Evaluating Possible Changes in Air Temperature and Precipitation Patterns in Mozambique by Comparing Present and Future RegCM4 Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I was kindly asked to review the manuscript: Evaluating Possible Changes in Air Temperature and Precipitation Patterns in Mozambique by Comparing Present and Future RegCM4 Simulation. Such study is highly relevant as it could add to the scientific body of knowledge and address a pressing public health issue, but I would encourage them to consider the following:

 1.Abstract: The abstract needs more of a ‘hook’ to engage the reader and establish the novelty of the analysis in the scientific literature. I recommend them to focus on the conclusions of the study. Please make exact decision which group is more vulnerable to temperature from this study.

2. The introduction section should be reorganized, provide additional information related to the methods followed in previous studies.

3.  A comparison against similar studies undertaken in similar climates has to be performed. In the same way a comparison against similar studies in very different climates has also to be done to show the potential diferences.

4. Authors should describe the completeness of data. Do they have messing data?

5.  Could the authors provide more information on the control the validity of the results?

6. Overall, the discussion of findings is complete and concise. Please, explain in the discussion the limitations of the work.

 

Author Response

The revised answer attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Evaluating Possible Changes in Air Temperature and Precipitation Patterns in Mozambique by Comparing Present and Future RegCM4 Simulation (Sumila et al., 2022)

The paper by Sumila et al. (2022) is very relevant when the planet is facing abrupt climate change, especially in the African region. The paper is well-organized and written. The contribution of the paper is very worthy. However, the study's objective, written in lines 115 to 118, needs to be more specific and may be hard for the readers to understand. The reviewer suggests that the authors may revise the sentence in simple ways. With this minor comment,  I have only a few formatting issues to be addressed. So, the reviewer recommends this paper for minor revision.

·        Line 18: The reviewer believes that it should be RCP8.5, not RCP8.4

·        Line 149: According to the MDPI style, Tab. 1. is not acceptable. It should be Table 1. Likewise, the reviewer noted that the figure should also be mentioned as Figure # but not fig. or Fig. #.

·        Line 199: Use Equation instead of eq.

·        Figure 3 needs improvement with a bigger size font of the text.

·        In the captions of Figures 3 and 4, the order of attributes by the layout of figures. For instance, in Figure 4, the Precipitation anomaly follows the temperature, but the caption has reverse order.

·        The reviewer strongly suggests using longer caption even if it is the same word.

·        Figures 7 and 8 include the units alongside the color bars.

·        Line 379. There is spacing missed for Fig.8a and Fig.8c

·        How will Figure 11 be the same as Figure 10? Please revise the caption of Figure 11

Author Response

The revised answer attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Climate change is a key challenge seen by humanity hence scientific studies like this one aimed at deepening our understanding of the state of climate change and setting a basis for our responses are commendable. The manuscript is well-designed and written and the results are presented attractively. Authors are advised to consider the following minor suggestions:

Lines 120-125: No need to describe the layout and there is no section five; delete this text.

Standard scientific articles contain a study area, consider adding such a section.

Presumably, section 3 "Description of present climatology" implies "Findings and Discussion" or "Results and Discussion". If this stands, revise the caption accordingly to improve coherence. Additionally, authors should present "Findings and Discussion" separately - This will improve transparency and clarity for readers.

Author Response

The revised answer attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is well written.

Ideas were presented clearly and concisely.

In this way, I believe that the present study can be published.

Author Response

There was no question from the reviewer. We would like to thank the positive observation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept for publication.