Isohyetal Maps of Daily Maximum Rainfall for Different Return Periods for the Colombian Caribbean Region
, Orlando M. Viloria-Marimón 2, Óscar E. Coronado-Hernández 2, Andrés M. Vélez-Pereira 2, Kibrewossen Tesfagiorgis 3 and Jairo R. Coronado-Hernández 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript attempted to fit suitable distribution and develop isohyetal maps for daily maximum rainfall for a site in Colombian Caribbean region. Three distributions and three interpolation methods were assessed to find best suitable distribution and method for isohyetal mapping for the region respectively. The results can be useful for local hydrological applications. However, my major concern about the manuscript is its importance to broader international readers. The results are highly site-specific, and authors did not discuss how these results might be useful for international readers. There are other critical flaws in the manuscript as described below.
Abstract (line 26-28): here, Gumbel distribution is mentioned, but the results showed GEV as more suitable.
Introduction: Authors should review the global practice and state-of-the-art of the scientific issue. They also should justify how the three distributions and three methods selected for evaluation. They could consider other distributions such as Gamma, Weibull, mixed-exponential distribution etc. that were previously used in different other parts of the world (see Liu et al., 2011; Chowdhury et al., 2017).
Line 100: How does ENSO affect the seasonal and inter-annual variability of rainfall?
Line 116-117: Table 2 can be moved to a supplementary document.
Line 127-128: Delete.
Line 130-137: These should be discussed in the introduction.
Line 146-148: Reference needed and could be discussed in the introduction.
Section 3.1.1: Since Gumbel distribution is one type of GEV distribution, this discussion could be surmised into section 3.1.2.
Line 225 (Figure 3): Are they scatter plots or just timeseries plots?
Line 236-237: Reference needed and could be discussed in the introduction.
Line 265-275: Authors should discuss the underlying reasons for different performances of different methods. Also, the comparative performances over entire region should be numerically quantified.
Line 297-318: Should be presented in the methodology.
Line 319 (Table 8): Table 8 is not properly discussed.
Table 9 and 10 can be surmised into one table.
Line 349-351: Why does Original Kriging perform well in lower return periods but not in higher return periods?
Line 374-375: Authors may consider using the data with shorter than 30-year record to validate the interpolation methods.
Figure 6-12: These figures are not properly discussed, and hence, not justified. Captions should inform that these figures are for IDW method only.
Conclusions: Conclusions do not provide proper insights about the results and their implications.
Overall, the manuscript needs moderate-level editing and English language proof reading.
References:
Chowdhury, A.F.M.K., Lockart, N., Willgoose, G., Kuczera, G., Kiem, A. S., & Parana Manage, N. (2017). Development and evaluation of a stochastic daily rainfall model with long-term variability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(12), 6541-6558. DOI 10.5194/hess-21-6541-2017.
Liu, Y., W. Zhang, Y. Shao, and K. Zhang (2011), A Comparison of Four Precipitation Distribution Models Used in Daily Stochastic Models, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 28(4), 809-820, doi:10.1007/s00376-010-9180-6.
Author Response
We want to thank the time and effort you put in reviewing our manuscript. Please find enclosed copy of all of your comments addressed.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors analyze a large collection of rain gauge data for the Caribbean region of Columbia in order to produce accurate maps of rainfall return periods. They assess the impact of choice of CDF and find that the most commonly used form is not particularly appropriate for Columbia. They also assess the impact of the chosen interpolation method. This is a strong piece of work and will prove valuable to the hydrological community.
My one concern about the work is that relatively little attention is given to the impact of non-stationarity. It is noted that certain rainfall records do have significant trends (Figure 3), but so far as I can determine this does not factor into the analysis again. Given the meticulous focus on the accuracy of the CDF and the interpolation method, it seems odd to then ignore the potential impact of rainfall trends. Particularly in the preparation of a product intended for use by others in design decisions. I think the manuscript would be greatly strengthened by a more complete treatment of non-stationarity.
Author Response
We want to thank the time and effort you put in reviewing our manuscript. Please find enclosed copy of the comments addressed.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version is improved but a number of important recommendations on the previous version has been ignored. Particularly, comments 1, 7, 8, 14, 16 and 18 are not properly addressed.
Author Response
The authors want to thank the reviewer for his/her comments. Please find enclosed all the comments addressed one by one.
Best regards,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
