcomes are consistent with other methods, what are the advantages and disadvantages of your method? If people can get your results from the previous methods, what is the point of using this method? You have a good chance to answer these in a discussion section. At the moment, you have a conclusion section, which is basically a ‘summary’ of what you did. Although it was useful to understand your work, I believe it is not sufficient. Moreover, please raise the flag at the very end for the limitations and suggest further works to be done for future research.

The second major issue about the paper is the final message. You have presented several results but as a reader, I did not receive a clear message. My recommendation is to add a discussion section and clearly discuss the results. As I mentioned before, the conclusion section is not well written and sufficient.

Detailed corrections:

I strongly recommend the paper be corrected from a grammatical point of view. I have written some corrections in the introduction, but I would suggest all the paper be revised again.

Introduction:

The introduction should be elaborated. The following corrections are suggested:

Line 28: please mention what are the six major disasters

Line 31: ‘six types of disasters induced by heavy rainfall’, please mention what are they.

Line 36: that may cause these disasters

Line 42: what is RP?

Line 52: due to its simplicity

In line 52, you are arguing the method has been used even recently, while reference number 8 is relatively old. I can remember the following paper also used this method. You can reference this, or use other 'recent' and relevant references. The potential impact of climate change on oat lodging in the UK and Republic of Ireland,(2020) Advances in Meteorology

Line 53: heavy rainfall is frequent

Line 55: you have used the word  ‘frequently’ above. Please use a synonym like, repeatedly, commonly etc.

On the second page, you have started with the regional analysis, and shown its weakness, are there any other methods for this? Later in your paper, you mentioned other methods and said your method provides the same results as they do, there is an excellent opportunity to add a paragraph here and discuss them briefly and mention their weaknesses.

Please revise the last paragraph and clarify which part of this is novel, your aim, and your objectives. At last, tell the reader what is coming next, section 2 describes X and section 3 describes Y etc.

The second section looks generally good; however, I recommend an opening subsection here, describing, what is included in the section. More importantly, you must elaborate which part is novel, and what is your own novel method? Please also clarify the difference between your method and older methods

As a minor issue, it could be nice if your maps were in colour. If there is a reason for black/white, leave it as it is, but if you can provide maps in colour, that would look better.

 

 

 

Author Response

I was pleased to receive your helpful comments regarding our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors thanks for this interesting work.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I was pleased to receive your helpful comments regarding our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate your effort to improve the quality of the paper. I believe this work is essential as the topic you studied affects a wide range of engineering and environmental issues, particularly those affecting forests. I understand the challenges of this field and am glad that the paper itself mentions the research shortcomings.

I wish to suggest two minor corrections to be applied in the proofreading, first I recommend using 'section' rather than "chapter". Second, section 3.6 can be renamed as "discussions".

I accept the paper in its present form and leave these small corrections to the authors and the editor.

Thank you, well done! And good luck!