Evaluation of CMORPH, PERSIANN-CDR, CHIRPS V2.0, TMPA 3B42 V7, and GPM IMERG V6 Satellite Precipitation Datasets in Arabian Arid Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are a huge number of studies in the literature regarding the evaluation of different satellite precipitation data. What a little bit special in the present study is that the investigated area is the arid Arabian region. To make the results interesting to the broad readership,  some revisions are needed:

1. The results need to be refined. For instance, it is not clear where are rain gauges A126 and R119 in Figure 10, and why you choose the two staions? where are the regions listred in Table 6?

2. The results of the present study need to be compared with the others in the literature, not necessarily results for the same region, but also nearby regions or even global scale evaluation.

Some minor comments: 

1. The data description is confusing. GPM IMERG V6 or GPM IMERG V7? 

2. root mean square error should be RMSE, rather than RMSc.

3. Line 223 "2.4.1. Rain-gauge data filtering" should be "2.4.1. Rain-gauge data screening"

4. Euation (2) is not correctly presented, the N in "logN" should not be a subscript.

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive review of our manuscript. Your comments have helped us broaden our perspective, and the manuscript has significantly improved. According to your suggestions, the manuscript has been revised to the best of our ability.

the reply to each comment is found in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

December 04, 2022

Manuscript: 'Evaluation of CMORPH, PERSIANN-CDR, CHIRPS V2.0, 2 TMPA 3B42 V7, and GPM IMERG V6 Satellite Precipitation Data Sets in Arid Regions’

In this article, the authors assessed the accuracy of PERSIANN-CDR, CMORPH, CHIRPS V2.0, TMPA 3B42 V7, and GPM IMERG V6 Final Run to capture the precipitation characteristics versus rain gauges measurements at different temporal resolutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The effect of latitude on the SPDSs accuracy also has been evaluated. Unlike other similar works, this study is focused on arid zones. It is a relevant topic that lies within the scope of the MDPI water journal. The article is well organized and neatly written with the appropriate scientific content. Based on the above, I support the publication of this manuscript, but only after a minor revision.

********************************

Title: it reflects the content of the article. 

Abstract: it provides a complete picture of the manuscript content. It is concise. The keywords are appropriately reflective of the manuscript content.

Introduction: it provides sufficient background and includes relevant references on satellite-based precipitation data sets assessment approaches. It highlights their limitations and strengths and the need to assess them in the Arabian Peninsula. Objectives and novelty are clearly presented.

Line 109: Did you evaluate the effect of latitude or the impact of altitude on the accuracy of the SPDS? Please check this sentence.   

Materials and Methods: the study area and datasets are clearly described.

Line 132, Figure 1: for clarity, add a map of annual mean precipitation (i.e., For the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Figure 1a: Location and topography; and Figure 1b: annual mean precipitation).  

Lines 224-230: what about the missing data at each rain gauge? Have these gaps been filled before statistical analysis? If so, what imputation approach was adopted? Explain it briefly.

Line 270: for clarity, add a flowchart showing the different methodological steps in sequential order. It may be helpful to the reader.

Results and discussion: the narrative of this section is clear and concise.

Line 292: mend ‘than the (500-750 m) altitude ones.’

Line 338, Figure 7 & line 341, Figure 8: if possible, draw the altitude curve for 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, and 2600 m

Summary and Conclusions: it is clear, concise, and in line with results and discussion.

Lines 396-397: can both factors favor the presence of warm clouds or the evaporation of precipitation before reaching the surface? If so, that could explain the poor performance. Explain it briefly

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the devoted time and effort, the appreciation of the work, and valuable comments that inevitably improved the manuscript’s quality.

The attached file contains the reply to each raise comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Two minor revisions are needed:

1. The title should be more specific, that is, "Arid Regions" should be "Arabian Arid Regions". Similarly, the key word should be changed.

2. "RMS" and "RMSc" should be "RMSE" and "RMSEc".

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive review of our manuscript. Your comments have helped us broaden our perspective, and the manuscript has significantly improved. According to your suggestions, the manuscript has been revised to the best of our ability.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf